God, Evolution, And Meat

[Zoroaster]

I think just the initial spark was needed and then evolution could take over till a reasonably intelligent species, that was adapted to this planet, could emerge. There was no need for micromanagement, when the expectation was that sooner or later something desirable would arise and it has indeed arisen. We have a beautiful planet and we have been advised that God is well pleased.

I concur.

[Sethbag]

As someone who has never been through the temple (other than for Baptisms when I was a tike), I am a wee bit confused right now...

Don't worry, you didn't miss anything you could have used in an argument to make sense of anything. Whatever is taught there is just as subject to the "it's figurative" explanation as anything else. Indeed, the narrator even uses that term at one point.

[Sethbag]

I think just the initial spark was needed and then evolution could take over till a reasonably intelligent species, that was adapted to this planet, could emerge. There was no need for micromanagement, when the expectation was that sooner or later something desirable would arise and it has indeed arisen. We have a beautiful planet and we have been advised that God is well pleased.

I concur.

I think you guys missed The Dude's point. It would be impossible, from a probablistic point of view, for such a random process to have produced the homo sapiens species that was precisely identical to Elohim's species, and biologically compatible with it. It would have been micromanagement indeed.

And then, back to my own previous post, where did the Homo Erectus spirit bodies come from? Before homo erectus had evolved on earth, were there any spirits of that species at all? And if not, how did they come about just in time to inhabit the first homo erectus bodies? And did they all get used up just in time for homo erectus to go extinct?

[The Dude]

When we humans can now manipulate DNA, when mankind can produce new species of bacteria and glow-in-the-dark rats by rewriting genes, and when humankind can create new genes entirely from scratch with machines, I have no problem with a belief in a Deity who manipulated the environment to produce humans via evolution over time. A little tweaking here by changing the environment, a little tweaking there using viruses or other means of altering DNA, and if you know what you are doing it is entirely possible to produce wholly new species until we reach homo sapiens. Add a touch of sentience (meaning not only complete awareness of self, but belief in something greater than yourself and the ability to communicate with written language) and you have modern man ready for implantation of the spirits of your children.

I do not pretend to understand everything but now that there is enough that we ourselves can do in the realm of species modification and gene production from scratch, it is entirely possible for there to be a higher Being who already knew how to do these things long before our entry onto the stage of existence, and who would know how to modify Simian DNA to produce the human form. It is said that there is about 98% of our DNA shared with chimps and around 90%-95% (or so I recall) shared with mice. It would not take much to shift genes around to get the desired effect once the entire genome is understood.

Just my few cents...

Those are some nice armchair ruminations, but you've missed part of the claim. It's isn't some vague "desired effect" that's needed. It isn't something that just looks like a homo sapien and has a modicum of intelligence -- what was needed were humanoid bodies that were reproductively compatible with the original homo sapien: God. This is because LDS prophets have taught that God + Mary = Jesus Christ, with JC as literal offpsring of God's flesh (even though the sexual mechanics that brought it about are not "known").

Let me get it straight. Are you saying mice and chimpanzees just evolved following the laws of nature we see around us every day, and when God looked over all the animals on Earth he picked the one that was closest to His DNA and used "science" to change it into a homo sapien? Is that what you think happened?

[Jan]

Who says God has DNA?

[The Dude]

Who says God has DNA?

Mormon prophets.

[Jan]

Mormon prophets.

Would you please post some of your references?

[Severian]

I think you guys missed The Dude's point. It would be impossible, from a probabilistic point of view, for such a random process to have produced the homo sapiens species that was precisely identical to Elohim's species, and biologically compatible with it. It would have been micromanagement indeed.

And then, back to my own previous post, where did the Homo Erectus spirit bodies come from? Before Homo Erectus had evolved on earth, were there any spirits of that species at all? And if not, how did they come about just in time to inhabit the first Homo Erectus bodies? And did they all get used up just in time for Homo Erectus to go extinct?

You forget, we have an infinite improbability drive at our disposal. Besides which, you are relying on an allegorical interpretation to arrive at that need for identicalness.

The Spirit is another matter. It existed on another plane of existence, which needs to be believed in by a leap of faith. The how and why in this leap of faith are indeed interesting questions, but they are all part of the assumption that this indeed has occurred. The how and why in this instance would only be speculation on the part of us believers.

[The Dude]

Would you please post some of your references?

LOL Saw that coming a mile away.

Mormons believe God has a body of flesh and bone, right? I don't have to reference that, I hope. If you want to say there's no DNA in that holiest of flesh, but just spiritual filler in the nucleus of each cell, then go right ahead. Your personal beliefs are your business, but it seems you are only doing this to evade the question we are discussing.

How was Jesus begotten of the flesh if God has no DNA? What's your take on that?

You see, evangelicals and protestants have always believed God was a spirit. Mormons, distinctly, have a more literal take and boldly declare that God is a human and always was. But a human with no DNA? Now you are sounding more like them EVs and less like a TBM. As you wish.

[Sethbag]

You forget, we have an infinite improbability drive at our disposal.

Compare LDS beliefs with popular Science Fiction works at your peril. This is, after all, an LDS board and they will not be mocked!

Besides which, you are relying on an allegorical interpretation to arrive at that need for identicalness.

You know, not everything can be allegorical. We're actually here. LDS beliefs have us literally comprising a spirit body which is very real, albeit of a more "highly refined" sort of matter, and a physical body.

The Spirit is another matter. It existed on another plane of existence, which needs to be believed in by a leap of faith. The how and why in this leap of faith are indeed interesting questions, but they are all part of the assumption that this indeed has occurred. The how and why in this instance would only be speculation on the part of us believers.

You need to accomodate the fact that the LDS-posited spirit bodes are real, material things composed of actual, real matter, albeit highly refined matter. You need to accomodate the teaching that all things on Earth were created spiritually before they were created physically. That is, the spirit body that inhabits a tabernacle of flesh and blood was created prior to, and existed before, that tabernacle. You need to accomodate the belief that things reproduce after their own "kind", and that there is a difference between the spirits that inhabit homo sapiens today and the spirits that inhabit every other sort of creature; that homo sapiens spirits are the literally spirit child offspring of Elohim and one or more of his wives, and that the spirits that inhabit the snakes, the spiders, the mice, the dogs, etc. aren't.

A creature of homo erectus needs a homo erectus compatible spirit body. Did these homo erectus spirit bodies exist before homo erectus physical bodies evolved on Earth? Were there exactly as many homo erectus spirits in the pre-existence as homo erectus people who were born on Earth? If not, are there extra homo erectus spirits that will now never get a body because their species went extinct?

You can't just hand-wave it all away with "another plane of existence, very hazy, allegory/figurative, etc." mumbo-jumbo. It's either real, or it isn't. We're here. Our beliefs either correspond with how we came about, and all other creatures, or they don't. The conclusion I've reached so far is that LDS beliefs don't correspond with our objective reality. It all looks too made up by people who simply had no clue what they were talking about, and couldn't foresee how we'd view the world and Earthly life forms and so forth in the future, and whose teachings really made no provisions to fit with it.

The notion of evolution producing genetically compatible species on different planets is absurd. Trying to get out the physical and scientific ramifications of believing Elohim is literally, physically, and genetically the father of Jesus Christ, is absurd. Shoe-horning LDS beliefs and evolution and other naturalistic scientific views into one compatible mess is absurd; it can't be done by people who really take the issues seriously, without making a hash of one, or the other, or both.

[Zoroaster]

I concur.

I think you guys missed The Dude's point. It would be impossible, from a probablistic point of view, for such a random process to have produced the homo sapiens species that was precisely identical to Elohim's species, and biologically compatible with it. It would have been micromanagement indeed.

And then, back to my own previous post, where did the Homo Erectus spirit bodies come from? Before homo erectus had evolved on earth, were there any spirits of that species at all? And if not, how did they come about just in time to inhabit the first homo erectus bodies? And did they all get used up just in time for homo erectus to go extinct?

I think you missed our point. I won't speak for Severian but I don't personally believe we are some exact replica of God. We are created in God's image in a more allegorical way. Similarly, I don't believe our spirit bodies are exact replicas of our physical bodies.

I'm pretty sure it was Joseph Fielding Smith in answers to gospel questions who taught that our spirit bodies were much more fluid than that. The point he made was, if someone's arm is cut off is their spiritual arm just hanging out where their arm used to be? Can they shove their stump into your chest and be plunging their spirit-arm through your body? Of course not. JFS said that our spirits molded to the bodies they inhabited. I don't know for sure but I imagine different spirits are probably broken up more by their level of intelligence than their physical form.

So there need not be a representative type of spirit for every species or sub-species that's ever existed on earth.

[Sethbag]

You're completely oblivious to the fact that you're just making it up as you go along, aren't you?

[The Dude]

...I don't personally believe we are some exact replica of God. We are created in God's image in a more allegorical way. Similarly, I don't believe our spirit bodies are exact replicas of our physical bodies.

Then I'd say your beliefs diverge enough from traditional Mormonism that the argument being made here does not apply to you.

[cksalmon]

"Sales failed to materialize is what I'm saying"

From.

[Zoroaster]

You're completely oblivious to the fact that you're just making it up as you go along, aren't you?

I reasoned my way to this position long ago based on the same line of reasoning you used to reject the concept entirely. Don't be jealous that I've come up with a worldview that embraces all these truths where you threw up your arms and walked away.

Most of my beliefs on specifics details like this that aren't directly dealt with in the scriptures are the result of my taking information from where I can and using reason to derive the closest approximation of the truth. I have taken personal revaluation, truths from the prophets, truths from the scriptures, and facts from science and done my best to make sense of it. This is the best I've come up with. That's what we all do, religious or not, to figure out reality, I don't believe my perspective is any more "made up" than any other.

[The Dude]

I reasoned my way to this position long ago based on the same line of reasoning you used to reject the concept entirely. Don't be jealous that I've come up with a worldview that embraces all these truths where you threw up your arms and walked away.

Don't fault Sethbag. He doesn't read the same comic books as the rest of us.

[Severian]

You're completely oblivious to the fact that you're just making it up as you go along, aren't you?

Zoroaster is right, the best we can all do is find our own answers, whether parroting lines from scripture, giving the shifting line of evolving science or synthesizing an amalgam from diverse sources.

[Jan]

LOL Saw that coming a mile away.

Mormons believe God has a body of flesh and bone, right? I don't have to reference that, I hope. If you want to say there's no DNA in that holiest of flesh, but just spiritual filler in the nucleus of each cell, then go right ahead. Your personal beliefs are your business, but it seems you are only doing this to evade the question we are discussing.

How was Jesus begotten of the flesh if God has no DNA? What's your take on that?

You see, evangelicals and protestants have always believed God was a spirit. Mormons, distinctly, have a more literal take and boldly declare that God is a human and always was. But a human with no DNA? Now you are sounding more like them EVs and less like a TBM. As you wish.

Well, or course, you believe none of it and that is fine. For Mormons, we don't know. All we can do is speculate. We know we are the literal spirit children of God the Father. We know DNA codes for mortal bodies. We don't know if celestial or resurrected bodies have DNA or not and if they do, if it functions exactly the same as in mortals or not (e.g., aging is due in part to DNA changes - celestial and resurrected bodies don't die and, presumably therefore, age in the way we do leading to death). This is nowhere described in LDS scripture or theology.

[Sethbag]

I reasoned my way to this position long ago based on the same line of reasoning you used to reject the concept entirely. Don't be jealous that I've come up with a worldview that embraces all these truths where you threw up your arms and walked away.

That's fine, if you're happy with it. The thing is, for me, what's important is objective reality. I realize it's hard to find objective reality. I probably look at a great deal of things subjectively in my life, and don't realize it. However, regarding the origin of humankind, the creation of this world, etc. I'm convinced that there is an objectively real answer out there, and that we can converge on it eventually. I'm likewise convinced that the way this is going to happen is not to take the obviously false and non-credible teachings of people who really had no idea what they were talking about, and merely knocking off the more obviously false bits until you've rendered it no longer disprovable.

It's like realizing that your square peg isn't going into the round hole, and instead of reaching for another peg, whipping out the Bowie knife and trying to hack off the corners.

[The Dude]

For Mormons, we don't know. All we can do is speculate. We know we are the literal spirit children of God the Father. We know DNA codes for mortal bodies. We don't know if celestial or resurrected bodies have DNA or not and if they do, if it functions exactly the same as in mortals or not (e.g., aging is due in part to DNA changes - celestial and resurrected bodies don't die and, presumably therefore, age in the way we do leading to death). This is nowhere described in LDS scripture or theology.

Okay.... but you didn't answer my question:

How was Jesus begotten of the flesh if God has no DNA? What's your take on that?

Some how, some way, there was an interface between the celestial and resurrected body of God, and the terrestrial and mortal body of Mary. Jesus was born of that "union". If you believe Jesus is the literal Son of God the Father, in the flesh, then he got half of his DNA from God. Is that speculation, according to your beliefs?

[William Schryver]

My favorite part of these evolution discussions is how certain so many people seem to be that 21st century science "has it all figured out." Knowledge has definitely increased exponentially in the past century or so; even in the past fifty years. There has been a veritable explosion of learning on many different fronts. But I remain unconvinced that correct conclusions are always reached from the immense body of data that has emerged.

My study of and understanding of history clearly informs me that Darwinism was not hatched in a scientific vacuum. Rather, it was the outgrowth of a complex mix of political, religious, and sociological ferment in mid-19th century Europe. And yet its assumptions continue to dictate many "scientific" conclusions that as yet lack the empirical data to support them -- at least they don't meet the threshold of empirical data that most scientists would claim as sufficient to prove a point. The assumptions of Darwinism compel its adherents to rationalize certain leaps of logic as being justified. Why? Because, of course, it could not have happened any other way.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not anti-science, or even anti-evolution (although the word evolution clearly means very different things to different people.) Indeed, I have always maintained that the LDS PoGP scriptures clearly hint at something very different than special creation when they say things like:

Moses 2

20 And I, God, said: Let the waters bring forth abundantly the moving creature that hath life, and fowl which may fly above the earth in the open firmament of heaven.

21 And I, God, created great whales, and every living creature that moveth, which the waters brought forth abundantly, after their kind, and every winged fowl after his kind; and I, God, saw that all things which I had created were good.

That said, I believe that a century from now (assuming that God hasn't gotten sick and tired of this experiment by then and put it, unceremoniously, out of its misery) I am quite confident that things about which people opined so confidently in 2007 will be looked upon in the same light as we do those who once thought that malaria was caused by swamp gases.

By the way, I have no intention of engaging in some protracted debate on this issue. I simply thought I'd drop in and leave my 2d worth. Besides, I have to go to a parent/teacher meeting now, and then I'm sure I'll find something much more productive to do than attempt to make hardened Darwinists understand how their faith in the Sola Scriptura of Origin of Species is an inspiration to religionists everywhere.

[Sethbag]

How ironic that the defenders of "Revealed Religion", who have "The Truth" straight from the mouth of God, so often have to fall back on the Hail Mary defense of "we don't know anything".

Hey, we don't know anything. It's all speculation. And what we do know today will just be laughed at in 2107. It hasn't been revealed. In fact, nothing's been revealed, so we can't comment specifically on anything whatsoever with any specificity. And whatever our Prophets, Seers, and Revelators have said on these things in the past was just their own personal opinion, and doesn't really count.

What a grand thing it is to have the Truth from God's own Revealed Religion.

I'll stick with the methodology that has the demonstrably best track record of converging on truth respecting this world we live on, and you guys guys can stick to the methodology that basically denies that we're likely to ever know much of anything until after we die, unless God suddenly changes his mind and decides to reveal the Real Truth to his Prophets in the future, in contrast to the Personal Opinion they gave us previously.

[Zoroaster]

That's fine, if you're happy with it. The thing is, for me, what's important is objective reality. I realize it's hard to find objective reality. I probably look at a great deal of things subjectively in my life, and don't realize it. However, regarding the origin of humankind, the creation of this world, etc. I'm convinced that there is an objectively real answer out there, and that we can converge on it eventually. I'm likewise convinced that the way this is going to happen is not to take the obviously false and non-credible teachings of people who really had no idea what they were talking about, and merely knocking off the more obviously false bits until you've rendered it no longer disprovable.

It's like realizing that your square peg isn't going into the round hole, and instead of reaching for another peg, whipping out the Bowie knife and trying to hack off the corners.

Oh please, in reality there's only one hole that's shaped in a ridiculously complex way and we're all whittling on deadwood to try to make it fit.

Your perspective is no more based on objectivity than mine. Let's take one we're both guessing on, the beginning of life on earth. How did it happen? Who knows. No experiment done in a lab has even come reasonably close to creating self-reproducing molecules from organic matter. And yet I (and I imagine you) still believe it occurred by naturalistic means. Why? Because we just do. My current understanding of God doesn't really jive with the idea that he would reach down and zap some living molecules into existence and neither does yours. Even so, we both would probably say we're not sure exactly how that happened but we think it arose through a complex series of otherwise normal chemical reactions, in the primordial goo.

The same thing goes for the fine-tuned constants of the universe, the existence of alternate dimensions, the existence of free will, our values, the idea of multiple timelines in our universe, our positions on ethical issues, our personal political opinions, etc etc etc.

If you actually look objectively you'll find that the vast, vast majority of the opinions you hold about the world are just an amalgamation of available facts combined with some logical hypothesizing aimed at whittling your world view into the closest possible approximation of truth. Nobody on earth has a world view that's based on empirical facts or even mostly based on empirical facts. If you did you wouldn't hold many firm beliefs at all.

[Jan]

How ironic that the defenders of "Revealed Religion", who have "The Truth" straight from the mouth of God, so often have to fall back on the Hail Mary defense of "we don't know anything".

Hey, we don't know anything. It's all speculation. And what we do know today will just be laughed at in 2107. It hasn't been revealed. In fact, nothing's been revealed, so we can't comment specifically on anything whatsoever with any specificity. And whatever our Prophets, Seers, and Revelators have said on these things in the past was just their own personal opinion, and doesn't really count.

What a grand thing it is to have the Truth from God's own Revealed Religion.

I'll stick with the methodology that has the demonstrably best track record of converging on truth respecting this world we live on, and you guys guys can stick to the methodology that basically denies that we're likely to ever know much of anything until after we die, unless God suddenly changes his mind and decides to reveal the Real Truth to his Prophets in the future, in contrast to the Personal Opinion they gave us previously.

That's really weird, Sethbag. Since when did we ever claim that revelation provided all the answers and all the information and knowledge ever quested after?

We know some stuff:

1. We know what has been revealed to us.

2. We know what rationism tells us.

3. We know what empiricism tells us.

The rest we don't know.

I totally accept the methodology of science. I also accept the methodology of revelation. They don't conflict for me. We find truth where it is.

PS Prior to 2000, I didn't accept revelation as a source of knowledge so I just had #2 and 3.

[Zoroaster]

How ironic that the defenders of "Revealed Religion", who have "The Truth" straight from the mouth of God, so often have to fall back on the Hail Mary defense of "we don't know anything".

Hey, we don't know anything. It's all speculation. And what we do know today will just be laughed at in 2107. It hasn't been revealed. In fact, nothing's been revealed, so we can't comment specifically on anything whatsoever with any specificity. And whatever our Prophets, Seers, and Revelators have said on these things in the past was just their own personal opinion, and doesn't really count.

What a grand thing it is to have the Truth from God's own Revealed Religion.

I'll stick with the methodology that has the demonstrably best track record of converging on truth respecting this world we live on, and you guys guys can stick to the methodology that basically denies that we're likely to ever know much of anything until after we die, unless God suddenly changes his mind and decides to reveal the Real Truth to his Prophets in the future, in contrast to the Personal Opinion they gave us previously.

Ha! As if you're the one accepting a methodology that we're dismissing. I can't speak for everyone but a lot of us are in that science boat right there with you. The difference is that we're willing to consider other methods of truth acquisition as well.

And that whole "We don't know anything" defense? Its called realism. Its the rational result of reflection on the human condition. It was the thrust of all of Socrates' arguments and many of Plato's dialogues. Its the message of the post-modern philosophical movement of which we are now in the throes. Cling to your modernistic self-deception if you want, but most of the world has acknowledged the boggling complexity of reality and is taking a more open-minded approach.