Pre-Adamites?

[Stone holm]

Benefited. People actually think that there is truth in the scientific method and see it as complementary to their religious stance. Before it was instantly held in conflict with religion, but that was an error in perception that is still being done away.

I do not see atheists as a demographic inferior morally to religious people. I do not see religious people as more enlightened in their ideas on how to live responsibly. Your opinion will no doubt differ. If you consider the increase in personal religion over the dogmatic and organized kind for the masses as damage to mankind we disagree: I believe that individual religion must trump dogma as passed down the ages. As long as anyone's personal religion causes them to do good, that is what any religion is for....

I think the simple answer to that question is that the most damaging concept that has ever existed upon this Earth is the notion that one group of individuals is superior to another group of individuals, so I would say that evolution has in this respect been one of the most beneficial concepts that science has come up with to date since it tends to make people believe that they have more in common with each other than they have a difference.

[BCSpace]

You are correct the Elder Packer is not specific addressing evolution. However, he nails on the head the point of this discussion based on the OP. Which same point is generally accepted as a specific tenet of the theory of evolution to most of our understanding.

That point being?

Why don't you give us a paragraph or 2 of what evolution really is from your perspective and how that differentiates from a theory that man is descended from a progressively advancing life model. It perhaps would help me know the point on which we disagree.

See my siggy.

However, there is also the issue of no death before the Garden state. I maintain that doctrine and scripture supports the possibility of it. No death before the Fall? Sure. But there is death and evolution prior to the Garden state and perhaps even going on around it depending on whether or not you like a global Garden state or a local one.

[Questing Beast]

@Stone holm: "... I have never felt the necessity to choose between The Rock of Ages and the age of rocks..."

I like it. Where did you get it?...

[BCSpace]

Again the OP is not evolution per se. However, let's come at this through the back door. Can you think of any other single concept that has been taught amongst men, that though it may have points of truth, has had the probable effect of turning more of the population of earth away from God and Jesus Christ and or undermining their actuality than the theory of evolution?

I can't think of a single person who's been turned away from the Gospel because of the theory of Evolution. Because of misunderstanding Evolution or irrational unscientific conclusions about Evolution? Sure.

Not in terms of measurable numbers but simply an honest appraisal of the over all impact which initiates from this theory and permeates everything that flows from it. Has it benefited mankind or has it damaged mankind?

It is now part of the foundation of Biological science, one of those things covered under the D&C umbrella which we should seek to become become familiar with. I'd say that's beneficial enough if beneficence is your standard of truth. There is also the greater knowledge of how God accomplished the Creation; Big Bang/Evolution.

[Questing Beast]

I think the simple answer to that question is that the most damaging concept that has ever existed upon this Earth is the notion that one group of individuals is superior to another group of individuals, so I would say that evolution has in this respect been one of the most beneficial concepts that science has come up with to date since it tends to make people believe that they have more in common with each other than they have a difference.

That is excellent "doctrine" and tastes good to me. This kinship with all living things, not just in sharing a Creator, but literally being of the same "star stuff" as all life, has benefited the other animals on this planet too; because homo sapiens are finally, truly, beginning to widely believe that we are the true stewards of this planet. Once we have inculcated this in our very cells, then, and only then (I believe) will our species be allowed off-world to explore the universe....

[BCSpace]

Again the OP is not evolution per se.

True enough. Speaking of hominids, how about a Star Trekkian hypothesis based on the TNG Episode "The Chase" wherein multiple humanoid species evolve from a single species who spread their DNA throughout the galactic quadrant? The definition of the image of God would have to be broadened out such that God is not necessarily a homo sapiens as He is in LDS doctrine, but I can handle it and I think LDS doctrine can handle it too because it's not restrictive enough in that area.

[Tacenda]

I don't undermine the gospel or those who "represent it". That's because I am not critical of what other people believe and teach. Well, I make exception for pure BS and agenda-driven drivel. But the leaders of the LDS faith are not like that, quite opposite in fact. I never put down anyone who is, imho, doing their best to make the world better. There are countless ways to go about it. Mormonism is one of the best dogmatically organized religions. But something like three quarters of the human race don't seem to need dogma much if at all in order to behave themselves toward one another, i.e. that many of us don't associate in regularized religions at all....

My questions from the other thread about your belief. ..answered! Plus I really like this last sentence. Each Sunday as I sit through church, especially primary class and sharing time, I come home feeling guilty for my lack of testimony, so it helped me to read your words.

[Questing Beast]

To limit GtF to a singular, immortal, glorified human body, is to make "God" finite and limited in power. Of course GtF, in order to be the God of Creation, must have the powers to be whatever he chooses to be. It's just on this planet he appears to be, for most believers of our species, a Man (with a Woman as wife or as some/most Mormons would have it Wives).

Think Big, it's the only way....

Edited June 9, 2013 by Questing Beast

[Calm]

Not a one of you who undermine, chastise or correct church leaders or cop out to the "prophet is only a prophet" statement

So was Joseph's comment "a prophet is only a prophet, etc" a "cop out"?

[Stone holm]

@Stone holm: "... I have never felt the necessity to choose between The Rock of Ages and the age of rocks..."

I like it. Where did you get it?...

William Cullen Bryan (always misspell his name), the quote really goes that "I have more faith in the Rock of Ages than the age of rocks"

[SamIam]

Ooo! I like being a "best example" of something. It's so rare.

Your religious faith is your province. My religious faith is mine. So it is with everyone. However, a life can be mapped, we can all observe how others live and we inevitably make judgments on how "good" they are based on the acts that define their lives in our midst. That does not, at any point, allow us to make judgments on what is going on inside their minds. "Good" acts are obvious. So are "bad" acts. We have clear definitions of what they are. Mostly, though, acts are pretty much neutral, even appearing to be largely thoughtless.

That paragraph leads to this assertion: religion to you is not the same as it is to me. Just because Jesus Christ is a "myth" to me does not mean his story is not scripture. I consider any and all inspirational literature as scripture, because it tends to improve the reader, which persuades them "to do good", which means it is of God. Does all good literature persuade to a belief in Jesus Christ? No, because not all literature is concerned with Jesus Christ, but inspirational literature does persuade to do good, so it is of God. Does the Bible fail to be consistent on many points? Yes. Does inconsistency encourage belief in Jesus Christ? No, inconsistency does not persuade belief in Jesus Christ. Is the Bible to be taken warts and all? Yes, humans can only make things with "warts", so that's the best we will ever have.

Just because I see imperfections is not the reason why I have unbelief in Jesus Christ as a historical person as presented within Christianity.

I have unbelief because Christianity ultimately does not make sense to me. I would not do it that way if I were "God". Much about it offends my sense of justice, and I believe that "God" is Infinitely more just than I will ever be. I believe that Christianity is justified of all her children as long as Christians are taught and practice being well behaved.

Those who use their religion to pound on others not exactly fitting their religious world paradigm of "truth" are misusing religion, as the worst among us always have.

I warned my children who attended BYU, as they left home for university life: "You will find the best and the worst people at that place, proceed with caution"....

You provide much fodder for spirited discussion, as indeed, as you have surmised, we have vastly different perspectives on what God's intent is and what is the role of religion in that intent. Nonetheless, out of respect for the OP I will back away from responses that do not speak to what I perceive to be the significant spiritual considerations of discussions that revolve around evolutionary topics. Perhaps another time we can engage in a more appropriate thread.

[Stone holm]

To limit GtF to a singular, immortal, glorified human body, is to make "God" finite and limited in power. Of course GtF, in order to be the God of Creation, must have the powers to be whatever he chooses to be. It's just on this planet he appears to be, for most believers of our species, a Man (with a Woman as wife or as some/most Mormons would have it Wives).

Think Big, it's the only way....

I don't have a problem with a God with limited power, I realize that some do. I believe that God as Mormonism envisions Him, has various limits on His power, such as not being able to force a man to heaven, etc. or such as not being able to create exalted beings if you deny them their free agency, or being able to save mankind without a Savior willing to work out the atonement with the intelligences of the universe,etc. But this is off topic, so perhaps you should create a separate topic on it.

[SamIam]

So was Joseph's comment "a prophet is only a prophet, etc" a "cop out"?

While it has it's place, it is often the province of those that wish to pick and choose between points they can agree with and points they reject. It ceases to be about whether a prophet is being prophet or not and often means I don't care if the prophet was right or wrong and thus it becomes the cop-out. Less often does anyone who truly sustains the church and it's leaders ever use the phrase because it is unnecessary in respectful discourse. Although, frequently those that would justify their opposing conclusions often cite the obligatory "a prophet is only a prophet..." as if that automatically validates their dissension.

[Stone holm]

That point being?

See my siggy.

However, there is also the issue of no death before the Garden state. I maintain that doctrine and scripture supports the possibility of it. No death before the Fall? Sure. But there is death and evolution prior to the Garden state and perhaps even going on around it depending on whether or not you like a global Garden state or a local one.

You raise an interesting point here which is I believe actually, surprise surpise not off topic. What is the consensus on the thread as to whether the Garden of Eden encompassed the whole planet, or was only a small portion of the planet. My personal belief which is based on the various references to there being a Garden and that Adam and Eve were placed in it, and the fact that they were cast out of it -- which requires them to have exited it to somewhere else, suggests that there was the Garden and then there was the rest of the planet, and it appears that time perhaps wasn't quite the same and the denizens of the garden perhaps weren't quite the same as outside the garden. This also has the pleasant other aspect of not seeming to be quite so contradictory of what we have discovered about the Earth via science. I have always felt that if there are two ways of looking at a doctrine of the Church and one requires you to run roughshod over known science and the other doesn't, then the prudent path to lean towards until you receive more light and knowledge is the one which does not require you to run roughshod over know science -- so as a result I have always favored the Garden as a discrete location and not a global phenomenon. Contrary views?

[Rivers]

So was Joseph's comment "a prophet is only a prophet, etc" a "cop out"?

Kind of.

[Calm]

How could God place a garden east of something if the garden comprised the whole earth?

Same thing with how could God cast them out and place an angel to block the path if the garden was worldwide.

The term "garden" seems much more about a limited area than describing a floral based paradise.

Edited June 10, 2013 by calmoriah

[canard78]

It follows that the "Jesus story" is in the same category and it is not literally true either. The love of God is taught in all the details of the "Jesus Story"....

It's interesting that some people are very comfortable talking about how Adam was symbolically the first parent or the first human to make covenants. Figuratively our human father. His role as being a figurative first person to fall from God's presence and take covenants that we do is an important lesson and principle independent of his historical reality.

But I would imagine there would be far fewer comfortable with the idea that Jesus Christ fits the same mould. If I were to say the atonement is of more significance to me as an idea and principle that I apply to my life today compared to being a historical reality, there would probably be more rejection of the notion. Some might even wheel out the label "anti-Christ" for me.

But... I'll return to that thought at another time.

[Stone holm]

How could God place a garden east of something if the garden comprised the whole earth?

Same thing with how could God cast them out and place an angel to block the path if the garden was worldwide.

The term "garden" seems much more about a limited area than describing a floral based paradise.

Yeah, that is the same as my thinking, I suppose somebody might consider them having been in a different dimension or some kind of sci-fi thing, and there are the disturbing Eliza Snow hymns about Earth moving through space during the fall.

[Stone holm]

It's interesting that some people are very comfortable talking about how Adam was symbolically the first parent or the first human to make covenants. Figuratively our human father. His role as being a figurative first person to fall from God's presence and take covenants that we do is an important lesson and principle independent of his historical reality.

But I would imagine there would be far fewer comfortable with the idea that Jesus Christ fits the same mould. If I were to say the atonement is of more significance to me as an idea and principle that I apply to my life today compared to being a historical reality, there would probably be more rejection of the notion. Some might even wheel out the label "anti-Christ" for me.

But... I'll return to that thought at another time.

My personal feeling is that you really cannot dispense with Adam as a historical reality without doing a lot of damage to a lot of teachings, scripture, and prophecies. In the Temple during portions the name is used to mean all mankind, but they are pretty careful to point out what they are doing in that regard, I have problems with trying to generalize things from the Temple -- it is a specific type of educating tool that follows different logic and methods than the Scriptures.

[ERayR]

This is why it is best for people like BMR or Elder Packer to remain silent about things they really don't know much about. They might think they do, but they really don't, and wisdom would seem to enjoin either silence, or at least, "It is my considered opinion" etc., etc. "but the fact of the matter is that the answers to these questions have not been revealed."

If we were all to practice your sage advice I expect there would be a great silence throughout the land.

[ERayR]

And that would be the purpose of discussion, to find the errors.

This post was in regard to a post where the poster was using the cliche that a lot of people believed as he/she did. There was no reasons to believe except a lot of peopled did. Just noted that a lot of wrong people are still wrong.

[canard78]

If we were all to practice your sage advice I expect there would be a great silence throughout the land.

There was an old owl who lived in an oak,

The more he saw, the less he spoke,

The less he spoke the more he heard,

Why can't we all be like that wise old bird.

Sadly advice I rarely heed.

[bu11fr0g]

Packer and BRM were never in an authorized position to determine doctrine for the church as a whole which comes through the first presidency. Both have a habit of positing their personal opinions as gospel fact.

[Stone holm]

Packer and BRM were never in an authorized position to determine doctrine for the church as a whole which comes through the first presidency. Both have a habit of positing their personal opinions as gospel fact.

True, but they would give you their straight up honest opinion rather than evade a question, and on this subject we really have so very few gospel facts. One is left on this subject to actually speculate using only logical implications from what doctrine or solid teachings we do have with an eye to contradicting as little of the accumulating science as possible. Have there been any published archaeological studies of the part of Davies County that was indicated as the location of the Garden of Eden?

[Flyonthewall]

To some, there is enough gospel facts to answer this question.

Moses 3:7

7 And I, the Lord God, formed man from the ^adust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the ^bbreath of life; and ^cman became a living ^dsoul, the ^efirst flesh upon the earth, the first man also; nevertheless, all things were before created; but spiritually were they created and made according to my word.

This scripture comes right out and answers it. Not only was Adam the first man, but the first flesh. So if there were any others before Adam, they were also before the creation, and not part of THIS earth.

The first presidency has also come out and stated that Man did not evolve from lower life forms.

These hairs have been split so thin as to become non-existant.

To me, it is simply an attempt to reconcile religion with science, and I don't believe science is in place to be overlayed on religion...not enough data ... yet.