Evolution And Mormonism

[mfbukowski]

Animals merely fulfill the measure of their creation. Until Adam, there were no creatures capable of sinning. For pre Adamite homo sapiens, this is true if their spirits were not literal children of God and/or if there was an uplift.

Uplift? You mean like God helping them make a cognitive "jump"? I have no problem with that or the rest either. In fact that is kind of what I am saying as one possibility.

[mfbukowski]

Sure. I can take it literally just as you do in part because I believe Adam must have been a real historical person.

Yep- and on the other hand I have no problem with taking it figuratively either. Since we will never know scientifically, it becomes a question of which model works best for one's point of view.

[bcuzbcuz]

The Mitochondrial Eve yes. She lived over 100,000 years ago. But not necessarily the Eve who with Adam lived in the Garden and Fell.

Aren't you just adding parts to the story to give it an ending (or beginning) that you like?

[BCSpace]

Uplift? You mean like God helping them make a cognitive "jump"?

Yep

The Mitochondrial Eve yes. She lived over 100,000 years ago. But not necessarily the Eve who with Adam lived in the Garden and Fell.

Aren't you just adding parts to the story to give it an ending (or beginning) that you like?

No, I don't see how. The beginning is the beginning of evolution big bang, just as it's always been. Adam and Eve and the Fall are merely the beginning of a smaller subset of time after the creation.

[Ahab]

The beginning is the beginning of evolution big bang, just as it's always been. Adam and Eve and the Fall are merely the beginning of a smaller subset of time after the creation.

Do you see the big bang as just a small part of an existence that never had any beginning, collectively?

What many don't seem to realize is that there never was a point when everything began, collectively speaking. Just as there never was a time when the very first God, as a kind of being, began either.

Some things are eternal, with no beginning, and no end. And it's not just God, or time, or existence, either. There is very little if anything which had a beginning, collectively speaking, with all things going on forever and ever with no beginning or end.

Boggles the mind for some people, I guess, but to me it's just obvious.

Edited February 26, 2013 by Ahab

[BCSpace]

The beginning is the beginning of evolution big bang, just as it's always been. Adam and Eve and the Fall are merely the beginning of a smaller subset of time after the creation.

Do you see the big bang as just a small part of an existence that never had any beginning, collectively?

Of course. Universes popping into and out of existence etc. However, I can also handle a time when there were no Gods at all. Perhaps some matter evolved ultimately into the first Gods and now we have a more efficient way of making Gods through an Atonement process. Or absolutely no beginnings, take your pick.

[canard78]

Animals merely fulfill the measure of their creation. Until Adam, there were no creatures capable of sinning. For pre Adamite homo sapiens, this is true if their spirits were not literal children of God and/or if there was an uplift.

Now this is a good one. If Adam existed exactly when and where the traditional thought places him, and if there were pre-adamites' did they sin? If not, what sort of awareness did they have? Were pre-adamites 'animals?' Humanoid animals who (apparently) developed tools and communities and (perhaps) art? http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cave_painting#section_1

[BCSpace]

Since I postulate that pre Adamites had lesser spirits than a literal spirit child of God and/or were in need of "Uplift", I also assume they are sinless. For the sake of discussion, assume they were not sinless. In that case, I look at the doctrine on D&C 77:5-6 in the D&C Institute manual and note that the dispensations listed have only to do with God's dealings with us, after Adam, and do not take into account the time the earth was being prepared for our habitation. In other words, whatever God's dealings with pre Adamites needed to be, He doesn't describe them to us or make us accountable to know what they are.

[BCSpace]

Now here is a waaaay out there thought (which I don't subscribe to). What if there is something to reincarnation? Perhaps the evolution of species was used to evolve intelligences/spirits as well?

[Ahab]

Of course. Universes popping into and out of existence etc.

The term "universe" refers to the one... uni... place where everything that exists exists, or where nothing exists. It is only one place, although some people like to divide it into different areas when the "known" universe turns out to be bigger than they thought it was or they just want to break everywhere down into smaller areas. Thus, there is now and always has been only one "main" place where eveything exists and it never has popped in or out of existence.

However, I can also handle a time when there were no Gods at all. Perhaps some matter evolved ultimately into the first Gods and now we have a more efficient way of making Gods through an Atonement process. Or absolutely no beginnings, take your pick.

Sounds like you can handle all kinds of strange ideas, then. More power to you, and the sooner the better, because you actually need some more power to be able to see what is true.

[thesometimesaint]

Whether it be a universe or a mutiverse there is only one with which we have anything to do with.

Edited February 26, 2013 by thesometimesaint

[Tacenda]

Now here is a waaaay out there thought (which I don't subscribe to). What if there is something to reincarnation? Perhaps the evolution of species was used to evolve intelligences/spirits as well?

I think of that when I look at my dog. Could a human spirit inhabit an animal?

[canard78]

I think of that when I look at my dog. Could a human spirit inhabit an animal?

Maybe... But going through an endowment would be right hassle

[BCSpace]

I think of that when I look at my dog. Could a human spirit inhabit an animal?

Not part of my thinking. A human spirit in embryo though......

Sounds like you can handle all kinds of strange ideas, then. More power to you, and the sooner the better, because you actually need some more power to be able to see what is true.

Amen to that. I have an open mind, but hopefully it is constrained and directed by true principles.

Edited February 27, 2013 by BCSpace

[cdowis]

Since I postulate that pre Adamites had lesser spirits than a literal spirit child of God and/or were in need of "Uplift", I also assume they are sinless. For the sake of discussion, assume they were not sinless. In that case, I look at the doctrine on D&C 77:5-6 in the D&C Institute manual and note that the dispensations listed have only to do with God's dealings with us, after Adam, and do not take into account the time the earth was being prepared for our habitation. In other words, whatever God's dealings with pre Adamites needed to be, He doesn't describe them to us or make us accountable to know what they are.

Perhaps this has been mentioned already == >>

"Before Adam" by Hugh Nibley http://maxwellinstit...nscripts/?id=73

I think of it as the "apartment theory", where the earth had multiple apartments.

Edited February 27, 2013 by cdowis

[canard78]

Interesting discussion on the 'human' spirit. If the human body evolved there may have come a point when the body was ready for a 'child of god' spirit rather than a 'measure of creation/animal' spirit. Perhaps that's our Adam moment.

[BCSpace]

Perhaps this has been mentioned already == >>

"Before Adam" by Hugh Nibley http://maxwellinstit...nscripts/?id=73

It is equally easy and deceptive to fall into adolescent disillusionment and with one's emancipated teachers to smile tolerantly at the simple gullibility of bygone days, while passing stern moral judgment on the savage old God who damns Adam for eating the fruit he put in his way and, overreacting with impetuous violence, wipes out Noah's neighbors simply for making fun of his boat-building on a fine summer's day.

Did Nibley ever hear the Cosby routine on Noah?

"I can't tell you, ha ha ha ha".

Edited February 27, 2013 by BCSpace

[ERayR]

Now here is a waaaay out there thought (which I don't subscribe to). What if there is something to reincarnation? Perhaps the evolution of species was used to evolve intelligences/spirits as well?

As I have pointed out before in other threads the idea of God using evolution to me negates the fall and along with it the atonement. The fall is a decline from something higher, evolution postulates a rise from something lower. About 180 degrees off, the way I see it.

[canard78]

As I have pointed out before in other threads the idea of God using evolution to me negates the fall and along with it the atonement. The fall is a decline from something higher, evolution postulates a rise from something lower. About 180 degrees off, the way I see it.

Unless, like the Givens suggest in the God who Weeps, it's not a fall, but an ascent.

And I don't need an Adam for me to fall. I fall every day.

[BCSpace]

Now here is a waaaay out there thought (which I don't subscribe to). What if there is something to reincarnation? Perhaps the evolution of species was used to evolve intelligences/spirits as well?

As I have pointed out before in other threads the idea of God using evolution to me negates the fall and along with it the atonement. The fall is a decline from something higher, evolution postulates a rise from something lower. About 180 degrees off, the way I see it.

Yet in order to Fall, something must rise. Evolution could be a vehicle for that but it's not something I've proposed. In fact, in my hypothesis, evolution and the Fall have nothing to do with each other, they don't interact, and therefore cannot possibly be in conflict.

The process of placing man into the garden state then is the rise from which one must Fall. So obviously I would continue to argue there is no conflict and no negation of a Fall.

[Ahab]

Unless, like the Givens suggest in the God who Weeps, it's not a fall, but an ascent.

And I don't need an Adam for me to fall. I fall every day.

Consider the condition we are now, which is as Jesus Christ was when he was mortal, and then compare that condition to how Jesus Christ is now, after his resurrection. That's the condition we're going to be restored to through the atonement of Jesus Christ.

Even without being accountable for sin, which is possible right now even though we are still mortal, we're still not in the restored

condition that Jesus is in now that he has been resurrected.

[Ahab]

Yet in order to Fall, something must rise. Evolution could be a vehicle for that but it's not something I've proposed. In fact, in my hypothesis, evolution and the Fall have nothing to do with each other, they don't interact, and therefore cannot possibly be in conflict.

The process of placing man into the garden state then is the rise from which one must Fall. So obviously I would continue to argue there is no conflict and no negation of a Fall.

One is mortal, and the other is immortal. One is a corrupted condition, and the other is not.

The Fall was from immortal and not corrupt to mortal and corrupt. That's the difference between how we were and how we are now.

The theory of evolution is a false theory of men. We didn't progress when we Fell, although we can learn some lessons from our Fall that can help us to be better once we're back in that restored condition of no longer being mortal and corrupt. We Fell by becoming mortal which put us in that/this corrupt condition. Before this, we were as Jesus Christ became after his resurrection.

[BCSpace]

One is mortal, and the other is immortal. One is a corrupted condition, and the other is not.

The Fall was from immortal and not corrupt to mortal and corrupt. That's the difference between how we were and how we are now.

Evolution has nothing to do with the placement of Adam and Eve into the garden state or the Fall There are no details as to how the physical body was created. Thus evolution does not conflict with LDS doctrine. It does not preclude a Fall. It does not preclude God or man's creation in God's image by God. It does not conflict with the fact that there is no death before the Fall because the property of no death is not applied to the creative state prior to the garden state.

I am interested in actual data (doctrine/science) that would preclude or seem to preclude evolution so I can strengthen or change my hypothesis or abandon it altogether. But after 30 plus years of being a proponent of evolution within the Church, I have not seen a unique piece of data that I haven't already considered in almost that same amount of time.

[BCSpace]

The theory of evolution is a false theory of men.

A misrepresentation of the 1909 statement. That statement did not say that evolution was a false theory and it didn't even address evolution, just some erroneous conclusions about evolution. And thus we had the continuing conflict of JET/BHR vs. JFS from then until the 1931 statement which concluded that the notion of pre Adamite people does not conflict with doctrine.

We didn't progress when we Fell, although we can learn some lessons from our Fall that can help us to be better once we're back in that restored condition of no longer being mortal and corrupt.

Evolution is merely a creative process; the end product in this case a homo sapiens to house a spirit child of God. However, I did, in addition to evolution, propose a way for the spirit to progress which also does not conflict with any doctrine but doesn't lend itself to doctrine nearly as well as plain evolution.

We Fell by becoming mortal which put us in that/this corrupt condition. Before this, we were as Jesus Christ became after his resurrection.

Agreed. And before that, the creative state which included evolution........

[ERayR]

A misrepresentation of the 1909 statement. That statement did not say that evolution was a false theory and it didn't even address evolution, just some erroneous conclusions about evolution. And thus we had the continuing conflict of JET/BHR vs. JFS from then until the 1931 statement which concluded that the notion of pre Adamite people does not conflict with doctrine.

Evolution is merely a creative process; the end product in this case a homo sapiens to house a spirit child of God. However, I did, in addition to evolution, propose a way for the spirit to progress which also does not conflict with any doctrine but doesn't lend itself to doctrine nearly as well as plain evolution.

Agreed. And before that, the creative state which included evolution........

If it works for you. I can't do the contortions.