Creation Vs Evolution; Exclusive Of One Another?

[zerinus]

When genetics, paleoanthropology, anatomy, geology, archaeology, biological anthropology, and on and on and on all have bodies and piles of physical evidence that all support each other and come to same conclusions, THAT is good science.

Good science is one that ultimately leads to the discovery of truth, not to maximum consensus among scientists; and truth is ultimately knowable by revelation--especially the kind that comes though a prophet.

[JeremyOrbe-Smith]

What I don't understand is why we so often assume that people like Darwin weren't inspired. He popularized his phylogenetic theory with the common religious image of the Tree of Life, fer cryin' out loud. He was agnostic about Post-Apostasy Christianity's version of God. Who knows what he would have believed if he'd been exposed to Joseph Smith's later thought? (especially the King Follett discourse, in which Intelligence exists upon a self-existent principle, there is no creation about it, God could not create Himself or the other Intelligences He found Himself in the midst of, and He once dwelt on another world like this earth.)

Darwin, 1872:

"The affinities of all the beings of the same class have sometimes been represented by a great tree. I believe this simile largely speaks the truth. The green and budding twigs may represent existing species; and those produced during former years may represent the long succession of extinct species. At each period of growth all the growing twigs have tried to branch out on all sides, and to overtop and kill the surrounding twigs and branches, in the same manner as species and groups of species have at all times overmastered other species in the great battle for life.

The limbs divided into great branches, and these into lesser and lesser branches, were themselves once, when the tree was young, budding twigs; and this connection of the former and present buds by ramifying branches may well represent the classification of all extinct and living species in groups subordinate to groups. Of the many twigs which flourished when the tree was a mere bush, only two or three, now grown into great branches, yet survive and bear the other branches; so with the species which lived during long-past geological periods, very few have left living and modified descendants.

From the first growth of the tree, many a limb and branch has decayed and dropped off; and these fallen branches of various sizes may represent those whole orders, families, and genera which have now no living representatives, and which are known to us only in a fossil state. As we here and there see a thin straggling branch springing from a fork low down in a tree, and which by some chance has been favoured and is still alive on its summit, so we occasionally see an animal like the Ornithorhynchus or Lepidosiren, which in some small degree connects by its affinities two large branches of life, and which has apparently been saved from fatal competition by having inhabited a protected station.

As buds give rise by growth to fresh buds, and these, if vigorous, branch out and overtop on all sides many a feebler branch, so by generation I believe it has been with the great Tree of Life, which fills with its dead and broken branches the crust of the earth, and covers the surface with its ever-branching and beautiful ramifications."

Book of Mormon, 1830:

"Hearken, O ye house of Israel, and hear the words of me, a prophet of the Lord. For behold, thus saith the Lord, I will liken thee, O house of Israel, like unto a tame olive tree, which a man took and nourished in his vineyard; and it grew, and waxed old, and began to decay.

And it came to pass that the master of the vineyard went forth, and he saw that his olive tree began to decay; and he said: I will prune it, and dig about it, and nourish it, that perhaps it may shoot forth young and tender branches, and it perish not. [...] And it came to pass that after many days it began to put forth somewhat a little, young and tender branches; but behold, the main top thereof began to perish.

And it came to pass that the master of the vineyard saw it, and he said unto his servant: It grieveth me that I should lose this tree; wherefore, go and pluck the branches from a wild olive tree, and bring them hither unto me; and we will pluck off those main branches which are beginning to wither away, and we will cast them into the fire that they may be burned.

And behold, saith the Lord of the vineyard, I take away many of these young and tender branches, and I will graft them whithersoever I will; and it mattereth not that if it so be that the root of this tree will perish, I may preserve the fruit thereof unto myself; wherefore, I will take these young and tender branches, and I will graft them whithersoever I will. [...] Wherefore, go thy way; watch the tree, and nourish it, according to my words. [...]

And it came to pass that a long time passed away, and the Lord of the vineyard said unto his servant: Come, let us go down into the vineyard, that we may labor in the vineyard. And it came to pass that the Lord of the vineyard, and also the servant, went down into the vineyard to labor. And it came to pass that the servant said unto his master: Behold, look here; behold the tree.

And it came to pass that the Lord of the vineyard looked and beheld the tree in the which the wild olive branches had been grafted; and it had sprung forth and begun to bear fruit. And he beheld that it was good; and the fruit thereof was like unto the natural fruit.

(Etc.)

I know, I know - the first quote is likening the tree to the species, whereas the second is likening it to a particular (hairless primate) family. Darwin didn't know the Vineyard was being watched. But still.

...

Revelation is revelation. Truth is truth. See all bazillion of my Brigham quotes earlier in the thread emphasizing how Mormons should accept truth from wherever it may come from, including science. My revelation (from the Latin, meaning "to unveil") as a Sunday school teacher is not "superior" to the revelation given to the lowly plebeians who listen to me. My office and Priesthood calling certainly do not confer infallibility upon me. The same goes for the Prophet. He's a man with a different calling, but he is still "just" a man (ie, a potential God, as Christ said we all are, male and female alike).

Moses said that he wanted all his people to be Prophets, that they would all have the Spirit poured out on them - as Revelation says, the testimony of Jesus is the Spirit of Prophecy. If we are capable of becoming like the Gods, I think a large part of the process is to learn, to be like Him "that ascended up on high, as also he descended below all things, in that he comprehended all things, that he might be in all and through all things, the light of truth." (D&C 88:6)

It is through God's comprehension of "all things" that he is "in" and "through" them. (We don't believe in an omnipresent God who is everywhere and nowhere at the same time - He is a person with a physical body.) How can we "comprehend" anything if we don't "study it out in our mind" the way Oliver was counseled to? How can we study something in our minds if we don't expose ourselves to information? Moroni 10 says "I exhort you, my brethren, that ye deny not the gifts of God, for they are many; and they come from the same God. And there are different ways that these gifts are administered; but it is the same God who worketh all in all; and they are given by the manifestations of the Spirit of God unto men, to profit them."

We all have different gifts, including those men and women (those Uncreated Intelligences with Godlike potential) who choose to enter the field of science. If they don't believe in a particular version of God, does that mean their sincere efforts to comprehend and study "all things" out in their minds are unaided by revelation?

Not according to the Book of Mormon, which says that God "inviteth them all to come unto him and partake of his goodness; and he denieth none that come unto him, black and white, bond and free, male and female; and he remembereth the heathen; and all are alike unto God, both Jew and Gentile."

Edited January 16, 2012 by JeremyOrbe-Smith

[zerinus]

What I don't understand is why we so often assume that people like Darwin weren't inspired. He popularized his phylogenetic theory with the common religious image of the Tree of Life, fer cryin' out loud. He was agnostic about Post-Apostasy Christianity's version of God. Who knows what he would have believed if he'd been exposed to Joseph Smith's later thought? (especially the King Follett discourse, in which Intelligence exists upon a self-existent principle, there is no creation about it, God could not create Himself or the other Intelligences He found Himself in the midst of, and He once dwelt on another world like this earth.)

Darwin, 1872:

Book of Mormon, 1830:

I know, I know - the first quote is likening the tree to the species, whereas the second is likening it to a particular (hairless primate) family. Darwin didn't know the Vineyard was being watched. But still.

...

Revelation is revelation. Truth is truth. See all bazillion of my Brigham quotes earlier in the thread emphasizing how Mormons should accept truth from wherever it may come from, including science. My revelation (from the Latin, meaning "to unveil") as a Sunday school teacher is not "superior" to the revelation given to the lowly plebeians who listen to me. My office and Priesthood calling certainly do not confer infallibility upon me. The same goes for the Prophet. He's a man with a different calling, but he is still "just" a man (ie, a potential God, as Christ said we all are, male and female alike).

Moses said that he wanted all his people to be Prophets, that they would all have the Spirit poured out on them - as Revelation says, the testimony of Jesus is the Spirit of Prophecy. If we are capable of becoming like the Gods, I think a large part of the process is to learn, to be like Him "that ascended up on high, as also he descended below all things, in that he comprehended all things, that he might be in all and through all things, the light of truth." (D&C 88:6)

It is through God's comprehension of "all things" that he is "in" and "through" them. (We don't believe in an omnipresent God who is everywhere and nowhere at the same time - He is a person with a physical body.) How can we "comprehend" anything if we don't "study it out in our mind" the way Oliver was counseled to? How can we study something in our minds if we don't expose ourselves to information? Moroni 10 says "I exhort you, my brethren, that ye deny not the gifts of God, forthey are many; and they come from the same God. And there are different ways that these gifts are administered; but it is the same God who worketh all in all; and they are given by the manifestations of the Spirit of God unto men, to profit them."

We all have different gifts, including those men and women (those Uncreated Intelligences with Godlike potential) who choose to enter the field of science. If they don't believe in a particular version of God, does that mean their sincere efforts are unaided by revelation?

Not according to the Book of Mormon, which says that God "inviteth them all to come unto him and partake of his goodness; and he denieth none that come unto him, black and white, bond and free, male and female; and he remembereth the heathen; and all are alike unto God, both Jew and Gentile."

Sorry Jeremy, but you are talking to yourself. You are not conducting a dialogue with others, and certainly not me. You ask a question, I answer it, and then you completely ignore my answer and revert back to repeating thing that you have said before over and over again. That is not a proper discussion.

[Nominee]

Jeremy : I didn't catch anything in here I totally disagree with but you still in no way answered my question. And Moses said he wanted all his people to be prophets. We all receive revelation for our personal use and great minds are inspired, I agree! But what is the purpose of the prophet? Is he just a token like the Queen of England? I say no. I don't understand what everyone else's abilities, revelations and inspirations have to do with the authority of a prophet of God. How is it comparable in your mind? Tell me I am making some sense, please, because I hear what you are saying but don't understand how it answers my question.

Add: unless maybe you were in no way attempting to answer my question in which case it makes sense that it doesn't make sense!

Edited January 16, 2012 by Nominee

[katherine the great]

Jeremy : I didn't catch anything in here I totally disagree with but you still in no way answered my question. And Moses said he wanted all his people to be prophets. We all receive revelation for our personal use and great minds are inspired, I agree! But what is the purpose of the prophet? Is he just a token like the Queen of England? I say no. I don't understand what everyone else's abilities, revelations and inspirations have to do with the authority of a prophet of God. How is it comparable in your mind? Tell me I am making some sense, please, because I hear what you are saying but don't understand how it answers my question.

Add: unless maybe you were in no way attempting to answer my question in which case it makes sense that it doesn't make sense!

Perhaps the purpose of the prophet is to speak about spiritual matters that concern our salvation.

[Nominee]

Perhaps the purpose of the prophet is to speak about spiritual matters that concern our salvation.

I understand where you are coming from and thank you for your input. Who determines what is categorized as spiritual matters or determines what concerns our salvation, if not the prophet? After all, God created the world ~ both physical and spiritual. Do not all matters concern our salvation?

[zerinus]

Perhaps the purpose of the prophet is to speak about spiritual matters that concern our salvation.

Except when the two disciplines tend to cross. Sometimes science and religion encroach into each other's territories. God says one thing about creation (or morals, or whatever), and science says something different. That is when religion (especially true religion) reserves the right to clarify the ambiguity by revelation--for the benefit of those who "believe".

[katherine the great]

Except when the two disciplines tend to cross. Sometimes science and religion encroach into each other's territories. God says one thing about creation (or morals, or whatever), and science says something different. That is when religion (especially true religion) reserves the right to clarify the ambiguity by revelation--for the benefit of those who "believe".

The two disciplines? I don't really consider prophecy a discipline. I don't really think that science is particularly interested making proclamations on morals either.

[zerinus]

The two disciplines? I don't really consider prophecy a discipline.

Theology is, and theology is a "discipline" based on revelation.

I don't really think that science is particularly interested making proclamations on morals either.

Well, some "scientists" are. Ultimately, the conflict is not between science and religion, but what certain scientists claim science is teaching or proving. That includes statements about society and morals. I assure you that certain scientists like to pontificate on moral issues--in the name of "science". There are "sciences" that deal with society and the moral behavior, such as sociology and behavioral psychology.

Edited January 16, 2012 by zerinus

[CV75]

The two disciplines? I don't really consider prophecy a discipline. I don't really think that science is particularly interested making proclamations on morals either.

Prophecy is a discipline, as it must be carried out by a disciple.

Some sciences are precisely about making proclamations on morals, for example those schools of philosophy and ethics that use scientific methods to draw conclusions about human nature and determine what is good; the development of history as a science also. It can also be said that the neurosciences and psychology get into the science underlying human morality.

[JeremyOrbe-Smith]

"Prophet" comes from the Greek prophetes, meaning "an interpreter, spokesman," from pro- "before" + root of phanai, "to speak." Prophets are Speakers who have been ordained by the physical laying on of hands by those in authority to Testify of the Life of Christ, who came in the Flesh to show us through the Temple of His body the Template for our own lives, which is the At-one-ment.

They are necessary for the work of the ministry, as Ephesians 4:11 says, "till we all come in a unity of the faith, and of the knowledge of the Son of God unto a perfect man, unto the measure of the stature of Christ." They preach Repentance, as in Jeremiah, and that there is only One Faith and One Baptism, as in Ephesians again - basically, they preach the At-one-ment of all Uncreated Intelligences in whatever words they can.

They Speak for Peace, as Jeremiah 28:9 says - "the prophet which prophesieth [ie, before-speaks] of peace, when the word of the prophet shall come to pass, then shall the prophet be known, that the Lord hath truly sent him." They have witnesses to claimed miracles, such as Joseph Smith and the witnesses to the Translation and the Angel. They teach that we must pray, as in James 1:5.

They are the caretakers of the ordinances which provide context-setting knowledge of the Lord's Covenant of Salvation. They lead as willing examples, rather than for "filthy lucre." They acknowledge that they are people "of passion," as Acts 14:15 says, and sin like the rest of us, as 1 John 1:8 says ("If we say that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us.) As Matthew says, "by their fruits ye shall know them."

They're also products of their time and place just like we all are - Paul quoted Greek poets and Uchtdorf paraphrased Willy Wonka. They get their truth "line upon line, precept upon precept" like every human; they have to study "the best books" to read those lines. They're trying to edify others according to, as McConkie said, whatever "limited understanding" and whatever "light and knowledge that now has come into the world." 1 Corinthians 14:3 says "He that prophesieth speaketh unto men to edification, and exhortation, and comfort. He that speaketh in an unknown tongue edifieth himself; but he that prophesieth edifieth the church." So they will look to edify, comfort, and uplift the Church body by their testimony of the Plan of Salvation.

Joseph Smith and Brigham Young probably believed that there were men living on the moon. I'm reasonably sure that President Monson doesn't have a degree in astrophysics. I can sustain them all without believing every word they speak is inspired. Most especially, I cannot turn my Agency over to them while trying to claim a rank among intelligent beings. Joseph Smith chastised some of his followers, saying that "they were depending on the Prophet, hence were darkened in their minds, in consequence of neglecting the duties devolving upon themselves." (Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith)

As Brigham Young said:

"What a pity it would be, if we were led by one man to utter destruction! Are you afraid of this? I am more afraid that this people have so much confidence in their leaders that they will not inquire for themselves of God whether they are led by him. I am fearful they settle down in a state of blind self-security, trusting their eternal destiny in the hands of their leaders with a reckless confidence that in itself would thwart the purposes of God in their salvation, and weaken the influence they could give to their leaders, did they know for themselves, by the revelations of Jesus, that they are led in the right way. Let every man and woman know, themselves, whether their leaders are walking in the path the Lord dictates, or not. This has been my exhortation continually." (JD 9:150)

"I do not wish any Latter-day Saint in this world, nor in heaven, to be satisfied with anything I do, unless the Spirit of the Lord Jesus Christ, the spirit of revelation, makes them satisfied [...] Suppose that the people were heedless, that they manifested no concern with regard to the things of the kingdom of God, but threw the whole burden upon the leaders of the people, saying, 'If the brethren who take charge of matters are satisfied, we are,' this is not pleasing in the sight of the Lord." (JD 3:45)

"Those men, or those women, who know no more about the power of God, and the influences of the Holy Spirit, than to be led entirely by another person, suspending their own understanding, and pinning their faith upon another's sleeve, will never be capable of entering into the celestial glory, to be crowned as they anticipate; they will never be capable of becoming Gods. They cannot rule themselves, to say nothing of ruling others, but they must be dictated to in every trifle, like a child. They cannot control themselves in the least, but James, Peter, or somebody else must control them. They never can become Gods, nor be crowned as rulers with glory, immortality, and eternal lives. They never can hold sceptres of glory, majesty, and power in the celestial kingdom. Who will? Those who are valiant and inspired with the true independence of heaven, who will go forth boldly in the service of their God, leaving others to do as they please, determined to do right." (JD 1:312)

(Just as Gods can be male or female, as Brigham testifies, so too can Prophets, as we know from the testimony of "Miriam the prophetess" (Exodus 15:20), "Deborah, a prophetess" (Judges 4:4), "Huldah the prophetess" (2 Chronicles 34:22), "Anna, a prophetess" (Luke 2:36), and the "four daughters" of Philip the evangelist, "virgins, which did prophesy (Acts 21). Eliza R. Snow was called a Prophetess among the early Mormons.

Basically, I believe Prophets are those who preach the Revealed Religion, which is "on earth peace, [&] good will toward men." (Luke 2:14)

Edited January 16, 2012 by JeremyOrbe-Smith

[dtorge26]

No, I am not "reinventing" evolution. Evolution deals with environment, it is not a singular intractible movement in one direction. If a species controls its environment, what then becomes of evolution? Will it enter a distinct phase away from the creation phase? Did you think of that? Perhaps you should think on it a while.

And its not just the control of environment which is going to change evolution forever. Consider that we have mapped our our own genome, and are beginning to understand how each gene affects our form. Once willful gene manipulation starts, the whole evolution game changes rather dramatically.

[Nominee]

Jeremy:

Thanks, seriously. You have answered my question. I still want to talk about some older prophets (okay, just Isaiah) but out of respect for the thread, not here. Maybe soon we can bust out the google docs again?

Oh, I do have one more question though~ if many are prophets, why do we recognize only one? Are you saying it's for organizational purposes? Didn't God establish his church in that manner from the beginning? One prophet?

Add: I want to clarify, I understand that all can prophesy but only one is prophet.

Edited January 16, 2012 by Nominee

[katherine the great]

I understand where you are coming from and thank you for your input. Who determines what is categorized as spiritual matters or determines what concerns our salvation, if not the prophet? After all, God created the world ~ both physical and spiritual. Do not all matters concern our salvation?

Apparently not since all of the great scientific discoveries have been made by scientists and not prophets. I think Prophets are uniquely suited to speak to spiritual matters, and direct us how to lead our lives in line with the Lord's will.

[katherine the great]

Prophecy is a discipline, as it must be carried out by a disciple.

Some sciences are precisely about making proclamations on morals, for example those schools of philosophy and ethics that use scientific methods to draw conclusions about human nature and determine what is good; the development of history as a science also. It can also be said that the neurosciences and psychology get into the science underlying human morality.

Fair enough.

[zerinus]

Apparently not since all of the great scientific discoveries have been made by scientists and not prophets. I think Prophets are uniquely suited to speak to spiritual matters, and direct us how to lead our lives in line with the Lord's will.

So what happens when scientists make pronouncements, in the name of science, which are in conflict with "the Lord's will"?

[Nominee]

Apparently not since all of the great scientific discoveries have been made by scientists and not prophets. I think Prophets are uniquely suited to speak to spiritual matters, and direct us how to lead our lives in line with the Lord's will.

Hmmm. It is too difficult for me to separate science and religion like that. I just don't see it that way. I believe that somehow they work together in harmony but I also believe that science answers to God. I appreciate the food for thought.

[Jeff K.]

So what happens when scientists make pronouncements, in the name of science, which are in conflict with "the Lord's will"?

That is a good question. Science by its nature is amoral but can make pronouncements against moral action. I would point to how scientists were in favor of euthanasia for those they believed to be weak in the early 20th century. I would not accept the action science suggests if it goes against morality and doing what is right. If science has a theory that seems to go against God, and makes such pronouncements, I will wait until it corrects itself, and not agree with it.

I don't see the idea of evolution doing that.

[katherine the great]

So what happens when scientists make pronouncements, in the name of science, which are in conflict with "the Lord's will"?

Why would the Lord be upset by science? Science is self correcting and if a scientist makes a "pronouncement" that turns out to be wrong, peer review and further research will correct the error.

[ERayR]

What I don't understand is why we so often assume that people like Darwin weren't inspired. He popularized his phylogenetic theory with the common religious image of the Tree of Life, fer cryin' out loud. He was agnostic about Post-Apostasy Christianity's version of God. Who knows what he would have believed if he'd been exposed to Joseph Smith's later thought? (especially the King Follett discourse, in which Intelligence exists upon a self-existent principle, there is no creation about it, God could not create Himself or the other Intelligences He found Himself in the midst of, and He once dwelt on another world like this earth.)

Darwin, 1872:

Book of Mormon, 1830:

I know, I know - the first quote is likening the tree to the species, whereas the second is likening it to a particular (hairless primate) family. Darwin didn't know the Vineyard was being watched. But still.

...

Revelation is revelation. Truth is truth. See all bazillion of my Brigham quotes earlier in the thread emphasizing how Mormons should accept truth from wherever it may come from, including science. My revelation (from the Latin, meaning "to unveil") as a Sunday school teacher is not "superior" to the revelation given to the lowly plebeians who listen to me. My office and Priesthood calling certainly do not confer infallibility upon me. The same goes for the Prophet. He's a man with a different calling, but he is still "just" a man (ie, a potential God, as Christ said we all are, male and female alike).

Moses said that he wanted all his people to be Prophets, that they would all have the Spirit poured out on them - as Revelation says, the testimony of Jesus is the Spirit of Prophecy. If we are capable of becoming like the Gods, I think a large part of the process is to learn, to be like Him "that ascended up on high, as also he descended below all things, in that he comprehended all things, that he might be in all and through all things, the light of truth." (D&C 88:6)

It is through God's comprehension of "all things" that he is "in" and "through" them. (We don't believe in an omnipresent God who is everywhere and nowhere at the same time - He is a person with a physical body.) How can we "comprehend" anything if we don't "study it out in our mind" the way Oliver was counseled to? How can we study something in our minds if we don't expose ourselves to information? Moroni 10 says "I exhort you, my brethren, that ye deny not the gifts of God, for they are many; and they come from the same God. And there are different ways that these gifts are administered; but it is the same God who worketh all in all; and they are given by the manifestations of the Spirit of God unto men, to profit them."

We all have different gifts, including those men and women (those Uncreated Intelligences with Godlike potential) who choose to enter the field of science. If they don't believe in a particular version of God, does that mean their sincere efforts to comprehend and study "all things" out in their minds are unaided by revelation?

Not according to the Book of Mormon, which says that God "inviteth them all to come unto him and partake of his goodness; and he denieth none that come unto him, black and white, bond and free, male and female; and he remembereth the heathen; and all are alike unto God, both Jew and Gentile."

There is only one thing wrong, macro evolution negates the doctrine of the fall and along with it the doctrine of the atonement of Jesus Christ.

[JeremyOrbe-Smith]

The only distinction between "macro" and "micro" evolution is a linguistic one. The At-one-ment of all Uncreated Intelligences ("the glory which thou gavest me I have given them; that they may be one, even as we are one") can take place regardless of how our mortal bodies were organized from preexisting element.

Edit: This, by the way, is a good general-introduction-video which bears repeating:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vss1VKN2rf8

Edited January 16, 2012 by JeremyOrbe-Smith

[Calm]

Horrified because you sincerely believe man evolved from a lower species?

Considering how our bodies today are the result of organizing elements we received from our consumption of "lower species", why is it such a big deal that God might choose to organize the form of our bodies by taking it step by step through various forms before arriving at our final form? Are we somehow tainted because our day to day lives depend on "lower species"? If not, then why would we be tainted because our original existence was a result of God using lower forms to organize us?

Edited January 16, 2012 by calmoriah

[zerinus]

Why would the Lord be upset by science? Science is self correcting and if a scientist makes a "pronouncement" that turns out to be wrong, peer review and further research will correct the error.

The Lord isn't "upset" by science. But when science, or I should say certain "scientists," make statements supposedly based on science which is at variance with revealed truth, and Church members query it in good faith, the Lord reserves the right to enlighten them on the subject by revelation according to their faith. Or if such "scientific" pronouncements cause controversy and discord in the Church among those whose faith is weak, such revelatory adjustments may be necessary in order to put an end to the controversy. Such revelatory adjustments may also be necessary in order to avoid harm to the Church which might otherwise be caused as a result of such incorrect "scientific" opinion. For example, in the days of Joseph Smith, the perceived wisdom of the day (scientific opinion if you like) was that tobacco was good for you. Now we know that it isn't. So the Lord, rather than wait for 150 years for science to "correct itself," chose to protect the Church by a revelatory warning from the harm that might have otherwise been done.

[zerinus]

Considering how our bodies today are the result of organizing elements we received from our consumption of "lower species", why is it such a big deal that God might choose to organize the form of our bodies by taking it step by step through various forms before arriving at our final form? Are we somehow tainted because our day to day lives depend on "lower species"? If not, then why would we be tainted because our original existence was a result of God using lower forms to organize us?

It is not a question of whether it is a "big deal" or not; it is a question of whether it is true or not.

[Calm]

It is not a question of whether it is a "big deal" or not; it is a question of whether it is true or not.

For you perhaps, but my comment was not directed specifically to you. Some (especially historically speaking) see it as degrading humans to describe them as coming from "monkeys" or from scum on a pond, etc. I have never understood why they are offended by that idea and yet not offended by the idea that man is described as being made from "dust" (I am talking about nonLDS as well as LDS).

Edited January 16, 2012 by calmoriah