Back To The Garden: Eden In Mormonism

[ERayR]

The whole story can be dismissed as a series of supernatural miracles. There is no way to contradict such an argument. However, one must wonder about a God who reportedly does one thing and then arranges every bit of evidence to make it look like something else happened. It's entirely possible that creation occurred 14,000 years ago or even last Thursday, and that God subsequently erased all the evidence, including our memories of it. But even if such stories are true, what's the point?

He doesn't have to arrange anything like that. He just leaves it to the scientists to extrapolate results beyond the boundaries of its validity.

[Stone holm]

Sorry no it can't. Science by definition can not posit any God or Godlike force.

I don't think that is true and could be very misleading. Science is simply a method of gaining knowledge based on drawing conclusions from observable data. Scientific inquiry is by definition exclusive of faith which is defined as a belief in that which is true the evidence of which is unseen. But it is not incompatible with God by definition. It may well be that at some future date scientific inquiry will in fact lead to God or Godlike forces or confirming their existence -- science does not and should not rule out anything from the get go by definition. Mormons in particular should have an affinity for science because we believe that God is bound by certain laws and that what appear to us as miracles, is simply God using His superior knowledge of the natural laws to manipulate them. What we moderns dismiss as "superstitious belief in magic", may in the end merely turn out to have been the application of certain natural laws that we did not understand.

[thesometimesaint]

He doesn't have to arrange anything like that. He just leaves it to the scientists to extrapolate results beyond the boundaries of its validity.

CFR

[thesometimesaint]

I don't think that is true and could be very misleading. Science is simply a method of gaining knowledge based on drawing conclusions from observable data. Scientific inquiry is by definition exclusive of faith which is defined as a belief in that which is true the evidence of which is unseen. But it is not incompatible with God by definition. It may well be that at some future date scientific inquiry will in fact lead to God or Godlike forces or confirming their existence -- science does not and should not rule out anything from the get go by definition. Mormons in particular should have an affinity for science because we believe that God is bound by certain laws and that what appear to us as miracles, is simply God using His superior knowledge of the natural laws to manipulate them. What we moderns dismiss as "superstitious belief in magic", may in the end merely turn out to have been the application of certain natural laws that we did not understand.

That is not quite what the definition of science is. God is not observable, and quantifiable by any known science. The same with spooks; ghosts, even the holy one; invisible flying spaghetti monsters; The Great Pumpkin; and little green men. Sure those may exist there just is no evidence for them.

Science doesn't work from faith, other than if it can be observed, and quantified. While a miracle may be something we don't understand yet. Science doesn't deal in the miraculous. At one time witches were widely believed to have magical powers such as to fly around on broomsticks. Even today with all our scientific knowledge we are still just Muggles, and are entertained by Harry Potter.

[Closet Doubter]

You can test anything anyone says by asking God if what they are saying is true. God isn't the cause of confusion. God is who we can turn to to clear it all up.

Actually, it's the teaching of the Church that causes the confusion. We are taught that we are led by prophets, seers, and revelators. Then when they teach something, we can't even be sure that what they are teaching is true so we have to ask God. to let us know if it is true or if we are being deceived. God tells some people that what the prophets, seers, and revelators are teaching is true and others that what they are teaching is just thier personal opinion. To make it worse, they (the prophets, seers, and revelators) write down these teachings in books so they can sell thier opinions to make a whole lot of money but they don't make it clear in the book that it is just their opinion so people tend to believe that what they are reading must be true because the person writing it is a prophet, seer, and revelator. Then we have to pray about each thing they write in thier book to find out if it is actually true or if they are deceiving us. Again, God tells some people the teaching is true and others that the teaching is false. Even among the group of 15 prophets, seers, and revelators God tells some of them the teaching is true and others of them that the teaching is false. Then we have everyone coming to boards such as this to try and figure it out fulfilling the prophecy in the Bible that we will be "forever learning but never coming to the knowledge of truth".

[thesometimesaint]

Actually, it's the teaching of the Church that causes the confusion. We are taught that we are led by prophets, seers, and revelators. Then when they teach something, we can't even be sure that what they are teaching is true so we have to ask God. to let us know if it is true or if we are being deceived. God tells some people that what the prophets, seers, and revelators are teaching is true and others that what they are teaching is just thier personal opinion. To make it worse, they (the prophets, seers, and revelators) write down these teachings in books so they can sell thier opinions to make a whole lot of money but they don't make it clear in the book that it is just their opinion so people tend to believe that what they are reading must be true because the person writing it is a prophet, seer, and revelator. Then we have to pray about each thing they write in thier book to find out if it is actually true or if they are deceiving us. Again, God tells some people the teaching is true and others that the teaching is false. Even among the group of 15 prophets, seers, and revelators God tells some of them the teaching is true and others of them that the teaching is false. Then we have everyone coming to boards such as this to try and figure it out fulfilling the prophecy in the Bible that we will be "forever learning but never coming to the knowledge of truth".

God doesn't make sock puppets.

We've never claimed that Prophets, Seers, and Revelators are infallible.

The LDS market for books is very small. There are very few professional writers that are LDS, and fewer still that make a living at it. Most do it for love not for the money.

I can't tell you what, if anything, God told you. I can only tell you what God told me. I'll stick with that.

[ERayR]

CFR

CFR What?

[thesometimesaint]

That "He just leaves it to the scientists to extrapolate results beyond the boundaries of its validity".

[Stone holm]

That is not quite what the definition of science is. God is not observable, and quantifiable by any known science. The same with spooks; ghosts, even the holy one; invisible flying spaghetti monsters; The Great Pumpkin; and little green men. Sure those may exist there just is no evidence for them.

Science doesn't work from faith, other than if it can be observed, and quantified. While a miracle may be something we don't understand yet. Science doesn't deal in the miraculous. At one time witches were widely believed to have magical powers such as to fly around on broomsticks. Even today with all our scientific knowledge we are still just Muggles, and are entertained by Harry Potter.

Why would you assert that "God is not observable", of course He is observable, He has a material body. "Science" and "known Science" are two different things. There are many things that are presently not observable or quantifiable by known science. I believe that I said that science and faith are mutually exclusive by definition, but not for the reasons you have stated. They are exclusive because of the definition of faith which is a belief in things that are True, the evidences of which are not seen. Science is all about evidence so anything which excludes evidence, by definition excludes science. However, faith itself is already being detected by science and we are just barely now starting to understand how the brain and therefore the mind works, so we do not fully understand the powers thereof -- therefore, it would be arrogant to dismiss as mere superstition the notion that the Egyptian magicians who were creating snakes, etc. were not actually doing so subject to some laws that we do not now understand. Also, it is true that science doesn't deal in the miraculous -- but Mormonism defines miracles as merely being the application of laws that we currently do not understand, its not just snapping your fingers.

[ERayR]

That "He just leaves it to the scientists to extrapolate results beyond the boundaries of its validity".

Show me that changes made in a species definitely results in the formation of a new species. What is done is that it is shown that species change and diversify and the evolution to neww species is extrapolated from that.

[thesometimesaint]

I know he lives near Kolob. So give me the exact coordinates for Kolob.

There is no such thing as unknown science. There are however plenty of unknown questions, and answers. When ever we learn the answer to one question that usually generates five more questions we don't have the answer to.

Science is the study of things that are observable and quantifiable.

I can see and measure what the ideas of faith and love lead a person to do, but I can't measure the ideas themselves. However that doesn't mean that faith and love don't exist. It would be like you attempting to prove that your mother loves you by you just claiming it.

Harry Potter not withstanding is it anymore arrogant to dismiss witches flying on brooms? If not why not?

I have no problem with miracles. Compared to any other time in human history we are living in the Age of Miracles. Try telling some one living in the 18th Century CE about the internet and they'd burn you at the stake for witchcraft. God may inspire us to do many things, but he usually lets us do them.

[Ahab]

Why would you assert that "God is not observable", of course He is observable, He has a material body. "Science" and "known Science" are two different things. There are many things that are presently not observable or quantifiable by known science.

"Known science" isn't quite the right term, but I agree with the basis of your idea. The problem is that some people know what some others don't know and the people who don't know don't know they can know. Everything is observable, in some sense, even love and faith, if you know what to look for and can spot it when you see it.

I believe that I said that science and faith are mutually exclusive by definition, but not for the reasons you have stated. They are exclusive because of the definition of faith which is a belief in things that are True, the evidences of which are not seen.

Yes, and not seen doesn't mean can't be seen. God lives and can be seen by everyone, even if he is not seen by someone in particular at a particular moment in time, and a person who uses the scientific method of discovery is more likely to see him than someone who isn't looking for him or is stuck on the idea that God doesn't exist.

Science is all about evidence so anything which excludes evidence, by definition excludes science.

Beautiful. I'm going to make that comment one of my own.

However, faith itself is already being detected by science and we are just barely now starting to understand how the brain and therefore the mind works, so we do not fully understand the powers thereof -- therefore, it would be arrogant to dismiss as mere superstition the notion that the Egyptian magicians who were creating snakes, etc. were not actually doing so subject to some laws that we do not now understand. Also, it is true that science doesn't deal in the miraculous -- but Mormonism defines miracles as merely being the application of laws that we currently do not understand, its not just snapping your fingers.

I think the main point to understand is that some people don't understand what some other people do understand, and not only do some not understand but some don't believe they can understand so that makes it even harder for them to understand.

[Stone holm]

Show me that changes made in a species definitely results in the formation of a new species. What is done is that it is shown that species change and diversify and the evolution to neww species is extrapolated from that.

Yeah, I don't think we need to have the hard boundary between species in order to reconcile with existing teachings, although not maybe with some of the anti-Science people like Joseph Fielding Smith and Bruce R. McConkie, but I don't think you really need to go that far otherwise.

[ERayR]

I know he lives near Kolob. So give me the exact coordinates for Kolob.

You limit the possibilities. God is observable in so many ways up to and including visions. You manage to extrapolate evolutionary miracles from observed data.

There is no such thing as unknown science. There are however plenty of unknown questions, and answers. When ever we learn the answer to one question that usually generates five more questions we don't have the answer to.

No problem, keep looking.

Science is the study of things that are observable and quantifiable.

Conclusions reached by scientists should be also.

I can see and measure what the ideas of faith and love lead a person to do, but I can't measure the ideas themselves. However that doesn't mean that faith and love don't exist. It would be like you attempting to prove that your mother loves you by you just claiming it.

As I remember there are things in Physics that are not observable but are assumed and defined by what they do.

Harry Potter not withstanding is it anymore arrogant to dismiss witches flying on brooms? If not why not?

Another attempt at ridicule and dismisal.

I have no problem with miracles. Compared to any other time in human history we are living in the Age of Miracles. Try telling some one living in the 18th Century CE about the internet and they'd burn you at the stake for witchcraft. God may inspire us to do many things, but he usually lets us do them.

Agreed

[ERayR]

Yeah, I don't think we need to have the hard boundary between species in order to reconcile with existing teachings, although not maybe with some of the anti-Science people like Joseph Fielding Smith and Bruce R. McConkie, but I don't think you really need to go that far otherwise.

I remember from a Calculus class that there are some things that are valid only within certain bounds and there is ways to mathematically attempt to define those bounds. If something is observed at one place but can not be seen happening at another place then between the two is the boundary. Evolution can be observed to a point but beyond that point it is only extrapolations and not observed changes.

[thesometimesaint]

Show me that changes made in a species definitely results in the formation of a new species. What is done is that it is shown that species change and diversify and the evolution to neww species is extrapolated from that.

[ERayR]

[media=]

What makes you think I don't know these things. It is the common garden variety of evolutionary pablum. It does not plainly show how evolution created new species it only shows how biologists think it happened because of extrapolated data from micro-evolution. the behavior of z does not always follow the pattern of x.

[BCSpace]

Show me that changes made in a species definitely results in the formation of a new species.

Watch the primer in my siggy. 5:09 to 6:30 explains it precisely. Notice that at no time does one species give birth to another species. In other words, evolution meets the "after it's own kind" criteria.

Edited June 21, 2013 by BCSpace

[cinepro]

Science is the study of things that are observable and quantifiable.

Perhaps an easier way to understand why "god" isn't "scientific" is because science has to be consistent and repeatable.

God may be a lot of things, but nothing He does is consistent or repeatable.

[Questing Beast]

Perhaps an easier way to understand why "god" isn't "scientific" is because science has to be consistent and repeatable.

God may be a lot of things, but nothing He does is consistent or repeatable.

Really? "Nothing"? How about, most or even ALL of what "God" does is consistent and repeatable, if you know how it is done that is....

[cinepro]

Why would we take evolution out of God's toolkit?

Because it's the wrong tool for the job.

One key problem for the theory of God using physical evolution as a tool is the doctrine that God created everything in a spiritual form first.

5 And every plant of the field before it was in the earth, and every herb of the field before it grew. For I, the Lord God, created all things, of which I have spoken, spiritually, before they were naturally upon the face of the earth. For I, the Lord God, had not caused it to rain upon the face of the earth. And I, the Lord God, had created all the children of men; and not yet a man to till the ground; for in heaven created I them; and there was not yet flesh upon the earth, neither in the water, neither in the air;

6 But I, the Lord God, spake, and there went up a mist from the earth, and watered the whole face of the ground.

7 And I, the Lord God, formed man from the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul, the first 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.

Moses 3:5-7

What does this teach us? It means that before God created the Earth, he created the animals and humans in their spirit form first. So if we were in heaven before the creation, we could have seen dogs, cats, llamas, mosquitoes, ducks, and catfish in their spiritual form.

Now, in order for us to believe that God used evolution as a tool, how does this work with a spiritual pre-creation? Because God would have to spiritually pre-create the entire chain of evolution! Including all the intermediary steps! So every generation and every adaptation in the evolutionary chain was created first as a spirit in heaven.

But this goes contrary to the foundational principle of evolution, which is that evolution has no predetermined goal. Things adapt, but they don't adapt with the idea that they have to look or act a certain way billions of years from now.

So what is the purpose of spending millions of years just kind of nudging the process along, with false starts and dead ends? It would be like trying to make chocolate chip cookies, but instead of just using the Nestle Toll House recipe from the back of the package, you make thousands and thousands of different batches, trying to figure out how to make Nestle Toll House cookies. Then, finally, after years and years of experimentation, you arrive at the exact cookie that you could have made the first time by looking at the package. Even if you used that method, you wouldn’t say that you “evolved” the cookie. You would say you developed the cookie using trial and error. Do we really want to suggest that God created our physical world using “trial and error”?

The other problem is the ongoing nature of evolution. The story of the creation gives the idea of a creative “period”, and then the state where things are “created”. 2 Nephi 2:22 certainly frames the creation in such a way. But evolution doesn’t have an end. How could it? How could God be evolving thousands of different species, each moving slowly towards their intended finished design, and then find that one moment in time where a species is “created”, and then have it keep evolving? And what happens when some speices are fully evolved/created after 20 million years, but other species need 80 million years, or 100 million years? Do some animals get their spirits first? Are there animals even today who are not yet “created”, and are spiritless lifeforms waiting to evolve into their final “spiritual” form?

Edited June 21, 2013 by cinepro

[Ahab]

God may be a lot of things, but nothing He does is consistent or repeatable.

Actually we can get to the point where we can do everything he can do.. You may not, but some will.

It's the whole point of worshipping him.

[cinepro]

Actually we can get to the point where we can do everything he can do.. You may not, but some will.

It's the whole point of worshipping him.

That's no different than saying that eventually someone will invent a working implementation of cold fusion.

Until someone does, and is willing to do it consistently and repeatedly, it's not scientific.

[CV75]

One way I think evidence for evolution can be misinterpreted is if there was a lengthy, gradual and sequential departure of life from the Garden of Eden from the “simplest” to Adam, leaving the mistaken impression in (or interpretation from) the fossil, genetic and other records that life evolved from eoarchean abiogenesis, rather than life forms departing the garden over millions of years and giving way to new life forms as they exited the garden.

We know that “all do not die at once,” and not everyone is born, makes covenants, or is resurrected at once, so why should they all depart the Garden of Eden at once? As Noah was the last to enter and leave the ark, Adam may have been the first to enter the garden and the last to leave; or the first to be created from the ground outside the garden and the last to return to it in the form of a fallen world. This would also allow a 7,000 year timeframe for humankind’s history.

Edited June 21, 2013 by CV75

[BCSpace]

Now, in order for us to believe that God used evolution as a tool, how does this work with a spiritual pre-creation? Because God would have to spiritually pre-create the entire chain of evolution! Including all the intermediary steps! So every generation and every adaptation in the evolutionary chain was created first as a spirit in heaven.

Why would that be a problem?

But this goes contrary to the foundational principle of evolution, which is that evolution has no predetermined goal. Things adapt, but they don't adapt with the idea that they have to look or act a certain way billions of years from now.

You are forgetting that evolution would be God driven. You are also likely forgetting, or didn't know in the first place, that randomness and chaos in science are governed by physicals laws. In addition, a scientist would have to account for every atom and sub-atomic particle in the universe for every instant in time in order to be able to somehow preclude God's hand.

Evolution does indeed fit in the tool kit and frankly, is the only tool in said kit that we know of.