Evolution And Mormonism

[mfbukowski]

We just need a Heisenberg Compensator.

Better than that, we could use a Coil Reverser. That fixes everything.

[Hamilton Porter]

Indeed. And the movement of a single atom somewhere in time can influence millions of years of evolution just as much as say God's direct hand making major modifications to a single individual of a single species. In either case, science would have to essentially be able to account for the movements and properties of every atom and sub atomic particle in the universe for all time in order to preclude God's hand in evolution. Not very likely any time soon.

You gotta be joking.

[shalamabobbi]

It matters because if God interfered in some ways, then Mormons don't really believe in Evolution. If God creating a bunch of changes to the environment so humans could evolve is the religious explanation, then explanations of how and why the environment changed - a part needed to understand how evolution occurs - through totally natural processes we can arrive at through science are in conflict with religion. You can't say humans have certain traits because God killed some preys and predators so we could evolve to have that trait, and not expect a conflict with science if science shows that a natural explanation killed those preys and predators. You would have to push the "God" explanation a step back... again.

You are missing the point. What aspects of these tabernacles were prepared by a mind(s)? The design obviously isn't. Evolution through NATURAL selection doesn't prepare our bodies, does it? God designed them (forgetting he didn't design his own body which is like ours, making "God designed our bodies" something false) but evolution didn't decide how our bodies were going to turn up, it was God killing preys or predators or doing something else. Therefore, explanations that involve natural processes are excluded by your religious view when scientists say certain natural processes account for those preys or predators dying. Here's the idea:

1. Humans exist in their present form.

2. Religious person says we have arms because God designed them and created them directly.

3. Purely natural explanations are found that account for how we evolved to have two arms in their present form and explain their physiology.

4. Religious person then, pressed by the evidence, says God created those factors that allow for the natural processes that influenced human evolution.

5. We then find explanations that account for why those natural processes that account for our arms' physiology were there in the first place (that is, we find natural explanations for other natural explanations).

6. Guess what the religious person is going to say next?

This is the God of the gaps.

This is a totally untenable position given current LDS doctrine. For example, in this you can read that, "Before the fall, Adam and Eve had physical bodies but no blood." Are you trying to say that each of us had a physical body before we came to Earth? Also, "Adam became the “first flesh” upon the earth, meaning that he and Eve were the first to become mortal." (Same source) How can you accept evolution and say WE were the first to become mortal? You can't say "Adam and Eve were the first to become human mortals" since you say Adam and Eve are NOT two single people but symbols for mankind.

Alvino - check this out and let me know if you have a revised argument based upon your reading here. Thanks.

http://www.scienceme...y-evolution.php

Also I recently came across a webpage on LDS.org that made the observation that I had independently made, i.e. that the idea of continental drift and of one super continent existed first in LDS scripture before being thought of and accepted in geology. But the article quoted JFS that the division had taken place in the days of Peleg. I responded to their article (there was a response button on the web page) and suggested that the data did not support the division of continents in the days of Peleg and that this would bite the church in the end.

After a couple of weeks I heard back and received the following response:

Thank you for your comment to us about the "dividing of the land" in the days of Peleg. I do not know what prompted you to send this in (I mean, I don't know what page of LDS.org you were on or what source or quote prompted you to respond to us), but I do have a couple thoughts on the subject.

One, is that many Latter-day Saints, both in the past and today, often offer their opinions and speculations on various biblical subjects - however, to my knowledge the Church has never officially made a statement on this subject (the division of the land during Peleg's day), just as the Church has never officially taken a stand on Evolution, for instance. The Church does not dictate to members what their beliefs should or can be... relatively few doctrines and statements, almost all of which are found in the Standard Works, are claimed by the Church as "official". Latter-day Saints know that there is much we still do not understand or that God has yet revealed to us. We are content to wait. By the way - this also means that we Latter-day Saints are not constrained to believe any and everything any LDS apostle or Church leader ever said, either. This is a misunderstanding that so many non-members and critics of the Church seem unable to comprehend. Sometimes people, even our leaders, are simply voicing their opinions and their own best understanding of what has not been completely revealed to us...

Second, on this subject, in fact, many Latter-day Saints understand the "division" that took place in the days of Peleg was actually the dividing of the peoples of the earth into multiple languages at the time of the Tower, and had nothing to do with any physical division of the continents. In Genesis, chapter 10, see not only verse 25 about Peleg, but also see verse 5 about the "division" of the lands of the Gentiles "everyone after his tongue, after their families, in their nations."

Thanks again, and God Bless!

I looked up the article again to forward the URL to them, but the article had been revised and the comments about the earth being divided in the days of Peleg removed. I told them that it had already been revised and thanks.

So you may see from this response the church's position with respect to science is rather fluid. As members we are not bound in our beliefs about how God did what He did.

Granted throwing God into the mix is "unscientific" by definition but that is something I can live with if that is your only criticism.

[mfbukowski]

So you may see from this response the church's position with respect to science is rather fluid. As members we are not bound in our beliefs about how God did what He did.

Granted throwing God into the mix is "unscientific" by definition but that is something I can live with if that is your only criticism.

Great letter- and thanks for posting it! Good evidence "straight from the horse's mouth" about what we have been saying here.

[cinepro]

Alvino - check this out and let me know if you have a revised argument based upon your reading here. Thanks.

http://www.scienceme...y-evolution.php

Also I recently came across a webpage on LDS.org that made the observation that I had independently made, i.e. that the idea of continental drift and of one super continent existed first in LDS scripture before being thought of and accepted in geology. But the article quoted JFS that the division had taken place in the days of Peleg. I responded to their article (there was a response button on the web page) and suggested that the data did not support the division of continents in the days of Peleg and that this would bite the church in the end.

After a couple of weeks I heard back and received the following response:

I looked up the article again to forward the URL to them, but the article had been revised and the comments about the earth being divided in the days of Peleg removed. I told them that it had already been revised and thanks.

So you may see from this response the church's position with respect to science is rather fluid. As members we are not bound in our beliefs about how God did what He did.

Granted throwing God into the mix is "unscientific" by definition but that is something I can live with if that is your only criticism.

That's a great letter. Hopefully they can pull the thread without unwinding the whole sweater. You know, D&C 133 and all.

D&C 133:23–24. Will the Continents Be Rejoined?

Genesis indicates that in the early history of the world the land masses were united. Moses recorded that one of the great-great-grandsons of Shem was named Peleg (a Hebrew word meaning division) because “in his days was the earth divided” (Genesis 10:25). Many scholars have passed this reference off as meaning some sort of cultural or political division, but modern prophets have taught that this statement should be taken literally.

An article published early in the history of the Church under the direction of the Prophet Joseph Smith stated: “The Eternal God hath declared that the great deep shall roll back into the north countries and that the land of Zion and the land of Jerusalem shall be joined together, as they were before they were divided in the days of Peleg. No wonder the mind starts at the sound of the last days!” (“The Last Days,” Evening and Morning Star, Feb. 1833, p. 1.)

President Joseph Fielding Smith wrote: “If … the earth is to be restored as it was in the beginning, then all the land surface will again be in one place as it was before the days of Peleg, when this great division was accomplished. Europe, Africa, and the islands of the sea including Australia, New Zealand, and other places in the Pacific must be brought back and joined together as they were in the beginning.” (Answers to Gospel Questions, 5:74.)

In an introduction to a book on continental drift, a scientist writes:

“Formerly, most scientists regarded the earth as rigid and the continents as fixed, but now the surface of the earth is seen as slowly deformable and the continents as ‘rafts’ floating on a ‘sea’ of denser rock. The continents have repeatedly collided and joined, repeatedly broken and separated in different patterns, and, very likely, they have grown larger in the process.

“This scientific revolution, as others before it, was long in the making, but it was not until the late 1960s that it began to succeed. At a meeting of the world’s geophysicists in August of 1971, it was made clear that the notion of continental drift, which had been heresy only a few years before, had become the orthodoxy of the great majority.” (Continents Adrift, preface.)

Though the time of this division of the land is placed much earlier by scientists than by the biblical chronology, the idea of one land mass is widely accepted. This revelation in Doctrine and Covenants 133 declares that sometime in the future that geographical unity will be restored.

Edited February 21, 2013 by cinepro

[salvar774]

Simple poll.

I also would like to see what people here think better describes the events of the Adam and Even story to have been: a symbolic narrative with people who did not exist in real life, or a narrative about concrete people who actually lived.

--------------------

Not looking for much debate here. I just want to know what y'all think.

This are booklets that I read long before I was a member . they are very compelling booklets about the exsitance of God and how more faith is needed to believe in evolution than to believe in God .

DOES GOD EXSIST

and

EVOLUTION

Edited February 21, 2013 by salvar774

[BCSpace]

Indeed. And the movement of a single atom somewhere in time can influence millions of years of evolution just as much as say God's direct hand making major modifications to a single individual of a single species. In either case, science would have to essentially be able to account for the movements and properties of every atom and sub atomic particle in the universe for all time in order to preclude God's hand in evolution. Not very likely any time soon.

You gotta be joking.

Not at all. What is it about what I said here is unreasonable to you?

[Stargazer]

Do we get extra rep points for resurrecting dead threads?

[thesometimesaint]

This are booklets that I read long before I was a member . they are very compelling booklets about the exsitance of God and how more faith is needed to believe in evolution than to believe in God .

DOES GOD EXSIST

and

EVOLUTION

I like this one better.

http://www.mormonfortress.com/evolution.pdf

[salvar774]

I like this one better.

http://www.mormonfor...m/evolution.pdf

Thank you . I have read Mike Ash before , not this one ,but I like what he writes . I will send it to my kindle and read it today .

[BlueDreams]

1&2) Don't know. i'm ok either way. What I feel is more important is knowing that there is something distinct about humanity that make them thoroughly in the image of God.

3) yes. I think it was a real place though I think that the depiction of it in scripture, like the creation is more symbolic in content than literal.

With luv,

BD

[BCSpace]

Do we get extra rep points for resurrecting dead threads?

Perhaps we should get rep points for keeping similar conversation in a just a few threads. But I often do like starting over because I'm too lazy to read through a huge thread. Pluses and minuses to each.

[Teancum]

I subscribe to the LDS doctrine friendly model of human bodies evolving via natural selection and the human spirit, already evolved/created before this earth's creation, placed into Adam and Eve at conception/birth when all was ready (creation finished). Thus one can accept all science and all LDS doctrine on the matter, including that homo sapiens have been around, breeding and dying, long before the Fall and the fact that there was no death before the Fall; the "garden state" having existed AFTER the creation was finished (2 Nephi 2:22, 1931 Heber J Grant First Presidency statement, doctrine from the institute manual on D&C 77:6-7, etc.).

So for poll purposes, I think it would be good to separate the human and Adam and Eve questions each into two; one about the physical body and one about the spirit body.

While we know from doctrine that the rib story is figurative, there has to be at least some literal truth to the story. That Adam and Ever are real people and the garden is a real place or state. The question remains in my mind as to whether or not the garden state was world-wide or local. There seems to be doctrine or evidence supporting both. For example, the earth's paradisaical state vs. what were Adam and Eve cast out into?

Your theory certainly requires a lof of twisting scripture to arrive at your conclusion.

It also does not account for the fact that if all human's alive today descended from this first human infused with a spirit that is a child of God they would have had to lived a lot longer time ago than 6000-11,000 years. The number of humans as well as the race divesrity needs much longer than that to arrive at where we are today as a species.

Also, if there is not literal Adam and Eve nor a literal fall, what does that mean to LDS Doctrine?

[Ahab]

Did humans evolve through natural selection and random mutation from other primates and those primates from other non-primate species?

No, all "humans" come from other "humans", whether the parents are in their "fallen" or "unfallen" or "once fallen but now restored to an unfallen" condition. Some people just don't realize what we were before we fell, or what we will be once we are restored to the same condition Adam and Eve started in before they "fell".

Were Adam and Even two human beings (Homo sapiens sapiens) created without being part of a species that evolved from lower species?

Yes.

What describes better what the Garden of Eden mentioned in Genesis is/was?

An actual place that existed and still exists on this Earth, although now it's not as pristine as it once was before the fall or as it will be when it is restored to that condition later.

[ERayR]

Your theory certainly requires a lof of twisting scripture to arrive at your conclusion.

You and I do not agree on much but with the above statement I can agree without reservation.

[thesometimesaint]

No, all "humans" come from other "humans", whether the parents are in their "fallen" or "unfallen" or "once fallen but now restored to an unfallen" condition. Some people just don't realize what we were before we fell, or what we will be once we are restored to the same condition Adam and Eve started in before they "fell".

Yes.

An actual place that existed and still exists on this Earth, although now it's not as pristine as it once was before the fall or as it will be when it is restored to that condition later.

1. Tautology. 2. That is not the question. Were there creatures that closely humans before there were humans? Obviously there were.

1. No.

1. Where is it? If it is not as pristine. How could we know it?

[BCSpace]

I subscribe to the LDS doctrine friendly model of human bodies evolving via natural selection and the human spirit, already evolved/created before this earth's creation, placed into Adam and Eve at conception/birth when all was ready (creation finished). Thus one can accept all science and all LDS doctrine on the matter, including that homo sapiens have been around, breeding and dying, long before the Fall and the fact that there was no death before the Fall; the "garden state" having existed AFTER the creation was finished (2 Nephi 2:22, 1931 Heber J Grant First Presidency statement, doctrine from the institute manual on D&C 77:6-7, etc.).

So for poll purposes, I think it would be good to separate the human and Adam and Eve questions each into two; one about the physical body and one about the spirit body.

While we know from doctrine that the rib story is figurative, there has to be at least some literal truth to the story. That Adam and Ever are real people and the garden is a real place or state. The question remains in my mind as to whether or not the garden state was world-wide or local. There seems to be doctrine or evidence supporting both. For example, the earth's paradisaical state vs. what were Adam and Eve cast out into?

Your theory certainly requires a lot of twisting scripture to arrive at your conclusion.

What scripture and how is it twisted?

It also does not account for the fact that if all human's alive today descended from this first human infused with a spirit that is a child of God they would have had to lived a lot longer time ago than 6000-11,000 years.

I don't necessarily posit that all humans directly descended from Adam and Eve. For example, I have said that one possibility is that after the Fall is when all humans began having literal spirit children of God as children. The direct line from Adam and Eve can easily have leavened the rest of the population if one requires descent from Adam in some form or another.

The number of humans as well as the race diversity needs much longer than that to arrive at where we are today as a species.

Since my hypothesis accepts the existence of homo sapiens for as long as science says they have existed, there is no problem here.

Also, if there is not literal Adam and Eve nor a literal fall, what does that mean to LDS Doctrine?

Adam and Eve must be historical people. There must have been a literal Fall because somewhere at some time there was a garden state of innocence and no death. I, and my hypothesis, accept all that. If there isn't some historicity on these levels, the LDS Church is not true. The real question is how many of the details are figurative? I can handle a whole range of scenarios and not come into conflict with LDS doctrine or scripture or modern science.

An Evolutionist need not be uncomfortable with LDS doctrine in the least. An LDS person need not be uncomfortable with Evolution in the least. GBH, SWK, DOM, JET, and BHR certainly weren't. BRM resigned himself to the possibility. I think I am in good company. In my experience, religious opposition to Evolution usually stems from not knowing what it is and what it claims and does not claim (see my siggy below for an excellent primer). Attacks on Evolution are often strawmen or attacks on someone else's non scientific conclusion about Evolution and that, unfortunately, includes some individual brethren (but not the LDS Church). But we certainly don't claim the bretheren are all tethered to and manipulated by God 24/7 do we?

Your theory certainly requires a lof of twisting scripture to arrive at your conclusion.

You and I do not agree on much but with the above statement I can agree without reservation.

Yet no one, to my knowledge, has ever listed a verse I use and explained how I might have "twisted" it.

Edited February 21, 2013 by BCSpace

[Teancum]

What scripture and how is it twisted?

All the scripture but especially your 2 Nephi pet passage. It is clear the scriptures teach there was no death period before the fall. You squeeze some pre Eden period in is really exegesis acrobatics at their best.

I don't necessarily posit that all humans directly descended from Adam and Eve. For example, I have said that one possibility is that after the Fall is when all humans began having literal spirit children of God as children. The direct line from Adam and Eve can easily have leavened the rest of the population if one requires descent from Adam in some form or another.

Another major leap. And Santa Clause is reall too. So are in your dichotomy above are all humans imbued with spirits that are children of God or not?

Since my hypothesis accepts the existence of homo sapiens for as long as science says they have existed, there is no problem here.

Course not.

Adam and Eve must be historical people. There must have been a literal Fall because somewhere at some time there was a garden state of innocence and no death. I, and my hypothesis, accept all that. If there isn't some historicity on these levels, the LDS Church is not true. The real question is how many of the details are figurative? I can handle a whole range of scenarios and not come into conflict with LDS doctrine or scripture or modern science.

But you have to go through major mental gymnastics to do this. Why not accept the easier answer. There was no Adam and Eve or literal fall.

An Evolutionist need not be uncomfortable with LDS doctrine in the least. An LDS person need not be uncomfortable with Evolution in the least. GBH, SWK, DOM, JET, and BHR certainly weren't. BRM resigned himself to the possibility. I think I am in good company. In my experience, religious opposition to Evolution usually stems from not knowing what it is and what it claims and does not claim (see my siggy below for an excellent primer). Attacks on Evolution are often strawmen or attacks on someone else's non scientific conclusion about Evolution and that, unfortunately, includes some individual brethren (but not the LDS Church). But we certainly don't claim the bretheren are all tethered to and manipulated by God 24/7 do we?

Sure. This just precludes a literal Adam and Eve,

[Teancum]

You and I do not agree on much but with the above statement I can agree without reservation.

Tell BC. I think you either accept the scirptures on this at their face value or you accept Adam and Eve are totally figurative.

[ERayR]

Tell BC. I think you either accept the scirptures on this at their face value or you accept Adam and Eve are totally figurative.

You would be wrong.

[Ahab]

1. Tautology.

Huh?

2. That is not the question.

I answered the question.

Were there creatures that closely humans before there were humans? Obviously there were.

Yes, and there always have been, but it has always taken "humans" to produce other "humans" whether you're referring to the "fallen" or "unfallen" classifications.

1. No.

No to what?

1. Where is it? If it is not as pristine.

Somewhere on this planet. I don't claim to know where exactly.

How could we know it?

As a spot on a desert? As a spot under a sea? It could look like anything at all at this point. Just know that no part of this Earth has left this planet since this planet was formed long ago, so that chunk of land is here somewhere even if it doesn't look even remotely like it once did when it was a beautiful garden spot with rivers running through it.

[ERayR]

Somewhere on this planet. I don't claim to know where exactly.

As a spot on a desert? As a spot under a sea? It could look like anything at all at this point. Just know that no part of this Earth has left this planet since this planet was formed long ago, so that chunk of land is here somewhere even if it doesn't look even remotely like it once did when it was a beautiful garden spot with rivers running through it.

But that which made it the Garden of Eden is gone, namely the presence of God blessing the area.

[Teancum]

You would be wrong.

How so? I thought you accepted the scriptures literally and that you think BC is all wet.

Edited February 21, 2013 by Teancum

[Teancum]

I have posted it before but here it is again. To me the gospel of evolution of man contradicts the concept of the fall and thus negates the atonement. I know there are some who have rationalized that the fall was not a physical fall and if you want to believe that then fine go for it but as for me fall still means fall not a gradual rise from the primordial ooze.

So why do you say I would be wrong when I say you accept the scriptures for what thay say and believe in a literal Adam and Eve and fall or you don't.

[Ahab]

But that which made it the Garden of Eden is gone, namely the presence of God blessing the area.

I was talking about how that particular spot of land is still here on our planet, even though it doesn't look as nice as it once did.