Jeff K. Posted January 17, 2012 Posted January 17, 2012 The counter argument is that both scripture and doctrine do not disallow evolution, but one may interpret them to exclude evolution. However, one may also interpret them to allow for evolution.
katherine the great Posted January 17, 2012 Posted January 17, 2012 The Genesis decree of species propagating only of "their own kind" I believe excludes evolutionary change as well. It not only precludes dogs giving births to cats, but of dogs morphing into cats over many million years of evolutionary change.Dogs never morphed in to cats. They do not share a common ancestor that was either a dog or a cat.
CV75 Posted January 17, 2012 Posted January 17, 2012 Evolution needn't be specifically 'organic' in nature. The concept can be applied to any persistant object which is subject to change over time. This would include spiritual things and ideas as well. God and His plan of salvation may very well be the product of evolution which has spanned over timescales much longer than we can comprehend!I can see that point of view, but I think the thread is focusing on organic evolution as the science currently defines it. And while I understand the point of view in that things are changing all the time, eternal progression seems to be more a function of the same person being “added upon” in the strength or degree of the attributes of Godliness (spiritual and physical), which does not seem to entail increasing in physical complexity.
CV75 Posted January 17, 2012 Posted January 17, 2012 Okay, this is just way too ethereal and philosophical for me. I don't understand what you are saying.Sorry about that, maybe it’s too personal a rumination to be able to explain adequately! I’ll give it one more shot, but it will probably end up being too verbose:From D&C 88, one of the attributes of God is that He comprehends all things, that he might be in all and through all things. He is in all things, and the light of all things, and the power thereof by which all things were made. His is the light which is in all things, which gives life to all things, which is the law by which all things are governed. He is in the bosom of eternity, in the midst of all things. If He were to ever fail for an instant in His godliness, all things connected with Him would cease to exist.Man, created in this image, shares these attributes, however latent they may be. Man held them in the pre-mortal state and governed by delegation the rest of spiritual creation. Adam (and presumably others), under the direction of Christ, assisted in the Creation, and through Adam continued to govern in Paradise in the same way. When Adam fell, the rest of creation followed suit because of this attribute. In mortality, the Earth and everything in it suffers degradation and pollutions because of man’s poor exercise of godly attributes.This is why I think of man as more than an isolated organism, the head of a much larger and dependent living system, like God is. I view this association as so perfect that no one or nothing can be made perfect without the other parts being made perfect. This is why the inheritance of all eternal things remains with those people who can manage it, and the rest lose such inheritance.This is also why I can’t think of man or any other form of life evolving independently along their various branches into their modern forms. All life is tied to man, and all life existed before, in the same relationship with him.Since man in his various estates co-exists with God, there is no natural selection for his formation at any stage (then or now or in the future). Eternal progression seems to be more a function of the same person being “added upon” in the strength or degree of the attributes of Godliness described above (spiritual and physical), which does not seem to entail an increase in physical/organic complexity. This is what I get when the First Presidency speaks of “whether we take this [the doctrine that “all men were created in the beginning after the image of God” ] to mean the spirit or the body, or both”].I do see natural selection operating in genetic diversity and variability to allow for survival and beauty in a fallen world. I have no trouble with our ability to use these principles to alter organisms, though the outcomes may be questionable.
CV75 Posted January 17, 2012 Posted January 17, 2012 The counter argument is that both scripture and doctrine do not disallow evolution, but one may interpret them to exclude evolution. However, one may also interpret them to allow for evolution.I agree with this -- I'm just finding more reasons to give the First Presidency statements more weight (other than they've just got to be right, considering who they are!)...
thesometimesaint Posted January 17, 2012 Posted January 17, 2012 (edited) KtG:Go back far enough and everything has a common ancestor even dogs and cats.http://www.scientifi...32752A3D3E23B03Ps; Thanx for the update on homo sapiens neanderthalis and us. Edited January 17, 2012 by thesometimesaint
Rob Osborn Posted January 17, 2012 Posted January 17, 2012 For me, the hardest obstacles evolution has to jump over is "man" being the seed of God. In LDS doctrine, one of the whole reasons we become eternally married is to pass our "seed" along forever. Mans geneology is traced back to Adam and from Adam directly to God. Thus, we all are the seed of God.I also find it rather strange that many LDS who also believe in evolution do so in the typical Darwinian evolutionary model which of course excludes a Creator. Isn't that a contradiction of belief? Paramount to LDS doctrine is the absolute belief that we believe in the creation and that Jesus, amongst others, are the Creators of which without, no creation would had ever been possible. 1
thesometimesaint Posted January 17, 2012 Posted January 17, 2012 Rob Osborn:As scientists are of every faith(including LDS), and no faith. It is irrelevent what they individually believe. One can believe that men live on the surface of the sun, as did Brigham Young, and still be a faithful member of the Church; as well as those that don't believe that men live on the surface of the sun, as virtually every living LDS does now.For me Evolution is the explanation of HOW God did it, and the Scriptures are the explanation of WHY God did it.
zerinus Posted January 17, 2012 Posted January 17, 2012 Dogs never morphed in to cats. They do not share a common ancestor that was either a dog or a cat.You know what I mean.
zerinus Posted January 17, 2012 Posted January 17, 2012 The counter argument is that both scripture and doctrine do not disallow evolution, but one may interpret them to exclude evolution. However, one may also interpret them to allow for evolution.I believe scripture disallows Evolution. 1
Senator Posted January 17, 2012 Posted January 17, 2012 . Mans geneology is traced back to Adam and from Adam directly to God. Can you demonstrate scriptually Adam's physical geneology back to God?As far as I can tell, the scriptures trace his physical geneology to........the dust of the earth.
thesometimesaint Posted January 17, 2012 Posted January 17, 2012 zerinus:You can believe anything you want, but evolution is a fact.
zerinus Posted January 17, 2012 Posted January 17, 2012 For me, the hardest obstacles evolution has to jump over is "man" being the seed of God. In LDS doctrine, one of the whole reasons we become eternally married is to pass our "seed" along forever. Mans geneology is traced back to Adam and from Adam directly to God. Thus, we all are the seed of God.I also find it rather strange that many LDS who also believe in evolution do so in the typical Darwinian evolutionary model which of course excludes a Creator. Isn't that a contradiction of belief? Paramount to LDS doctrine is the absolute belief that we believe in the creation and that Jesus, amongst others, are the Creators of which without, no creation would had ever been possible.I agree.
altersteve Posted January 17, 2012 Posted January 17, 2012 zerinus:You can believe anything you want, but evolution is a fact.+1
zerinus Posted January 17, 2012 Posted January 17, 2012 Rob Osborn:As scientists are of every faith(including LDS), and no faith. It is irrelevent what they individually believe. One can believe that men live on the surface of the sun, as did Brigham Young, and still be a faithful member of the Church; as well as those that don't believe that men live on the surface of the sun, as virtually every living LDS does now.For me Evolution is the explanation of HOW God did it, and the Scriptures are the explanation of WHY God did it.Scripture is the explanation of HOW as well as WHY.zerinus:You can believe anything you want, but evolution is a fact.Evolution is not a fact.
thesometimesaint Posted January 17, 2012 Posted January 17, 2012 http://nationalacademies.org/evolution/http://mormonscholarstestify.org/
zerinus Posted January 17, 2012 Posted January 17, 2012 (edited) Can you demonstrate scriptually Adam's physical geneology back to God?As far as I can tell, the scriptures trace his physical geneology to........the dust of the earth.Wrong. It traces it to God:Luke 3:36 Which was the son of Cainan, which was the son of Arphaxad, which was the son of Sem, which was the son of Noe, which was the son of Lamech,37 Which was the son of Mathusala, which was the son of Enoch, which was the son of Jared, which was the son of Maleleel, which was the son of Cainan,38 Which was the son of Enos, which was the son of Seth, which was the son of Adam, which was the son of God. Edited January 17, 2012 by zerinus
zerinus Posted January 17, 2012 Posted January 17, 2012 http://nationalacade....org/evolution/http://mormonscholarstestify.org/What do you want me to do about that?
thesometimesaint Posted January 17, 2012 Posted January 17, 2012 zerinus:Easy to Read; Easy to Understand; Easy to Impliment.
Senator Posted January 17, 2012 Posted January 17, 2012 Wrong. It traces it to God:Luke 3:36 Which was the son of Cainan, which was the son of Arphaxad, which was the son of Sem, which was the son of Noe, which was the son of Lamech,37 Which was the son of Mathusala, which was the son of Enoch, which was the son of Jared, which was the son of Maleleel, which was the son of Cainan,38 Which was the son of Enos, which was the son of Seth, which was the son of Adam, which was the son of God.Great! Thank you for the scriptural demonstration.Now the task before us is to interpret what is meant by Adam being a Son of God. You and I are both considered sons/and or daudghters of God. Yet, our physical bodies are fashioned/created from the elements of the earth.
zerinus Posted January 17, 2012 Posted January 17, 2012 Great! Thank you for the scriptural demonstration.Now the task before us is to interpret what is meant by Adam being a Son of God. You and I are both considered sons/and or daudghters of God. Yet, our physical bodies are fashioned/created from the elements of the earth.Which proves what?
zerinus Posted January 17, 2012 Posted January 17, 2012 zerinus:Easy to Read; Easy to Understand; Easy to Impliment.And irrelevant to what we are talking about.
JeremyOrbe-Smith Posted January 17, 2012 Posted January 17, 2012 How can Adam be a "Son" of God in a physical, procreative way if he was "formed of the Dust"? Far more reasonable to believe that as an Uncreated Intelligence he was Adopted through the Covenant. God is not the physical "father" of our bodies. Neither is Abraham. Yet we call them both "father" because we have been Adopted into their family.
Senator Posted January 17, 2012 Posted January 17, 2012 (edited) Which proves what?That terminology in scripture may not be taken as literal as might think.So which is it Z, was Adam raised up "out of the dust" which could then fully incorporate an evolutionary process; or was he born of a Divine Parent, like what B. Young suggests?Aren't the scriptures fun? Edited January 17, 2012 by Senator
zerinus Posted January 17, 2012 Posted January 17, 2012 How can Adam be a "Son" of God in a physical, procreative way if he was "formed of the Dust"?I did not make a statement about any of those things. All I am saying is that the scripture identifies Adam as the son of God, in the same way that Seth is identified as the son of Adam.Far more reasonable to believe that as an Uncreated Intelligence he was Adopted through the Covenant. God is not the physical "father" of our bodies. Neither is Abraham. Yet we call them both "father" because we have been Adopted into their family.You are now inventing your own theology, which no one else has any obligation to accept.
Recommended Posts