Evolution And Varying Reconciliation Theories

[JeremyOrbe-Smith]

Personally, my view is that understanding Genesis as a word-perfect textbook on How To Populate A World -- as some are wont to do -- is problematic for me, and I don't feel any particular obligation to accept things that I don't understand. Now, I could try to find ways to justify a very "literal" reading, but I just don't think that searching for a way that the mitochondria in Adam's rib could be used to parthenogenetically clone Eve is what the writers of the story were hoping their audience would focus on. Snakes don't possess the vocal capacity to persuade featherless bipedal primates to eat a particular fruit, and there is no instruction manual telling us when to stop taking these things literally.

ERayR's post above mine (and now cinepro's) is a perfect example of this phenomenon: "descent" and "ascent", when used to describe evolutionary processes, are completely metaphorical; organisms do not literally elevate themselves during their "ascent" from unicellular to multicellular structures. Indeed, we just as often use the term descent to describe the Origin of Man as we "descend" from earlier primates! Since there is no objective "up" or "down" in space, then the "Fall" from the premortal sphere to this world could just as easily be described as the "Flight" if we viewed Heaven as "below" this planet.

I have never understood why this is a problem. There is still room for an At-One-Ment even if the "introduction of death" was actually our Uncreated Intelligences being breathed into our mortal primate bodies. Again, it was a literal event that we were in the presence of God and came to inhabit our current bodies; how we express that can be entirely metaphorical. We "Fall" into our current bodies, most of which die unless we are changed "in a twinkling". We are Reconciled in the Resurrection by being brought back into the sphere where our Heavenly Family dwells; we are reunited and able to become At-One again. It's all still relevant, and there's plenty of space left for evolution.

Edited April 20, 2012 by JeremyOrbe-Smith

[ERayR]

ERayR's post above mine (and now cinepro's) is a perfect example of this phenomenon: "descent" and "ascent", when used to describe evolutionary processes, are completely metaphorical; organisms do not literally elevate themselves during their "ascent" from unicellular to multicellular structures. Indeed, we just as often use the term descent to describe the Origin of Man as we "descend" from earlier primates! Since there is no objective "up" or "down" in space, then the "Fall" from the premortal sphere to this world could just as easily be described as the "Flight" if we viewed Heaven as "below" this planet.

I have never understood why this is a problem. There is still room for an At-One-Ment even if the "introduction of death" was actually our Uncreated Intelligences being breathed into our mortal primate bodies. Again, it was a literal event that we were in the presence of God and came to inhabit our current bodies; how we express that can be entirely metaphorical. We "Fall" into our current bodies, most of which die unless we are changed "in a twinkling". We are Reconciled in the Resurrection by being brought back into the sphere where our Heavenly Family dwells; we are reunited and able to become At-One again. It's all still relevant, and there's plenty of space left for evolution.

They may be metaphorical in an evolutionary context but IMO for one to leave the glory of God to partake of mortality is definatly a fall and not a metaphorical one, but a very real fall. One other thing, for a God who is physical, and LDS doctrine is that he is an exalted man, that we are in his image, why would he need to need to evolve a form that he already had on countless other worlds? Just a thought.

Edited April 20, 2012 by ERayR

[shalamabobbi]

why would he need to need to evolve a form that he already had on countless other worlds? Just a thought.

Interdependance of life forms. For example we would not be alive without literally being a union of distinct organisms. I am speaking of the microbes that live within our digestive tract.

In theory if two worlds were to be created side by side and evolve indepedently from one another, it might be lethal to transplant a lifeform from one into the other.

http://www.google.com/#hl=en&output=search&sclient=psy-ab&q=how+many+bacteria+live+in+the+human+body&oq=how+many+microbes+live+within+the+human+body&aq=0q&aqi=g-q1&aql=&gs_nf=1&gs_l=hp.1.0.0i22.2646.14463.0.18067.44.40.0.4.4.0.263.8056.0j16j24.44.0.kGN6fc9BRu4&pbx=1&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.r_qf.,cf.osb&fp=6da3e81fc300790e

Who was it that posted the quote from Brigham Young about the account in Genesis being baby stories? I think it was Calmoriah. Maybe she could dig that up for us again.

Incidentally the thread topic is reconciliations with evolution not evolution per se. I think most of the posters have heard the literal argument based on strict scripture interpretation and don't need or desire to hear it repeated ad nauseam..

[CV75]

various ways one reconciles Evolution with the fall and the gospel along with the church and it's theology.

To the extent the scriptural account is not figurative, I limit the application of Darwinian Evolution in practice, time and place: that while all species undergo some natural selection, it only applies after the Fall. Not all beings die or resurrect at once, so not all life left the Garden of Eden at once. If Adam were the last to go, his offspring would be the least affected by natural selection. The other “hominids” were either already in their nascent form in the garden, departing between long intervals (accounting for the time it took to lay down the fossil record in a certain sequence), or left early enough to evolve through natural selection and thereby account for the time it took to establish the fossil record.

#1, The fossil record shows changes in a species over time, but this can be accounted by a sequential departure and extinction of one species after another out of the Garden of Eden. Just as not all die or resurrect at the same time, not all left the Garden of Eden at the same time. Just as Noah was the last to enter the ark, and Adam was the last to enter the Garden of Eden, Adam and Eve were the last to enter the fallen world (and according to scripture, only 6,000 years ago).

#2, The chemical and anatomical similarities between life forms does not always mean that they are genealogically related (which they are in the cases of comments #3 and #4), but it means that there are only so many elements – six (6) – necessary for the creation of life in all its forms on this planet (in line with comment #1).

#3, Unique biotic environments resulting from natural selection in isolation still allow for Homo sapiens’s appearance into or exclusion from any of those environments at any stage, and he did not have to evolve from lower life forms within them (in line with comment #1).

#4, The easily-observed population genetic changes over many generations that come and go (such as surviving immune bacteria giving rise to the next drug-resistant form after a massive antibiotic-induced die-off) still allow for Homo sapiens to appear in relatively recent history and therefore display natural selection only to the point of diversifying into various “races” (in line with comment #1).

#5, Mutation accounts for even fewer of the changes than natural selection.

An additional thought comes from our being created in God’s image, which would include the attributes listed in D&C 88 (in all and through all things, the light of truth; …in the sun [and moon and stars and the earth], and the light and the power …by which [they were] made. ...in all things, which giveth life to all things, which is the law by which all things are governed, even the power of God who sitteth upon his throne, who is in the bosom of eternity, who is in the midst of all things.” Man likewise had dominion in the Garden of Eden and on the earth. This is why Adam was allowed to participate in the Creation of all things pertaining to us; why all things fell when he did; and why the earth and all life in it suffers for man’s wickedness (Moses 7:48; Jeremiah 3:2).

[Log]

Who was it that posted the quote from Brigham Young about the account in Genesis being baby stories? I think it was Calmoriah. Maybe she could dig that up for us again.

“You believe Adam was made of the dust of this earth. This I do not believe, though it is supposed that it is so written in the Bible; but it is not, to my understanding. . . . I do not believe that portion of the Bible as the Christian world do. I never did, and I never want to. What is the reason I do not? Because I have come to understanding, and banished from my mind all the baby stories my mother taught me when I was a child.”

I guarantee you what Brigham is alluding to is in no sense compatible with the evolutionary hypothesis; he was quite forthright on that subject as well.

Edited April 20, 2012 by Log

[David T]

“You believe Adam was made of the dust of this earth. This I do not believe, though it is supposed that it is so written in the Bible; but it is not, to my understanding. . . . I do not believe that portion of the Bible as the Christian world do. I never did, and I never want to. What is the reason I do not? Because I have come to understanding, and banished from my mind all the baby stories my mother taught me when I was a child.”

I guarantee you what Brigham is alluding to is in no sense compatible with the evolutionary hypothesis; he was quite forthright on that subject as well.

Of course he wasn't, but that's not the point. The point being made was, he was solidly open to an understanding of the record as being something that didn't need to be strictly adhered to when it came to ascertaining what historically might have happened.

I think the road BY went down was ultimately incorrect, but I give him massive credit for being willing to explore, and embrace the wide world of possibilities Mormonism allows.

[Log]

Then there's no sense even bringing Brigham up, is there? After all, anybody who doesn't believe the scriptures as they actually read is "solidly open to an understanding of the record as being something that doesn't need to be strictly adhered to when it comes to ascertaining what historically might have happened," potentially with regards not only to Creation, but such tidbits as the Incarnation / Condescension, the Resurrection, any account of miracles, and so forth. Brigham, by his own account, had revelatory grounds for his understanding.

So, draw your line in the sand wherever you feel most comfortable.

Edited April 20, 2012 by Log

[DBMormon]

To me reconciling macro-evolution has several small problems but two major ones. They are reconciling "fall". A fall is a decent and evolution is an ascension from the primitive. to me just the opposite. The other is the big one and that is if there was no fall then the atonement is negated. No fall, no need of an atonement.

What if the light of christ was only given from Adam and Eve on... then the fall can be brought back as a realistic event. Without sin there can be no fall.... sin occurs once we have the light of christ and still give into the natural man

Edited April 20, 2012 by reelmormon

[cinepro]

What if the light of christ was only given from Adam and Eve on... then the fall can be brought back as a realistic event. Without sin there can be no fall.... sin occurs once we have the light of christ and still give into the natural man

What if Genesis is an allegorical myth, and every other mention of Adam and Eve we have in the scriptures, Temple and from Church leaders stems from a mistaken literal understanding of this myth, but the Church is still true?

Edited April 20, 2012 by cinepro

[Log]

What if Genesis is an allegorical myth, and every other mention of Adam and Eve we have in the scriptures, Temple and from Church leaders stems from a mistaken literal understanding of this myth, but the Church is still true?

Why stop at Adam and Eve? What if the scriptures are a collection of allegorical myths, not excepting Jesus, the Atonement, the Resurrection - everything, really - and all of our teachings spring from a mistaken literal understanding of these myths, but the Church is still true?

Edited April 20, 2012 by Log

[David T]

What if Genesis is an allegorical myth, and every other mention of Adam and Eve we have in the scriptures, Temple and from Church leaders stems from a mistaken literal understanding of this myth, but the Church is still true?

If the story was originally part of a didactic Temple Drama of loss and restoration, doesn't putting it back in its place - in an enhanced form - as a participatory play/drama in the Temple actually demonstrably show it's universally applicable moral-drama context?

Edited April 20, 2012 by David T

[Nomad]

The see the Fall as personal.

Everyone began in the presence of God, in a state where they could not die, and could not progress.

Everyone made a choice to fall/enter into a mortal body.

Everybody made choices that would cause them to fall/separate from the ultimate will and desires of God.

Everyone should look to Jesus Christ as the example and enabler to return to Unity with God (Atonement).

I don't require God to have caused or directed evolution. I see him finding this world and the devleoping life upon it which was developed through natural processes, declaring it good and suitable, and then using the bodies of developed homosapiens as a proper host to begin a symbiotic relationship with eternal intelligences that were prepared and able to move on to a next stage of development and learning and experience.

But placing his 'children' here, he thus created an exalted purpose for this planet, and all life on it became re-purposed in the context of this plan for development. You could very truly say we participated in the 'creation', because it was our presence that made it a Creation!

We can regard the first homo-sapien/child of God combo as an 'Adam', but I view the story as being better applied - and far more useful - to the vision of Everyman/woman than limited to the detailed life events of some prehistoric figure.

I don't see how most of your ideas can be reconciled with fundamental gospel truths such as:

Adam and Eve were created in the express image of God. If God already had a body like ours (like when he showed himself to the brother of Jared) then what possible reason would there be for "evolving" life to get to a point where it was like God already is? It makes no sense to me that he would go about things in that way.

There are lots of other problems I see with your post, but I think I'll just start with that one.

Edited April 20, 2012 by Nomad

[Log]

I don't see how most of your ideas can be reconciled with fundamental gospel truths such as:

Adam and Eve were created in the express image of God. If God already had a body like ours (like when he showed himself to the brother of Jared) then what possible reason would there be for "evolving" life to get to a point where it was like God already is? It makes no sense to me that he would go about things in that way.

There are lots of other problems I see with your post, but I think I'll just start with that one.

That's because no particular statement in the scriptures is true, of course. Whenever scripture contradicts science, it is universally scripture that gives way. Thus, reconciliation typically takes the form of rejecting the content of the scriptures, while maybe carrying the book around for looks.

Edited April 20, 2012 by Log

[David T]

Why stop at Adam and Eve? What if the scriptures are a collection of allegorical myths

Next you'll be telling me the Psalms aren't a literal history book either.

In all seriousness, though - genre is incredibly important to take into interpretive consideration. Comparisons with other ancient creation stories, the reasons for their connections and departures, etc are a VERY important part of reading and understanding Genesis as it would have been presented and understood in its ancient near eastern context.

There are books of scripture designed to be read as histories. There are some designed to be read as Founding Myth. There are some designed to be read as satirical historical fiction. There are some to be read as heart-wrenching poetry. There are some designed ot be read as philosophical contemplation. There are some designed to be presented as Exhortations. There are some designed to be regarded as Symbolic Warning. There are some designed to be read as Nationalistic History. There are some designed to be regarded as Testimonials.

[changed]

Many parables have multiple meanings and layers.. we are supposed to liken all the scriptures unto ourselves...

liken all scriptures unto us, that it might be for our profit and learning.(Book of Mormon | 1 Nephi 19:23)

I think the fall really happened, and I think like other scriptures, it can also be likened unto ourselves. I think the fall might have involved being cast out of another sphere...

[David T]

That's because no particular statement in the scriptures is true, of course. Whenever scripture contradicts science, it is universally scripture that gives way. Thus, reconciliation typically takes the form of rejecting the content of the scriptures, while maybe carrying the book around for looks.

That's not called for, nor does it represent how I approach scripture. The condescending mockery isn't appreciated.

[Nomad]

Why stop at Adam and Eve? What if the scriptures are a collection of allegorical myths, not excepting Jesus, the Atonement, the Resurrection - everything, really - and all of our teachings spring from a mistaken literal understanding of these myths, but the Church is still true?

This is exactly why I am so doubtful about this approach to reconciling gospel doctrine with Darwinist dogma. It just won't work. It creates more problems than it resolves. I'm much more inclined to believe that God has the capacity to do things that human scientists just can't explain.

[changed]

... If God already had a body like ours (like when he showed himself to the brother of Jared) then what possible reason would there be for "evolving" life to get to a point where it was like God already is?

the animals were created before humans were... I do think info needs to be added to the system (HGT?) to produce new species...

[David T]

This is exactly why I am so doubtful about this approach to reconciling gospel doctrine with Darwinist dogma. It just won't work. It creates more problems than it resolves. I'm much more inclined to believe that God has the capacity to do things that human scientists just can't explain.

I'm willing to be open to receiving new light based on scientific knowledge (which I view as a form of enlightenment/divine revelation as well), rather than being stuck to explaining the workings of the world the way desert nomads did several thousands of years ago.

If God is a supreme scientist, why are so many of his most devoted followers anti-science? Joseph Smith and Parley Pratt et all tried to merge their gospel understanding with the latest science of their day. At times, these mergings needed to be readjusted. Others have held out quite well. I think the power of Mormonism is its versatility and allowance for further light and knowledge to expand our understanding.

Darwinist Dogma?

Do you not recognize that there are many devoted followers of Jesus Christ and believers in the divine who aknowledge the scientific principles that are observable and understandable in the world today? That this doesn't make them any less faithful than you, or any less devoted ot the Cause of Christ than you, and that can bring just as many souls to Christ as you can - while still allowing that science can teach us things that the scriptures don't?

What causes more problems than solves is creating an 'either or' dichotomy, and condemning those that don't hold to one's particular well-defined 'either'.

Edited April 20, 2012 by David T

[David T]

Either way, can we keep this thread separate from snarky assumptions about the integrity and spirituality of those presenting their thoughts, and keep it to the actual thoughts presented? There's plenty of opportunities for people to share why those who disagree with them must surely love the praises of the world more than God, and have little faith. Let's keep this on track to discussing the practical models, please, and leaving the moral superiority elsewhere. Or else this thread won't be any different from any of the past.

Edited April 20, 2012 by David T

[cinepro]

Why stop at Adam and Eve? What if the scriptures are a collection of allegorical myths, not excepting Jesus, the Atonement, the Resurrection - everything, really - and all of our teachings spring from a mistaken literal understanding of these myths, but the Church is still true?

As long as the Church is still true, I think LDS would be okay with that.

[bu11fr0g]

The problem is that the genetic relationships have been worked out. A single Adam as progrnitor of all himans 6000 years ago is a theory that is disproven. It doesnt mean that it cant be believed but the predictions based on the model have all failed.

[mfbukowski]

Based on what the Church teaches, and the current theory of evolution, I think most "reconciliations" follow this pattern:....

Even though there are serious problems with that sequence of events when compared to the teachings of our latter day Prophets and Apostles, it is the best theorized sequence of events that allows for some semblance of belief in both evolution and LDS doctrines.

Assuming of course as you do, that LDS doctrine attempts to teach science, which of course it doesn't.

Following that logic, we need a picture of God from a rocket to prove his existence.

Somehow I don't think that is what LDS doctrine is trying to do.

[mfbukowski]

I think there has been more than one world on this planet.

One might argue that there are billions of worlds on this planet right now. One for each person. We each organize our own worlds after all, as potential gods and goddesses in embryo. Gotta get the practice somewhere.

But maybe I should not post on this thread anymore. I generally avoid these evolution things. I suppose I make David T look like a literalist!

Oh well- I have a world (view) to work on now.

[mfbukowski]

"For something as foundational as the story of Adam and Eve and the Fall, I don't think you'll find much support for anything other than a totally literal reading."

Meh. David T described pretty much my view of the story as well, so that's two people, at least. It's not even that it's not a "literal" story; it's just that what really did happen is described using less-than-literal language. Nephi's vision of the Tree of Life "really did happen", but the thing that "happened" was that someone was taught a truth wrapped within a metaphor.

Make that three.

But it's probably not worth arguing about. Either you see it or you don't.