Evolution And Varying Reconciliation Theories

[thesometimesaint]

May 14, 1961 - Apostle Joseph Fielding Smith announces to stake conference in Honolulu:

"We will never get a man into space. This earth is man's sphere and it was never intended that he should get away from it."

Smith, the Twelve's president and next in succession as LDS President, adds: "The moon is a superior planet to the earth and it was never intended that man should go there. You can write it down in your books that this will never happen."

The funny part is that after Apollo 15's journey to the moon, the astronaut team brought JFS a Utah State Flag that they had taken with them to the moon. They gave him the flag in 1971 as a token of his "failed prophecy".

Brother Smith was still a good man and I supported him in his role a Apostle and Prophet. But that doesn't mean I have to agree with everything he ever said. LDS do not hold the Apostles of God as infallible

[SamIam]

Samlam,

Please use a word processor to prepare your post then copy and paste. You will not have any issues that way, with the exception of too long a post, which gets rejected.

Better a lot of short posts anyway each addressing a particular point than one long run-on post that likely won't get read by very many.

I actually found the problem. In one of my citations I used the phrase ("as quoted by so and so in such and such...)

I guess that the word quoted was being read by the posting engine and it expected to see an end quote...Now I know...

[SamIam]

An interesting quandry. You link to a "debate" between the brethren and then don't want to "oppose the brethren".

Which of "the brethren" should we support- those in favor of evolution or those opposed?

I don't think it is anyone's desire to "oppose the leaders of the church", at least it is not mine. When they put out an official statement on any of this, will will be the first to salute and jump in line.

In the meantime, we are not supposed to think for ourselves?

I am totally confused.

Edit: I was writing this when the second installment appeared- still not totally sure I get it.

Maybe you could do one quick clarifying post of 25 words or less- just your opinion no quotes- resolving all this so we can tack down where you are coming from?

Well, I'm not clear on what the quandary is. What I find interesting about the text found at the link is the fact that the majority of the conversation between the two appears to be private letters between the two or other close parties. I wasn’t exactly in agreement with Dialogue for constructing the mostly private conversations of two great men in such a way as to encourage sides but when all was said and done they clearly had a winner in their perspective. There is some conference quotes as well but they are perfect and in no way insinuate anything about a debate between the two. However as far as a one stop location for some excellent material on how the discussion goes in higher church environs it is a good piece and that is the primary reason I find the piece helpful at all. I have seen no better piece for getting a dozen quotes speaking to both sides of the debate.

As to which one you should support in the debate … in my opinion this can be a very difficult challenge to express a personal preference without denigrating or disrespecting the individuals. Learn from both of them. When I first encountered that piece a couple of few years ago I did pick up things from both sides. My real hope is that I can live as worthy of the blessings the spirit as either of these men did so that at some time in my future I might be able to resolve the questions they suggest. However, as I stated in an earlier post until I receive revelation and it is taught by the leaders I will let each side present their case and let it be at that. I can’t exactly explain how you as an individual should do that but I felt I did a reasonable job of respecting both of the men in question.

As for thinking for yourself, I think we are both doing that and I’m not being facetious. I tend to sense that you are a very level headed non-extremist that has for a priority to do the right thing. Although I do have trouble telling what side you are on from time to time as well, I can see enough that overall I would give you the benefit of the doubt. I’m going to guess that you desire to feast on the gospel for the right reasons and aren’t here because you aspire to the honors of men but desire deeper insightful conversation than is easily engaged in our local areas for the multitude of reasons that exist.

Also, I’m not bashful about the fact the debate exists – that might be hiding my head in the sand as someone implied I was guilty of which I chalked up trying to insinuate a false association. Also I think by the end of the piece I tried to make it clear what the boundaries are for me personally. Pointing to the piece shouldn’t in my mind identify me as one casting dispersions since I was very careful and sincere in not casting dispersions. I was originally going to use the piece as an example of what I consider the subtle need that academics have to find and magnify and extol any voice that they can to their cause when in fact I felt the author in the Dialogue piece was in error to develop the subtle insinuations in a way that I felt neither of the two men being characterized would have supported. Is that 25 words yet???

[mfbukowski]

Well, I'm not clear on what the quandary is.

Oh sure you are.

As to which one you should support in the debate … in my opinion this can be a very difficult challenge to express a personal preference without denigrating or disrespecting the individuals.

There you go- you found it after all.

As for thinking for yourself, I think we are both doing that and I’m not being facetious.

Good- but what do YOU think?

... in fact I felt the author in the Dialogue piece was in error to develop the subtle insinuations in a way that I felt neither of the two men being characterized would have supported.

Yep, that's the "quandry". But what do you think?

Is that 25 words yet???

Maybe a tad more, but you still haven't told me what you think about evolution.

[JeremyOrbe-Smith]

[thesometimesaint]

Dup

Edited April 24, 2012 by thesometimesaint

[thesometimesaint]

[shalamabobbi]

4. Rejection of evolution in preference to the truth of the Gospel. Unlike any of the previous three, refusing to mingle the philosophies of men with scripture leaves its adherent wide open to the scorn and mockery of both his co-religionists and the secular academic / scientific community.

Yes, and for good reason:

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2010/05/100506-science-neanderthals-humans-mated-interbred-dna-gene/

http://news.discovery.com/human/genetics-neanderthal-110718.html

http://humanorigins.si.edu/evidence/genetics/ancient-dna-and-neanderthals

http://www.npr.org/2010/12/28/132243863/2010-a-good-year-for-neanderthals-and-dna

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/denisova.html

I have one small quibble in this reply to Jeremy. Item 4 left out the necessary accompanying denial of reality..

ZAIUS

(quietly)

Fetch your explosives. We're going

to seal the cave.

MARCUS

Yes, sir.

He remounts his horse and rides o.s.

CORNELIUS

(aghast)

Seal the cave?

ZAIUS

That's correct. And you will both stand

trial for heresy.

ZIRA

But the proof? The doll?

ZAIUS

In a few minutes there will be no doll.

There can't be.

(honest regret)

I'm sorry.

[bcuzbcuz]

There is evolution(micro-evolution) that adapts to change, which includes engineered change (selective breeding of animals and plants). This proposition is a given. Different species can have a number of variations (different breeds of dogs) but regardless of how wide the variations they still are the same specie. They do not jump species. The other(macro-evolution) is the theory that evolutionary change develops new species from the original. This is by no means proven. It has been extrapolated from micro-evolution but that has not been proven to be a valid extrapolation.

Where do you see the line occurring between micro and macro evolution?

I am acquainted with many young-earth believers using these terms, micro and macro, basically to take advantage of how evolutionary processes can used beneficially in society, and yet avoid stating a belief in evolution. But what I don't see is where a line can be drawn. When does micro stop being micro and begin being macro?

When a lion and a tiger are mated to become a liger, does that make the process macro-evolution? When a cow and buffalo are mated, is this also just micro-evolution?

Is not the evolutionary development of the horse (Equidae) from it earliest stages of Palaeothere an example of macro-evolution?

[ERayR]

Where do you see the line occurring between micro and macro evolution?

I am acquainted with many young-earth believers using these terms, micro and macro, basically to take advantage of how evolutionary processes can used beneficially in society, and yet avoid stating a belief in evolution. But what I don't see is where a line can be drawn. When does micro stop being micro and begin being macro?

When a lion and a tiger are mated to become a liger, does that make the process macro-evolution? When a cow and buffalo are mated, is this also just micro-evolution?

Is not the evolutionary development of the horse (Equidae) from it earliest stages of Palaeothere an example of macro-evolution?

Where it crosses the biblical term kind. Sure lions and tigers can be mated but both are cats(feline). Cows and buffalo can be crossed both are cattle. The evolution of the horse is changes in the horse kind.

Selective breeding (micro-evolution) can make enormous changes and develop new variations in breeds of plants and animals but they remain the same family. Horses remain horses, cats remain cats(large or small), rabbits remain rabbits no mater the shape of their ears or their size.

All that being said my primary problem is that macro-evolution (the development human beings from the lower orders turns the concept of us being God's children, created in his image, and placed into a special part of the earth into a meaningless fairytale. It is the reverse of a fall(unless you do contortions on defining the fall).

[mfbukowski]

Cheese.

Brilliant and so true. That really captures the complexity of cultures. In more ways that one.

[thesometimesaint]

Where it crosses the biblical term kind. Sure lions and tigers can be mated but both are cats(feline). Cows and buffalo can be crossed both are cattle. The evolution of the horse is changes in the horse kind.

Selective breeding (micro-evolution) can make enormous changes and develop new variations in breeds of plants and animals but they remain the same family. Horses remain horses, cats remain cats(large or small), rabbits remain rabbits no mater the shape of their ears or their size.

All that being said my primary problem is that macro-evolution (the development human beings from the lower orders turns the concept of us being God's children, created in his image, and placed into a special part of the earth into a meaningless fairytale. It is the reverse of a fall(unless you do contortions on defining the fall).

However Feline Domestica can not breed with lions, or tigers. let alone the non related Bears Oh My. A horse can not be breed with a mule. Hares can not be breed with Rabbits.

We are still in his image. We are still his children, this earth is still a special place. Regardless of the process he used to do it.

[ERayR]

However Feline Domestica can not breed with lions, or tigers. let alone the non related Bears Oh My. A horse can not be breed with a mule. Hares can not be breed with Rabbits.

We are still in his image. We are still his children, this earth is still a special place. Regardless of the process he used to do it.

Sigh! The breeding part was in answer to very specific cases enumerated in the post I was answering. Your feline Domestica is still a feline as are the greater cats. Even with their evolutionary differences they are still cats

[bu11fr0g]

Where it crosses the biblical term kind. Sure lions and tigers can be mated but both are cats(feline). Cows and buffalo can be crossed both are cattle. The evolution of the horse is changes in the horse kind.

Selective breeding (micro-evolution) can make enormous changes and develop new variations in breeds of plants and animals but they remain the same family. Horses remain horses, cats remain cats(large or small), rabbits remain rabbits no mater the shape of their ears or their size.

All that being said my primary problem is that macro-evolution (the development human beings from the lower orders turns the concept of us being God's children, created in his image, and placed into a special part of the earth into a meaningless fairytale. It is the reverse of a fall(unless you do contortions on defining the fall).

Just look at plants and this line of thought falls completely apart.

As an aside, here is the link to the 30,000 year old plant that was brought to life. There aren't fundamental only technical restrictions on the ability to bring back now extinct animals; I expect it will happen, just when is very unknown. http://www.nature.com/news/wild-flower-blooms-again-after-30-000-years-on-ice-1.10069

Edited April 24, 2012 by bu11fr0g

[ERayR]

Just look at plants and this line of thought falls completely apart.

As an aside, here is the link to the 30,000 year old plant that was brought to life. There aren't fundamental only technical restrictions on the ability to bring back now extinct animals; I expect it will happen, just when is very unknown. http://www.nature.co...-on-ice-1.10069

Sigh again. Was it a flower? Is the modern version still a flower?

[SamIam]

Maybe a tad more, but you still haven't told me what you think about evolution.

Ohhhh! I didn't realize that anyone had even noticed that I really have never truly said what I believe. IT was just that I was trying to clarify what I had tried to say for so long that I lost track of what you might be looking for...

I have two thoughts that I toy around with. The first is that when a person accepts the concept of GOD and then accepts that a GOD is all powerful, all knowing, all present, all everything that exceeds my capacity to comprehend what a silly thing it is to think that I can really ever hope to reduce something so beyond my comprehension into terms, words, ideas, and concepts that are within my comprehension. Nonetheless, I don’t live in a vacuum and have ponderings upon the subject that move in a correct direction I am sure, but certainly incomplete. This could cause me grief for the challenge to the conventional wisdom but that seems to be the norm for me.

As well, as you noted I can accept both sides of the debate in terms of time frame - 7000 years, 7 creative times periods and of a period as long as 4 billion years or so. I can't do the math but I can give the principles. I'll start working on it, as I have never written it down before.

[mfbukowski]

I have two thoughts that I toy around with. The first is that when a person accepts the concept of GOD and then accepts that a GOD is all powerful, all knowing, all present, all everything that exceeds my capacity to comprehend what a silly thing it is to think that I can really ever hope to reduce something so beyond my comprehension into terms, words, ideas, and concepts that are within my comprehension.

Yeah, that's about where I'm at too. It's almost like it doesn't matter, as far as I am concerned. As some of the girls in my ward might say- "Whatever".

'll start working on it, as I have never written it down before.

Oops.

Then I guess there IS something that can be said about it after all. I must admit I am confused, as usual.

[bu11fr0g]

Triticale is an example of a fertile fusion plant hybrid that has commercial use. (wheat-rye hybrid)

The ice age plant shows that prehistoric life is not nonviable and distinctly separate from life now. The plant can be crossed with modern plants to produce viable offspring.

[volgadon]

Discussing evolution usually bores me to pieces, but I have been reading what the Rav Kook thought at the turn of the century. Very interesting stuff, the ethical-ascendant twist he put on it. Who knows if I can get to it today, but would make more grist for the discussion mill.

[thesometimesaint]

bu11fr0g:

Jurassic Park here we come.

[shalamabobbi]

Discussing evolution usually bores me to pieces, but I have been reading what the Rav Kook thought at the turn of the century. Very interesting stuff, the ethical-ascendant twist he put on it. Who knows if I can get to it today, but would make more grist for the discussion mill.

"Even if it were clear to us that the order of creation was through the evolution of the species, there would still be no contradiction. We calculate time according to the literal sense of the biblical verses, which is far more relevant to us than is ancient history .... The Torah obviously obscures the account of creation and speaks in allusions and parables. Everyone knows that the account of creation is part of the secrets of the Torah. And if all these statements were taken literally, what secrets would there be? ... The essence [of the Genesis narrative] is the knowledge of God and the truly moral life." (Letters of Rav Kook, Letter 91.)

Interesting parallel with D&C 101:32-33 (things of the earth by which it was made)

Of course there won't be much to reveal if the simplistic ideas of uber-literalists are correct.

Esoteric vs. Exoteric

The Torah contains a "contracted" version of the esoteric account of creation. As Rosenberg has observed: "The contraction of the esoteric into the exoteric, according to Kook, is the resolution to the problem of the relation between Torah and science" (Shalom Rosenberg, "Introduction to the Thought of Rav Kook," 91). The esoteric Torah will be known only at the end of days; meanwhile, nothing in the exoteric Torah can contradict science, because the exoteric Torah does not contain intelligible scientific or philosophic information.

The esoteric Torah will be known only at the end of days. Makes an interesting parallel with D&C 121:28-32

http://www.myjewishl.../Rav_Kook.shtml

Edited April 25, 2012 by shalamabobbi

[mfbukowski]

Discussing evolution usually bores me to pieces, but I have been reading what the Rav Kook thought at the turn of the century. Very interesting stuff, the ethical-ascendant twist he put on it. Who knows if I can get to it today, but would make more grist for the discussion mill.

OOOO OOOOO

I wanna see it!

[mfbukowski]

Interesting parallel with D&C 101:32-33 (things of the earth by which it was made)

Of course there won't be much to reveal if the simplistic ideas of uber-literalists are correct.

The esoteric Torah will be known only at the end of days. Makes an interesting parallel with D&C 121:28-32

http://www.myjewishl.../Rav_Kook.shtml

Holy cow! (oops- no, that's Hindu)

Anyway- thanks thanks thanks.

Excellent stuff. Them Jewish guys are always smart!

[mfbukowski]

http://www.myjewishl.../Rav_Kook.shtml

You seem to be interested in what I think- this is it- and the above as well. The progressive "unfolding of reality" in which we participate. That's it. This is the essence of what we call "eternal progression", in which we participate with God as co-creator/organizers.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Process_theology

This seems to be the direction of LDS theology as well- Ostler I think sees himself as a "process theologian" in general terms. It all started with William James and Bergson and Whitehead- so that is the direction your reading should take you if you want to pursue that.

[mfbukowski]

I wrote this in 2008. It was a blog I started which I later thought was too metaphysical. Maybe I will get back to it.

LDS Transformational Theology

September 20, 2008

This site presents the views of its author, and not necessarily those of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

by mfbukowski

“LDS Transformational Theology” is my metaphysical view that “eternal progression” implies that God through the advancement of his creation, is always changing, and directing the transformation of the universe through his creations and his children.

This divinely directed transformational change causes the development of living things to “swim upstream” against entropy, and is evident in the ever more complex development of his creatures over time.

Another way of saying this, is that the history of the universe manifests God’s directing hand in moving from “matter unorganized” to the creation of “God-stuff”; one example of this process can be seen in the formation of humanity. Paul in the New Testament speaks of “bodies celestial” as the manifestation of our greatest human potential. These bodies with this mature potential were formed from matter which was once “unorganized”, and which matter is, following the resurrection, transformed into celestialized human bodies. We believe that the earth itself will one day undergo such a transformation.

In human lives, this transformation is manifest in the maxim “the natural man is an enemy to God”, representing the beginning of our spiritual journey. As we move forward on this journey, we seek to transform our lives from the carnal “state of nature” (“matter unorganized”) to a celestial state, by the grace of the transforming and healing power of Jesus Christ, “after all we can do”.

This view can be understood on many levels from a spiritual understanding of the origin of species and how the vast panorama of life relates to eschatology, to using concrete methods and techniques to enable us to transform our habits to “come unto Christ.”

This view implies that God adds to his glory through his creation, and in a real sense, by creating his creations, is in some sense re-creating himself.

This is also manifest in LDS ordinances in a symbolic way. As we become “one flesh” as members of the body of Christ and “one flesh” in the state of celestial marriage, we again participate in our father’s creative process of becoming like him physically as well as spiritually.