No Death Before The Fall

[cinepro]

Do you think there aren't any Church published statements that admit the Church doesn't know how the physical body was created?

Well, there are Church-published statements that Adam's body wasn't the end-result of an evolutionary process, and there are Church-published quotes saying there was no death anywhere on the planet before the Fall. So in order for me to believe that there isn't unanimity among the brethren on the issue, I would have to see some of the brethren expressing disagreement with those teachings.

Or to put it another way, the Church doesn't have to tell us how it was done in order to tell us how it wasn't done.

I recognize that Talmage and others in the past have felt differently, but ongoing revelation being what it is, and living Prophets being more vital than the dead ones, it would appear that there has been unanimity for at least the last 40 or 50 years.

It's doctrine of course, but how does it preclude evolution, especially in a scenario where evolution exists in the doctrinal/scriptural concept of time outside temporal time and an undefined state before Adam was placed in the garden?

The Church has defined the state before Adam was placed in the Garden: it was a state with no Physical Death. And the state after Adam was placed in the Garden was Missouri.

[BCSpace]

Well, if you're refering to an Adam-God or an Adam Sr./Jr. theory or anything like unto it where HF and HM beget the physical bodies of Adam and Eve, we already know those aren't doctrine. But the birds and the bees do speak to evolution.......

As cinepro has repeatedly tried to tell you, and in a very nice way I must say, someone saying "it isn't doctrine" is basically just saying "I don't believe it" in another way.

Brigham Young actually "taught" that our "HF" and "HM" came here and ate food grown on this planet by which elements of this Earth were taken into their bodies and from them Adam and Eve were created.

Is that taught as doctrine somewhere? The NT verse used by apostate group who accept Adam-God was corrected in the JST.

You're simply one of those folks who doesn't believe what he "taught" is the "truth", and to justify your position you're saying you don't need to believe it because it's not included in the "standard" works.

Well no. First, my own personal hypothesis doesn't appear to conflict with LDS doctrine. Second, I accept what the Church teaches about what is doctrine therefore I don't look to the scriptures only for established doctrine.

That doesn't mean what he taught isn't scripture, though, and it doesn't mean that what he taught isn't the truth, either.

The JoD (and other related works) was not published by the Church and therefore is not doctrine. However, quotations from that work are found in officially published works of the Church and those would be considered doctrine. So you might have a point IFF you can find the Adam-God theory taught as doctrine in a work published by the Church.

[cinepro]

cinepro:

Irrelevent.

I agree.

Wait, were you referring to something I had written, or were you just warning us about what you were about to type?

If it's the latter, I agree. But if it's the former, I disagree.

[thesometimesaint]

cinepro:

CFR that there is ANY revelation from God that states evolution is wrong.

[blarsen]

Well deciding the depth of sediment or rock to be the determining factor of age does seem relatively straightforward. Convoluted though is a few bones from 14 distinct entities making up one individual. Would that seem a bit convoluted?

No the aspect of Lucy is also the question of "convoluted" and how we "convolute" many things, sometimes in determining our understanding of religion, and sometimes in determining our understanding of science. The controversy you imply is more manufactured than actual.

Not really; provided the collection of bones did indeed come from the same strata and are relatively localized. This is the common circumstance for fossil finds.

If the collection is fairly coherent (i.e., no bones, or bone fragments that clearly belong to a known primitive primate or other animal) and you do see anomalous pieces that bespeak bipedalism or other humanoid characteristics, the conclusion is fairly straight forward.

And you’re correct regarding how hypotheses can be or become very convoluted, supporting what I said about the attempt to put Lucy in our phylogenetic line. But the rest of the determinations regarding Lucy (see my original statement) are quite factual, up or down determinations; not really convoluted at all.

Now what controversy am I implying? You lost me there. I thought the controversy we were talking about is how to resolve the scriptural passages regarding the Fall of Adam (bringing death into the world) with the fossil record, which is a record of ongoing death that has been going on time out of mind. Or do you mean the controversy about Lucy being in the line of our phylogenic descent? Both controversies are very real, hardly manufactured, and certainly not by me. You will have to explain what you mean there, if you would be so kind.

[cinepro]

cinepro:

CFR that there is ANY revelation from God that states evolution is wrong.

Uh, this?*

Latter-day revelation teaches that there was no death on this earth for any forms of life before the fall of Adam. Indeed, death entered the world as a direct result of the fall (2 Ne. 2:22; Moses 6:48).

To the degree that death is necessary for evolution to proceed, of course.

*I recognize that some people casually disregard anything in the Bible dictionary that they don't agree with, which is understandable and even necessary for some to maintain a testimony. But it is a reference to a Church-published statement saying that Latter-day revelation supports the doctrine of "no death before the Fall", which is the antithesis of evolution.

[BCSpace]

Well, there are Church-published statements that Adam's body wasn't the end-result of an evolutionary process, and there are Church-published quotes saying there was no death anywhere on the planet before the Fall.

The Church has defined the state before Adam was placed in the Garden: it was a state with no Physical Death. And the state after Adam was placed in the Garden was Missouri.

I think most of the statements you've put forth don't actually state those things and if they do, I've shown how they can be countered without running afoul of the doctrine.

Uh, this?*

Latter-day revelation teaches that there was no death on this earth for any forms of life before the fall of Adam. Indeed, death entered the world as a direct result of the fall (2 Ne. 2:22; Moses 6:48).

How does that preclude evolution?

[cinepro]

I think most of the statements you've put forth don't actually state those things and if they do, I've shown how they can be countered without running afoul of the doctrine.

I agree that most don't. It's the other ones that do, and whether or not your explanations hold water, we'll each have to decide.

How does that preclude evolution?

Which theory of macroevolution doesn't involve physical death for the animals and plants involved?

Edited July 29, 2011 by cinepro

[Jeff K.]

Not really; provided the collection of bones did indeed come from the same strata and are relatively localized. This is the common circumstance for fossil finds.

If the collection is fairly coherent (i.e., no bones, or bone fragments that clearly belong to a known primitive primate or other animal) and you do see anomalous pieces that bespeak bipedalism or other humanoid characteristics, the conclusion is fairly straight forward.

And you’re correct regarding how hypotheses can be or become very convoluted, supporting what I said about the attempt to put Lucy in our phylogenetic line. But the rest of the determinations regarding Lucy (see my original statement) are quite factual, up or down determinations; not really convoluted at all.

Now what controversy am I implying? You lost me there. I thought the controversy we were talking about is how to resolve the scriptural passages regarding the Fall of Adam (bringing death into the world) with the fossil record, which is a record of ongoing death that has been going on time out of mind. Or do you mean the controversy about Lucy being in the line of our phylogenic descent? Both controversies are very real, hardly manufactured, and certainly not by me. You will have to explain what you mean there, if you would be so kind.

You are missing the point. I am a big fan of the study of paleontology, geology and many other similar areas. My point is that Lucy et al, not in age, but in findings required a convoluted methodology to bring to light the hypothesis of what she might have looked like. Indeed if you look at all the evolutionary bones found that have been dated going back millions of years, they wouldn't fill the back of a pick up truck. To say something is convoluted ie complicated is not to say it is false, or even to reduce its validity. However you have used convoluted in a way to imply a loss of validity, when in fact you ascribe to more convoluted things and have no problem accepting them.

The manufactured controversy is one in which someone states they cannot concieve an Adam existing before the fall. Now you may have an opinion where you are tossing your entire testimony, but that is a manufactured controversy, it isn't real since your opinion doesn't change the doctrine. 12% of bone structure does not equal a complete understanding of skeleton or even whether or not Lucy is female. A single opinion regarding the Garden of Eden is equally limited in scope. Alternative views to your have been suggested so I would suggest you review them.

[blarsen]

You are missing the point. I am a big fan of the study of paleontology, geology and many other similar areas. My point is that Lucy et al, not in age, but in findings required a convoluted methodology to bring to light the hypothesis of what she might have looked like. Indeed if you look at all the evolutionary bones found that have been dated going back millions of years, they wouldn't fill the back of a pick up truck. To say something is convoluted ie complicated is not to say it is false, or even to reduce its validity. However you have used convoluted in a way to imply a loss of validity, when in fact you ascribe to more convoluted things and have no problem accepting them.

I think you miss my point. Piecing together bone fragments is more tedious than convoluted, and yes, it can be rather iffy to construct what an individual hominid may have looked like. But I can show you the pictures of Johansen’s and White’s attempts to reconstruct the afarensis skull and they look quite reasonable (I’ve owned the Johanson/Edey Lucy book for a couple of decades). Regarding the skull, it is only the teeth that apparently show distinctive humanoid characteristics.

Be that as it may, what Lucy looked like is much less important than the humanoid characteristics of some of the key bones and teeth. This is the important issue regarding the Lucy finds. I.e., the knee connections, the pelvis girdle, the teeth. These were fairly up and down assessments. The bi-pedal knee assertion was confirmed by the foremost expert on such things by simply a first glance. There was enough of the pelvic girdle present to make it clearly distinguishable from a chimpanzee-like pelvic girdle. None of these determinations could be regarded as convoluted. If you think so, show me what your reasoning is.

I used the term convoluted and strained to describe attempts to reconcile the Fall of Adam bringing death into the world, with the fossil record. I think something is missing that would really enable a satisfactory resolution. This is simply my belief. I could dredge up examples of what I’m talking about, but at least a couple have already been mentioned in this thread. Look at the number of reads this thread is stacking up. This is an indication, in my mind, of what a sore stickling point this subject is.

The manufactured controversy is one in which someone states they cannot concieve an Adam existing before the fall. Now you may have an opinion where you are tossing your entire testimony, but that is a manufactured controversy, it isn't real since your opinion doesn't change the doctrine. 12% of bone structure does not equal a complete understanding of skeleton or even whether or not Lucy is female. A single opinion regarding the Garden of Eden is equally limited in scope. Alternative views to your have been suggested so I would suggest you review them.

Yes, but I’m not implying nor have I stated that I “cannot conceive of an Adam existing before the fall”; especially when by definition, Adam DID exist before the fall. I remain confused by what you mean and am having problems unpacking your paragraph.

Can you state clearly what you think my views on Adam and the fall are? One suggestion to help clarify this is to go back and read my first post in this thread.

Look, we’re probably on the same page, actually. I have a testimony of the Book of Mormon and Joseph Smith. I believe in the restoration he helped put together. But I’ve also been heavily involved in geologic research and activities. For instance, I’ve created hundreds of thin sections, etc., of various rocks and studied them under the microscope and with XRD/XRF techniques and other methods. You can find a record of death in them that goes back eons, according to present understanding of geologic time. Am I supposed to jettison my experience and knowledge of these things?

At this point, Adam bringing death into the world vs. the paleontological record seem to be at loggerheads. There is a very real disjunction between how the fall of Adam (positing a ~6,000 year BP time frame for the fall) is interpreted and the rock record. The rock record shows the life and death cycle being in place well, well before this time frame. I didn’t manufacture this controversy. It’s the topic of the thread.

Edited July 29, 2011 by blarsen

[Jeff K.]

At this point, Adam bringing death into the world vs. the paleontological record seem to be at loggerheads. There is a very real disjunction between how the fall of Adam (positing a ~6,000 year BP time frame for the fall) is interpreted and the rock record. The rock record shows the life and death cycle being in place well, well before this time frame. I didn’t manufacture this controversy. It’s the topic of the thread.

Was the Garden Adam's world, or was the Earth Adams world. In other words, did the Garden encompass the earth or did it merely provide a border for Adam's own much smaller world, one where death did not occur?

I think you miss my point. Piecing together bone fragments is more tedious than convoluted, and yes, it can be rather iffy to construct what an individual hominid may have looked like. But I can show you the pictures of Johansen’s and White’s attempts to reconstruct the afarensis skull and they look quite reasonable (I’ve owned the Johanson/Edey Lucy book for a couple of decades). Regarding the skull, it is only the teeth that apparently show distinctive humanoid characteristics.

It is tedious if you know exactly what to do. It is convoluted if you are guessing or presuming a great deal....

So few bone fragments and without a complete knowledge of the skull or hands and feet. Lots and lots of assumptions. This is fine for me, those assumptions seem to make sense. But we are often convoluted. I know its only my point of view.

[blackstrap]

I recall somewhere that Joseph indicated that this earth was created for more than one purpose. If so, that opens up a whole new avenue for life and death. Can someone give me a source to supply a CFR.Otherwise,as you were...

[blackstrap]

For the bear hunters in the crowd, skin a black bear and remove its head and paws. Hang the rest on a wall and bring in someone who has never seen a bear like that.Ask them what it is they are looking at.Point is,when major parts are missing it is VERY difficult to do an accurate reconstruction.Witness the changing fortunes of dinosaurs of the last 100 years as to how the walked and lived.

[blarsen]

Was the Garden Adam's world, or was the Earth Adams world. In other words, did the Garden encompass the earth or did it merely provide a border for Adam's own much smaller world, one where death did not occur?

Good question. But maybe like a Dr. Who’s Tardis. Maybe like a portal going from a terrestrial to a telestial world.

Repeating what I’ve said in my first post, the lone and dreary world was already in operation when Adam and Eve were cast into it. What made it lone and dreary? Maybe the fact that it was an endless repetition of the cycle of life and death. Isn’t that dreary?

Adam and Eve were cast out of a paradisiacal world into this world, thus bringing death to them and any offspring they might have.

It is tedious if you know exactly what to do. It is convoluted if you are guessing or presuming a great deal....

Certainly more tedious with much more guess work for you or me, who aren’t physical anthropologists dealing with these kinds of things as a part of our profession, which would include the study of primate skeletal morphology, etc.

So few bone fragments and without a complete knowledge of the skull or hands and feet. Lots and lots of assumptions. This is fine for me, those assumptions seem to make sense. But we are often convoluted. I know its only my point of view.

But you’ve cropped the photo to leave out the pelvic bones and the key knee bones, which are two of the most significant aspects of Lucy’s remains, being quite humanoid and strongly indicating bi-pedalism.

Here is a picture showing White’s reconstruction of the skull: Well maybe I won't until I figure out how to do it.

Edited July 30, 2011 by blarsen

[blarsen]

For the bear hunters in the crowd, skin a black bear and remove its head and paws. Hang the rest on a wall and bring in someone who has never seen a bear like that.Ask them what it is they are looking at.Point is,when major parts are missing it is VERY difficult to do an accurate reconstruction.Witness the changing fortunes of dinosaurs of the last 100 years as to how the walked and lived.

But if you ask a zoologist specializing in bears, you've changed the picture.

The reconstruction of Lucy was the first attempt. If more bones are found, it will get better. Meanwhile, if Johanson is correct about the bones belonging to one hominid species, the key indicators from the skeleton (teeth, pelvis, knees), are not likely to be any different in specifmens found in the future.

[blarsen]

I recall somewhere that Joseph indicated that this earth was created for more than one purpose. If so, that opens up a whole new avenue for life and death. Can someone give me a source to supply a CFR.Otherwise,as you were...

Hugh Nibley expands on this multiple use subject. Maybe he got it from Joseph Smith, who has also said we shouldn't be surprised if the age of the earth is something like 63 million years old, which may reflect the number being bandied about for the age of the earth at that time.

Here is at least one quote where Nibley gets into this. It is from his 3rd Semester Book of Mormon lectures, page 3. He was talking about the apparent mass extinctions that have taken place during the sojurn of the earths existence, specifically the K-T boundary extinction that wiped out the dinosauers:

They call that the K-T boundary, when you move from the Cretaceous to all these strange creatures. This isn't in our creation story. This doesn't belong to our story. Genesis isn't concerned with this. This isn't where Adam comes in. These are other creatures here. Remember, we believe in the gospel and we preach other things. Joseph Smith's teachings are much more explicit on this than we realize because we get into them more today; namely, that the whole universe is multiple use, and so is the earth. Well, there are creatures on the earth that we know nothing about. They don't concern us; they have nothing to do with our affairs. We have our own thing to concern us. Adam had his family. We are his people, and his history is our history. But there are other histories that have nothing to do with him. That shouldn't disturb us at all, the idea that there should be anything else besides us.

I really like this point of view and think Hugh is right. I think people tend to get too black-and-white and all-encompassing in their interpretation of scripture. Nibley is taking more of a 'frame-of-reference' approach, which I think is the correct stance to take in many instances regarding scripture interpretation.

[Jeff K.]

I like the theory of evolution and generally enjoy with facination paleontaology. I think its the best theory we have out there.

Good question. But maybe like a Dr. Who’s Tardis. Maybe like a portal going from a terrestrial to a telestial world.

Repeating what I’ve said in my first post, the lone and dreary world was already in operation when Adam and Eve were cast into it. What made it lone and dreary? Maybe the fact that it was an endless repetition of the cycle of life and death. Isn’t that dreary?

Adam and Eve were cast out of a paradisiacal world into this world, thus bringing death to them and any offspring they might have.

We know time can be slowed and perhaps even reversed. Physicists speculate of tachyons. Technology and energy usage that is beyone anything we can presently imagine, but certainly not outside the grasp of God, especially one who knows the laws intimately and uses them in ways we cannot imagine. I suppose we could chuckle and call it a Tardis (Baker being my favorite Dr. Who), but it is more than that, much more. Without that knowledge or technology if you will I would agree that the loggerhead of evolutionary study and the Garden of Eden are difficult to overcome, but with it, and being able to imagine it in some way, it seems like a small thing to know.

[blarsen]

I like the theory of evolution and generally enjoy with facination paleontaology. I think its the best theory we have out there.

We know time can be slowed and perhaps even reversed. Physicists speculate of tachyons. Technology and energy usage that is beyone anything we can presently imagine, but certainly not outside the grasp of God, especially one who knows the laws intimately and uses them in ways we cannot imagine. I suppose we could chuckle and call it a Tardis (Baker being my favorite Dr. Who), but it is more than that, much more. Without that knowledge or technology if you will I would agree that the loggerhead of evolutionary study and the Garden of Eden are difficult to overcome, but with it, and being able to imagine it in some way, it seems like a small thing to know.

But evolution theory is seriouslly flawed in my strongly held view when it precludes the possibility of control or intelligent input; when it insists on being a mechanism,wholly dependent on chance mutations and adaption to environmental pressures in order to produce whatever life there is.

A major stumbling block is coming up with a valid recipe for producing the first procaryotic cells, as well as other aspects of what is generally called macro evolution. I've mentioned this before, but Frank Salisbury does an excellent job of covering the major evolution choke points that are highly, highly improbable without outside intelligent input (see his: The Case for Divine Design). He is a Cal Tech PhD. Many if not all of these choke points could be put under the rubric of Irreducible Complexity, most recently explicated by Michael Behe in his book Darwin's Black Box.

But you're right, I agree that we don't know enough at this point to resolve the dilemma in question. But we're told that in time to come, all things will be revealed.

[blarsen]

It's certainly one of the many pieces of the Mormon jig saw puzzle that I can't seem to make fit with the rest of the puzzle pieces.

While I can appreciate your willingness to wait it out...I chose not to wait...I no longer believe the church is what it claims to be. While I do not believe in Mormon claims nor view its leadership has having any power or authority, it still runs through my blood and is a major influence in my daily life.

But I also see life as something short and something to be enjoyed to its fullest. In some bizaar way, my life actually became meaningful and real after I came to the conclusion that Mormonism was not what it claimed to be.

I love Mormon's and I respect the church as a fine institution with many wonderful qualities...but I do not believe that it will ever payoff on the promised blessings its members are sacraficing their lives to attain.

Of course your beliefs and faith (or lack thereof) largely determine what you will experience in this life. That's the way it's set up, in my view.

But because of the apparent fact you have shed your belief in the outward Church institutions and men, I think actually puts you in a good position to dialogue with God, if you are so inclined. Just you and God. But you have to have faith in some kind of response; and if you are going contrary to the basic commandments, this complicates the process. I think you have simply given up your fear of men and their institutions, which can be very liberating and empowering; kind of like establishing a tabla rasa, heightening the importance of your own decision making.

I've been through something like this. But I've also had strong experiences that indicate there really are treasures in heaven

[cdowis]

physical death, known also as temporal death, was introduced into the world as a consequence of the Fall. As a result of the Fall, all people and all forms of life upon the earth must suffer a physical death, a separation of spirit and body.

This is indeed church doctrine. And has been repeated many times.

And I sympathize with your interpretation of this statement., since I had the same interpretation. But now I realize that interpretation was based on an assumption, like the one hill Cumorah assumption.

The opinion lies not in the statement itself but in its interpretation. I am now of the mind that this does not preclude death during the five days of creation, and you have not given us any authorative statement which states otherwise. I interpret this to mean the world as it was created during the sixth day of creation, the Garden of Eden, especially prepared for Adam. The terms "earth" and "world" in these statements are specific to that sixth day.

And, yes, it is an ad hoc solution to the problem, so you are justified in criticizing my position. But it allows the a resolution to the problem where I can find no other solution. So far, the other option is to give up on the scriptures or to give up on science, and I am not willing to do either.

Your quote from McConkie tends to strengthen that possibility.

Help us out here, Cinepro. Let's see something specific about the creation process, those five days, that precludes death.

Edited July 30, 2011 by cdowis

[Sevenbak]

cinepro:

CFR that there is ANY revelation from God that states evolution is wrong.

Perhaps more of a warning than direct revelation, but from a man whom I consider was nonetheless greatly inspired from heaven, I see this statement by P. Benson as bold, blunt and true.

"Now, we have not been using the Book of Mormon as we should. Our homes are not as strong unless we are using it to bring our children to Christ. Our families may be corrupted by worldly trends and teachings unless we know how to use the book to expose and combat the falsehoods in socialism, organic evolution, rationalism, humanism, etc."

Edited July 30, 2011 by Sevenbak

[JeremyOrbe-Smith]

On the other hand ...

"We should gather all the good and true principles in the world and treasure them up, or we shall not come out true Mormons." - Joseph Smith

"... the most prominent difference in sentiment between the Latter Day Saints and sectarians was, that the latter were all circumscribed by some peculiar creed, which deprived it's members of the privilege of believing anything not contained therein, whereas the Latter Day Saints have no creed, but are ready to believe all true principles that exist, as they are made manifest from time to time." - Joseph Smith (The Journal of Joseph Smith: The Personal Diary of a Modern Prophet, p. 203)

"Our search for knowledge should be ceaseless, which means that it is open-ended, never resting on laurels, degrees, or past achievements. Joseph Smith said, "If we get puffed up by thinking that we have much knowledge, we are apt to get a contentious spirit," and what is the cure? "Correct knowledge is necessary to cast out that spirit." The cure for inadequate knowledge is "ever more light and knowledge." But who is going to listen patiently to correct knowledge if he thinks he has the answers all ready? "There are a great many wise men and women too in our midst who are too wise to be taught; therefore, they must die in their ignorance." "I have tried for a number of years to get the minds of the Saints prepared to receive the things of God; but we frequently see some of them...[that] will fly to pieces like glass as soon as anything comes that is contrary to their traditions: they cannot stand the fire at all."...True knowledge never shuts the door on more knowledge, but zeal often does." - Hugh Nibley from the essay "Zeal Without Knowledge" in Approaching Zion, pp 70-71

"I want to say to my friends that we believe in all good. If you can find a truth in heaven, earth or h***, it belongs to our doctrine. We believe it; it is ours; we claim it." - Brigham Young (Discourses of Brigham Young selected by John A Widtsoe, p. 2)

"I have said these things because I fear dictatorial dogmatism, rigidity of procedure and intolerance [in the Church] even more than I fear cigarettes, cards, and other devices the adversary may use to nullify faith and kill religion. Fanaticism and bigotry have been the deadly enemies of true religion in the long past. They have made it forbidding, shut it up in cold grey walls of monastery and nunnery, out of sunlight and fragrance of the growing world. They have garbed it in black and then in white, when in truth it is neither black nor white, any more than life is black or white, for religion is life abundant, glowing life, with all its shades, colors and hues, as the children of men reflect in the patterns of their lives the radiance of the Holy Spirit in varying degrees." - President Stephen L. Richards

"As a means of coming to truth, people in the Church are encouraged by their leaders to think and find out for themselves ... Searching and inquiring are a means of coming to a knowledge of all truth, whether that truth be spiritual, scientific, or moral." - President James E. Fraust, Ensign Sept. 1998.

"We should be scientific - that is, open-minded, approaching new problems without prejudice, deferring a decision until all the facts are in ... Neither fear of consequence or any kind of coercion should ever be used to secure uniformity of thought in the Church. People should express their problems and opinions and be unafraid to think without fear of ill consequences. We should all be interested in academic research. We must go out on the research front and continue to explore the vast unknown. We should be in the forefront of learning in all fields, for revelation does not come only through the prophet of God nor only directly from heaven in visions or dreams. Revelation may come in the laboratory, out of the test tube, out of the thinking mind and the inquiring soul, out of search and research and prayer and inspiration." - President Hugh B. Brown

"We should continue to become acquainted with human experience through history and philosophy, science and poetry, art and religion ... One of the most important things in the world is freedom of the mind; from this all other freedoms spring. Such freedom is necessarily dangerous, for one cannot think right without running the risk of thinking wrong, but generally more thinking is the antidote for the evils that spring from wrong thinking."

"More thinking is required, and we should all exercise our God-given right to think and be unafraid to express our opinions, with proper respect for those to whom we talk and proper acknowledgment of our own shortcomings. We must preserve freedom of the mind in the Church and resist all efforts to suppress it."

'The Church is not so much concerned with whether the thoughts of its members are orthodox or heterodox as it is that they shall have thoughts. One may memorize much without learning anything. In this age of speed there seems to be little time for meditation."

"And while all members should respect, support, and heed the teachings of the authorities of the church, no one should accept a statement and base his or her testimony upon it, no matter who makes it, until he or she has, under mature examination, found it to be true and worthwhile; then one's logical deductions may be confirmed by the spirit of revelation to his or her spirit, because real conversion must come from within..." - President Hugh B. Brown

[Sevenbak]

On the other hand ...

To quote Tevya... "There is no other hand."

I don't see any of these statements saying what you are implying they say.

[mfbukowski]

On the other hand ...

Holy cow! Some great quotes! Thanks!

Edited July 30, 2011 by mfbukowski

[Jeff K.]

But evolution theory is seriouslly flawed in my strongly held view when it precludes the possibility of control or intelligent input; when it insists on being a mechanism,wholly dependent on chance mutations and adaption to environmental pressures in order to produce whatever life there is.

A major stumbling block is coming up with a valid recipe for producing the first procaryotic cells, as well as other aspects of what is generally called macro evolution. I've mentioned this before, but Frank Salisbury does an excellent job of covering the major evolution choke points that are highly, highly improbable without outside intelligent input (see his: The Case for Divine Design). He is a Cal Tech PhD. Many if not all of these choke points could be put under the rubric of Irreducible Complexity, most recently explicated by Michael Behe in his book Darwin's Black Box.

But you're right, I agree that we don't know enough at this point to resolve the dilemma in question. But we're told that in time to come, all things will be revealed.

Oh, I agree, but I also don't think evolution precludes God's hand, in fact I would state that it is an arbitrary and unscientific argument from some groups that precludes God since there is no proof one way or the other.

Edited July 30, 2011 by Jeff K.