Evolution And Mormonism

[ERayR]

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.

Misunderstood what you were asking. I am not hard and fast on timing issues. I do believe in a real, literal Adam and Eve and they were not cave dwellers fresh from the primordial ooze.

[ERayR]

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.

A spot of ground is a spot of ground without that which makes it sacred.

[Teancum]

Absolutely. Why couldn't these details fit in with LDS doctrine? Why couldn't God use natural selection and random mutation to create?

Why would such a perfect and powerful being use such a sloppy and random method to create the pinnacle of his creation, or any of the other random results we see in the world of natural selection?

[ERayR]

Why would such a perfect and powerful being use such a sloppy and random method to create the pinnacle of his creation, or any of the other random results we see in the world of natural selection?

I agree and besides that "natural selection and random mutation" is an ascent (a rise from chaos) not a fall. NO fall negates the atonement.

[Ahab]

A spot of ground is a spot of ground without that which makes it sacred.

So are you saying that if you found the spot of ground where the Garden of Eden once was that you would say that's where it was but as of now is not there because that spot is no longer sacred? What about Jersualem, where our Lord walked during his mortal life? Do you consider that spot of ground to no longer be sacred because he is no longer there? I think it's the fact that he was there which makes it sacred, just as I would consider the spot where the Garden of Eden once was to still be sacred because of what was once there when it was as beautiful as it once was.

[ERayR]

So are you saying that if you found the spot of ground where the Garden of Eden once was that you would say that's where it was but as of now is not there because that spot is no longer sacred? What about Jersualem, where our Lord walked during his mortal life? Do you consider that spot of ground to no longer be sacred because he is no longer there? I think it's the fact that he was there which makes it sacred, just as I would consider the spot where the Garden of Eden once was to still be sacred because of what was once there when it was as beautiful as it once was.

Don't mind me I am sometimes a cynic. No I do not think of those as holy ground unless still designated by God as such. I consider temples as sacred ground.

[blackstrap]

Just for accuracy , Santa Clause was a movie with Tim (the toolman) Taylor. Santa Claus is a mythical character vaguely based on a real personage.

As for evolution , I await the step by step explanation of how the cow became the whale.

[blackstrap]

All living cells that we know of on this planet are 'DNA software'-driven biological machines comprised of hundreds of thousands of protein robots, coded for by the DNA, that carry out precise functions. We are now using computer software to design new DNA software. Craig Venter, Trinity College Dublin, July 12, 2012

And all this done by natural selection acting on random purposeless mutations, which mutations are detrimental to the organism the vast majority of the time. Messy,even by Teancum's admission.

[BCSpace]

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.

My hypothesis states there is no death before the fall, period. Where is the twist? Let's look at the verse:

And now, behold, if Adam had not transgressed he would not have fallen, but he would have remained in the garden of Eden. And all things which were created must have remained in the same state in which they were after they were created; and they must have remained forever, and had no end.

There is no exegesis. There is merely the plain English fact that the state of no death after the creation, not during it. Combine that with things like the official doctrine on D&C 77:5-6 and the Abraham account of the creation (the Gods waited till the elements obeyed) and you have a state of creation, before th creation was finished, in which there is no such property of no death applied explicitly or implicitly.

Now, look at the time line:

creative state (evolution and death ------> Creation finished and the Garden state of no death ------> The Fall ------->Evolution and death continues

The statement "There was no death before the Fall." is true.

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?

All homo sapiens, past and present, have spirits as required by doctrine (all living things have spirits). I have merely posited that the spirits of big brained homo sapiens were possibly not literal spirit children of God until Adam and Eve. Why else would homo sapiens not have developed civilization for hundreds of thousands of years? One could also posit an uplift.

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.

Such as? I merely combined doctrine and science and found an avenue a mile wide into which Evolution fits.

Why not accept the easier answer. There was no Adam and Eve or literal fall.

Because I accept LDS doctrine on the matter of creation as well as LDS doctrine on science which is, implicitly, that we adhere to it.

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,

How so?

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

I accept the scriptures, and more importantly the doctrine, as well as a literal Adam and Eve. That is required for the doctrine to be true. However we know from the scriptures and doctrine that certain things, usually the details are figurative. I've given several examples of this in the Literal thread one of which is the official LDS doctrine that the rib story is figurative.

I do believe in a real, literal Adam and Eve and they were not cave dwellers fresh from the primordial ooze.

Evolution would agree with you. View the primer in my siggy below.

Absolutely. Why couldn't these details fit in with LDS doctrine? Why couldn't God use natural selection and random mutation to create?

Edited February 22, 2013 by BCSpace

[BCSpace]

Why would such a perfect and powerful being use such a sloppy and random method to create the pinnacle of his creation, or any of the other random results we see in the world of natural selection?

I don't view God's evolutionary creation as "sloppy and random" but as evidence for God. You might want to find out what randomness and chaos means in biological science before you proceed any further along these lines.

I agree and besides that "natural selection and random mutation"

You don't believe God is in control of the processes of natural selection and random mutation? Even those are governed by physical laws.

is an ascent (a rise from chaos) not a fall

So is the Creationist notion of creation. "See? Here is matter unorganized...." You have to have a rise before you can have a Fall.

NO fall negates the atonement.

Agreed. I have not posited no Fall.

All living cells that we know of on this planet are 'DNA software'-driven biological machines comprised of hundreds of thousands of protein robots, coded for by the DNA, that carry out precise functions. We are now using computer software to design new DNA software. Craig Venter, Trinity College Dublin, July 12, 2012

And all this done by natural selection acting on random purposeless mutations, which mutations are detrimental to the organism the vast majority of the time. Messy,even by Teancum's admission.

All of the argument against Evolution so far in the recent portion of this thread speaks of ignorance about what Evolution actually is. For example, natural selection merely refers to what physical traits are most likely to reproduce causing change over time. Evolution actually teaches that like produces like; always. As for mutation, some of you sound like Vizzini calling out "Inconceivable!"

Mutations are merely changes in genetic variation within a population. You can see examples of this in the BoM DNA debates. See also the well established principles of epigenetics and genetic drift. Most mutations are quite neutral. But what if say, a mutation results in a slightly changed color or pattern allowing a species to hide better or less better from it's predators? That has a significant impact o evolution.

I think the bottom line though is that if one accepts God's hand in all things, then one is well on the way to accepting natural selection as God controls all the factors biological, geological, and environmental, that allow which characteristics in species to survive and which do not.

[BCSpace]

As for evolution , I await the step by step explanation of how the cow became the whale.

Click the link in my siggy and watch it from the beginning. Pay close attention to the summary of the previous from 5:50 to about 6:50.

[BCSpace]

You know the interesting thing about an hypothesis such as mine is that it also resolves very satisfactorily the incest question. For most if not all Creationist hypothesis, brothers and sisters and their children are marrying each other and likely Adam is marrying some of his own daughters as well etc. Aside from the potential moral dilemma some people might have with this (presentism), there is also a genetic problem as starting a population from only one male and one female is generally not considered likely to be viable. A non contradictory doctrinal hypothesis such as mine which is accepting of evolution (and thankfully not in conflict with any doctrine) eliminates these problems.

Not that my hypothesis must be the way it was merely because it solves these issues in a way that pleases some people but we also should recall that even the Church admits there is not enough doctrine/info to create a reasonably detailed description of how it actually was.

Edited February 22, 2013 by BCSpace

[thesometimesaint]

Just for accuracy , Santa Clause was a movie with Tim (the toolman) Taylor. Santa Claus is a mythical character vaguely based on a real personage.

As for evolution , I await the step by step explanation of how the cow became the whale.

[Rob Osborn]

What did it for me is how scientists explained dinosaurs evolved into birds. They stated that they started climbing trees and jumping out of them. Slowly, over time, they grew feathers to fly with.

Yes, that just does it for me.

[semlogo]

What did it for me is how scientists explained dinosaurs evolved into birds. They stated that they started climbing trees and jumping out of them. Slowly, over time, they grew feathers to fly with.

Yes, that just does it for me.

You know many flightless dinosaur species, including velociraptors, had feathers, right?

Edited February 22, 2013 by semlogo

[thesometimesaint]

[halconero]

What did it for me is how scientists explained dinosaurs evolved into birds. They stated that they started climbing trees and jumping out of them. Slowly, over time, they grew feathers to fly with.

Yes, that just does it for me.

Actually there is more emerging evidence that dinosaurs had feathers to begin with or as a possible mutation, and was an example of sexual dimorphism (where the male significantly differs in physical appearance or size than females (we have this as humans)) in order to successfully attract a mate.

The theory that an organism develops traits in its lifetime and then passes them on to its offspring, called Lamarckian evolution, is (with a few recorded exceptions) false.

Instead, the evolutionary change from "dinosaur" to "bird" would've have occurred because there would already be an existing group within the dinosaur population with the ability to use its wings (and other traits) to fly. As the climate changed to favour those who ALREADY lived in the trees or could POTENTIALLY live in the trees with their existing biology the other ones would slowly die off, leaving the the population of "tree dwelling" dinosaurs to be the majority group to survive, reproduce and pass on their traits.

If a scientist really explained dinosaur evolution in the way that you described they should be fired for not really understanding it in the first place.

A more accurate way of explaining it, in sum, would be:

A varied group of dinosaurs, some with traits enabling possible flight, started climbing trees, to hunt other animals or obtain various fruits. Frequently they would fall (not jump) out of the trees, frequently resulting in death. Soon the only ones capable of life in the trees were those whose traits prevented them from a rapid fall to their death, and these produced offspring after their own kind (sounds very templeish don't it?). Due to climate change (natural, from the meteor, etc), this subspecies of dinosaurs became favoured as the ground dwelling ones slowly died off.

I personally believe that this description of evolution, much more accurately expressed than the common tripe we hear people bandering about, makes complete sense and even completely jives with the Gospel.

It's a doctrinal belief that all organisms produce after their own kind. Evolution just takes that belief and states that some times natural conditions favour one "kind" over another and that the survivors have an opportunity to pass on their genetic material and ensure its survival.

Of course mutations need to be taken into account for changes in a population...but I don't think those can be doctrinally opposed either.

I think that the conflict arises when some people take those conclusions, being quite sound, and apply them to unknowns or philosophical questions like the existence of God or the importance of Adam and Eve.

[BCSpace]

What did it for me is how scientists explained dinosaurs evolved into birds. They stated that they started climbing trees and jumping out of them. Slowly, over time, they grew feathers to fly with.

Yes, that just does it for me.

You know many flightless dinosaur species, including velociraptors, had feathers, right?

And Adam's children would gather up the ones they shed to make soft pillows.....

[canard78]

You know many flightless dinosaur species, including velociraptors, had feathers, right?

Someone should have told Stephen Spielberg. That would have made the Jurassic Park kitchen scene far more cuddly

[canard78]

I'm not sure how this thread got resurrected... it's 6 months old.

But... the Adam and Eve question missed an option... "They and the garden are figurative parables to teach a lesson but aren't real people and places."

[BCSpace]

But... the Adam and Eve question missed an option... "They and the garden are figurative parables to teach a lesson but aren't real people and places."

I think it's been mentioned in the sense that if one accepts evolution then they might as well consider Adam and Eve to be figurative. I personally accept Evolution, a literal Adam and Eve, and some figurativeness on the details.

Perhaps you could explain how a figurative Adam and Eve would not conflict with LDS doctrine as agreement with doctrine and science together is what I strive for. Perhaps you believe that the LDS Church is wrong on the historicity of Adam and Eve and yet that's not catastrophic to the truth claims of the Church? Please elucidate.

[canard78]

I think it's been mentioned in the sense that if one accepts evolution then they might as well consider Adam and Eve to be figurative. I personally accept Evolution, a literal Adam and Eve, and some figurativeness on the details.

Perhaps you could explain how a figurative Adam and Eve would not conflict with LDS doctrine as agreement with doctrine and science together is what I strive for. Perhaps you believe that the LDS Church is wrong on the historicity of Adam and Eve and yet that's not catastrophic to the truth claims of the Church? Please elucidate.

Happily. I base it on the acceptance that some things are better taught as absolutes or facts because it has greater impact on the majority. If Adam and Eve were taught solely as a parable from the outset then they would get far less attention than if taught as our literal first parents.

I'm comfortable with God/prophets saying one thing but meaning another. I think this is well illustrated by D&C 19:6-7:

6 Nevertheless, it is not written that there shall be no end to this torment, but it is written endless torment.

7 Again, it is written eternal damnation; wherefore it is more express than other scriptures, that it might work upon the hearts of the children of men, altogether for my name’s glory.

I believe that some people thrive on absolutes. It gives removes uncertainty. It allows full confidence that what they're doing is right. I can see the benefits to those people. Another example: I have a son who needs absolutes. He wants to know, before he leaves for school, what he will have for dinner. DW tells him a mean. Often it is, sometimes it's not. He is rarely upset by this.

To a certain extent the church still tell us stories that are not fully representative of the reality. This painting, still being published by the church (Dec 2012 Ensign used it) does not accurately depict the translation process: http://mormonfaq.com/files/2009/09/joseph-smith-translate-book-mormon.jpg - but I accept that it's "more express" than a having to explain the head in the hat to investigators and primary kids and perhaps this simplified depiction is used as it is more likely to "work upon the hearts of the children of men" than a head in hat painting. The early teachings of the prophets manuals chronology only mentioned one wife (or a second after the previous one died). Perhaps again, "more express" than having a tangent to explain why Joseph married teenagers and other men's wives. Given the Lord, the church and my wife and I all take the approach of saying things that are not always entirely accurate, but probably "more express" I don't mind if the literal, historical story of Adam and Eve is simply another "more express" way of teaching the principles they represent as characters.

I consider the symbol of Adam and Eve to be far more important than their literal place in history. I consider the story told in the temple to be the greatest expression of that parable. In the temple prep manual it says of the endowment that "the characters depicted... are symbolic." http://www.lds.org/manual/endowed-from-on-high-temple-preparation-seminar-teachers-manual/lesson-5-learning-from-the-lord-through-symbols?lang=eng

It's fair to say that being symbolic can also be real. The temple clothes are both real and symbolic. But Adam and Eve are most important to us as symbols. Symbols that we as humans (each of us like an Adam or Eve) had the option to stay in a pure, holy environment and chose a life of trial and choice. We embraced the "sweat of our brow" life. A symbol that we start as innocent children, perhaps with a simple interaction with God but then, at 8, leave the innocence of 'the garden' of infancy and submit our heart and minds to God as we enter into the lone and dreary world.

That we are all literal descendants of two adults only 6000 years or so ago. That the earth was in a perfect state until then. That there was no death before this moment... all seems unlikely to me. There are plenty of claims from the Eden story that make it unbelievable. But I don't want that to lead to me rejecting the entire story. So I accept the need to teach a historical story because it gets more attention. But I won't hold a grudge against God if I die and discover there was no Eden and no first parents called Adam and Eve. I'll also be fine if there was a literal Adam and Eve who were the parents Seth etc. If we went back 6000 years (or 20,000+ generations) then we have billions and billions of grandparents (4, 8, 16, 32, etc etc). So it's possible that we all have a link back to someone 6000 years ago and maybe they are they people we now call Adam and Eve. But I can't believe they were literally the first people placed on an empty earth that we all descend from (nor Noah and his family 4,000 years ago).

[thesometimesaint]

canard78:

I have no problem with a real Adam and Eve. However I do have a problem with some of the assumptions, and speculations regarding them.

[Rivers]

If we are all spirit children of God who came to earth to inhabit bodies, there had to have been a first spirit to come down. This first spirit was Michael/Adam.

[BCSpace]

I'm comfortable with God/prophets saying one thing but meaning another. I think this is well illustrated by D&C 19:6-7:

We're on the same page here as I've been referring to this one a lot recently. If you don't have it already, add this to your repertoire:

“It is written:

“‘And I, God, created man in mine own image, in the image of mine Only Begotten created I him; male and female created I them. [The story of the rib, of course, is figurative.]

Doctrines of the Gospel Student Manual, (2000), 16–18

It's quoted in several other doctrinal sources as well.

It's fair to say that being symbolic can also be real. The temple clothes are both real and symbolic. But Adam and Eve are most important to us as symbols. Symbols that we as humans (each of us like an Adam or Eve) had the option to stay in a pure, holy environment and chose a life of trial and choice. We embraced the "sweat of our brow" life. A symbol that we start as innocent children, perhaps with a simple interaction with God but then, at 8, leave the innocence of 'the garden' of infancy and submit our heart and minds to God as we enter into the lone and dreary world.

That we are all literal descendants of two adults only 6000 years or so ago. That the earth was in a perfect state until then. That there was no death before this moment... all seems unlikely to me. There are plenty of claims from the Eden story that make it unbelievable. But I don't want that to lead to me rejecting the entire story. So I accept the need to teach a historical story because it gets more attention. But I won't hold a grudge against God if I die and discover there was no Eden and no first parents called Adam and Eve. I'll also be fine if there was a literal Adam and Eve who were the parents Seth etc. If we went back 6000 years (or 20,000+ generations) then we have billions and billions of grandparents (4, 8, 16, 32, etc etc). So it's possible that we all have a link back to someone 6000 years ago and maybe they are they people we now call Adam and Eve. But I can't believe they were literally the first people placed on an empty earth that we all descend from (nor Noah and his family 4,000 years ago).

I agree that much of the temple account is symbolic. But Adam and Eve are taught as actual persons and so must themselves be historical and not because it gets more attention. I think it borders on God lying to us if the main parts don't have the historicity that's actually taught about them. Adam and Eve had to make the choice. They taught their posterity before they died 900 years after the Fall. Adam will come again on the earth as patriarch of the human family. All these things point to a literal Adam.

But I do agree with that last, that we all can have a link to someone who lived 6000 years ago (I tend to go back at least 10,000 years ago, the beginnings of the first civilization; Sumer) and that is sufficient to to say we are all descended from Adam. And I also agree that Adam and Eve were not the first homo sapiens and the only ones we descend from. I believe I have found a way for that to fit with LDS doctrine and it sounds like you have too.

Edited February 23, 2013 by BCSpace