Back To The Garden: Eden In Mormonism

[Stone holm]

According to Scripture God made the earth, and when all was ready he then made Adam and Eve.

What do you mean by "when all was ready"?

[thesometimesaint]

Only if one is set in his approach in viewing and in his view of the evidence, and in his conclusions. I have often found that the mechanism is not always as it appears, though the promises (outcomes) are, and vice-versa.

I don’t usually get a reply to this question, but I’ll ask you: “What is wrong with any mechanism involvng the origin of human beings (as we understand it), as long as we enter into and keep the same covenants, verifiable by the Holy Spirit?” Or this one: “What do you think are the Gospel-impacting ramifications of any mechanism?”

I'm not married to any one biological mechanism. I expect there to be changes in how scientists and I view and evaluate the evidence, as new evidence arrives. In fact I eagerly await new, and potentially dramatic evidence. But for the last 150 years more and more evidence falls into the pro-evolution side model. While less and less evidence there is for the creationists, exogensis claims.

Ps; It was widely believed 150 years ago that both Mars and Venus were populated by humans. We now know that such was never the case. That puts the exogensis claims outside our solar system, and time distances become problematic for anyone other than God.

As valuable as it is faith/religion isn't a biological mechanism. People(the only creatures that we know of) have had/have many many faiths/religions over the last 10,000 years or so. Heck there are over 40,000 Christian religions in the US alone. As a scientist I can't put God, or my ideas about God, into any of my equations. I just can't do it. Would you want a faithful Hindu positing his concepts of God onto your science? Would you accept and believe it is Shiva that causes water to boil at 212 degrees F at sea level?

As a LDS I have no problem with God, and whatever biological mechanism(s) he used is fine with me. The evidence so far is that God used Evolution to Create everything. That being said I fully accept and believe the covenants and commitments I have made with God are far more important to me and my relationship with God than any mechanism(s) he used to create me and my world.

Edited June 25, 2013 by thesometimesaint

[Stone holm]

I'm not married to any one biological mechanism. I expect there to be changes in how scientists and I view and evaluate the evidence, as new evidence arrives. In fact I eagerly await new, and potentially dramatic evidence. But for the last 150 years more and more evidence falls into the pro-evolution side model. While less and less evidence there is for the creationists, exogensis claims.

Ps; It was widely believed 150 years ago that both Mars and Venus were populated by humans. We now know that such was never the case. That puts the exogensis claims outside our solar system, and time distances become problematic for anyone other than God.

As valuable as it is faith/religion isn't a biological mechanism. People(the only creatures that we know of) have had/have many many faiths/religions over the last 10,000 years or so. Heck there are over 40,000 Christian religions in the US alone. As a scientist I can't put God, or my ideas about God, into any of my equations. I just can't do it. Would you want a faithful Hindu positing his concepts of God onto your science? Would you accept and believe it is Shiva that causes water to boil at 212 degrees F at sea level?

As a LDS I have no problem with God, and whatever biological mechanism(s) he used is fine with me. The evidence so far is that God used Evolution to Create everything. That being said I fully accept and believe the covenants and commitments I have made with God are far more important to me and my relationship with God than any mechanism(s) he used to create me and my world.

"Never" is always a troublesome word even with regards to planets being inhabited. I agree though that there is no radical paradigm shift on the horizon with regards to evolutionary principles, I think there may be some tinkering as to whether evolution has some direction other than just random mutation -- that does not necessarily hypothecate God, but that there may be some directive force hardwired into the system. Biologists seem a little reluctant to venture in that direction because the Creationist take any little discovery or hypothesis and blow it into something never intended. All of the vicious attacks on evolutionary biology by fundamentalists and peddlers of faux science have hardened both sides of the controversy.

[thesometimesaint]

"Never" is always a troublesome word even with regards to planets being inhabited. I agree though that there is no radical paradigm shift on the horizon with regards to evolutionary principles, I think there may be some tinkering as to whether evolution has some direction other than just random mutation -- that does not necessarily hypothecate God, but that there may be some directive force hardwired into the system. Biologists seem a little reluctant to venture in that direction because the Creationist take any little discovery or hypothesis and blow it into something never intended. All of the vicious attacks on evolutionary biology by fundamentalists and peddlers of faux science have hardened both sides of the controversy.

I don't believe that changing the word "never" to "since their creation" would help much.

Evolution isn't truly random, at least in the mathematical sense of the word. There is a limited range of possible mutations that don't effect the overall survivability of a species. IE; While Planaria do just fine with two heads, most creatures don't.

The Cause Celebre of the Creationists is Irreducible Complexity. That idea has been thoroughly debunked.

If it weren't for the terrible consequences of teaching Creationism. I'd say leave them alone. Just as we pretty much leave the Amish alone, but I serious doubt most American's would choose to live like them.

[danielwoods]

If it weren't for the terrible consequences of teaching Creationism.

Please post a list of these terrible consequences, I for one would love to read them.

[thesometimesaint]

Please post a list of these terrible consequences, I for one would love to read them.

One of the terrible consequences is the so called Creationist Museum in Kentucky.

[Ahab]

If it weren't for the terrible consequences of teaching Creationism. I'd say leave them alone. Just as we pretty much leave the Amish alone, but I serious doubt most American's would choose to live like them.

Most Americans these days don't believe a lot of things that are true. Still not a good reason to live and think like they do.

[danielwoods]

One of the terrible consequences is the so called Creationist Museum in Kentucky.

[media=]

I can only guess since you didn't really make a list. That the terrible consequences are two: a museum and that Bill Nye says so?

[thesometimesaint]

Most Americans these days don't believe a lot of things that are true. Still not a good reason to live and think like they do.

We are all entitled to our own beliefs. It is our actions as a consequence of those beliefs that get us into trouble. Personally I have no desire to live my life like people of 150 years ago, and seriously doubt many modern day Americans do either, including the Saints. Modern medicine is hinged on Biology. Biology is hinged on Evolution. Throwing out Evolution is tantamount to trying to live life of a hundred and fifty years ago. Sorry that is just one horse drawn carriage to much for me to want to ride in.

[CV75]

I'm not married to any one biological mechanism. I expect there to be changes in how scientists and I view and evaluate the evidence, as new evidence arrives. In fact I eagerly await new, and potentially dramatic evidence. But for the last 150 years more and more evidence falls into the pro-evolution side model. While less and less evidence there is for the creationists, exogensis claims.

Ps; It was widely believed 150 years ago that both Mars and Venus were populated by humans. We now know that such was never the case. That puts the exogensis claims outside our solar system, and time distances become problematic for anyone other than God.

As valuable as it is faith/religion isn't a biological mechanism. People(the only creatures that we know of) have had/have many many faiths/religions over the last 10,000 years or so. Heck there are over 40,000 Christian religions in the US alone. As a scientist I can't put God, or my ideas about God, into any of my equations. I just can't do it. Would you want a faithful Hindu positing his concepts of God onto your science? Would you accept and believe it is Shiva that causes water to boil at 212 degrees F at sea level?

As a LDS I have no problem with God, and whatever biological mechanism(s) he used is fine with me. The evidence so far is that God used Evolution to Create everything. That being said I fully accept and believe the covenants and commitments I have made with God are far more important to me and my relationship with God than any mechanism(s) he used to create me and my world.

I understand that the scientific method as it has been applied to date, to the subject of the origin of humanity on Earth, provides evidence that supports evolution. And people of faith will say that God invented evolution, used evolution, or worked outside of evolution to create human beings, etc.; and then there is the whole compatibility issue between religion and science. Positions run all across the spectrum. For example, in principle I can accept that God, in His own way and by established default, causes water to boil, but I do not believe in Shiva.

I think people of faith that hold to any of these positions will typically agree that their relationship with God is more important than any mechanisms [as they might understand them] He used to create them or the world, and would agree that their understanding is not God’s. This is why I see the ideas expressed in this thread as good for individual working purposes, but not reliable for staking out our salvation.

The only way I can see the mechanism being as important as our relationship is in how God came to be and our following that same eternal pattern, for the drive to enjoy eternal relationships is built into our, and God’s, makeup.

[thesometimesaint]

I can only guess since you didn't really make a list. That the terrible consequences are two: a museum and that Bill Nye says so?

Not limited to or in no particular order.

1. Modern medicine.

2. Modern biology.

3. Extended human lifetimes.

4. Modern agriculture.

5. Inhabitable cities.

6. Exploration of space.

7. Exploitation of natural resources such as gas, oil, and coal.

8. Deep time.

9. Evolution of the Cosmos.

10. Germ theory of disease.

11. Embryology.

12. Ecosystem management.

13. The Industrial Revolution.

[thesometimesaint]

I understand that the scientific method as it has been applied to date, to the subject of the origin of humanity on Earth, provides evidence that supports evolution. And people of faith will say that God invented evolution, used evolution, or worked outside of evolution to create human beings, etc.; and then there is the whole compatibility issue between religion and science. Positions run all across the spectrum. For example, in principle I can accept that God, in His own way and by established default, causes water to boil, but I do not believe in Shiva.

I think people of faith that hold to any of these positions will typically agree that their relationship with God is more important than any mechanisms [as they might understand them] He used to create them or the world, and would agree that their understanding is not God’s. This is why I see the ideas expressed in this thread as good for individual working purposes, but not reliable for staking out our salvation.

The only way I can see the mechanism being as important as our relationship is in how God came to be and our following that same eternal pattern, for the drive to enjoy eternal relationships is built into our, and God’s, makeup.

I'm not suggesting anyone should believe in Shiva. Only that millions do.

Oh my Salvation isn't dependent on Evolution or any other science. For me it is just a way to understand, as faultily as I do, how God did it.

I think there is an eternal pattern, as represented here on this planet. But the only world I know much about, and that is very little, is this one. Other worlds that support life as we know it? Who knows?

[Ahab]

Other worlds that support life as we know it? Who knows?

We do, collectively, even though some of the people on this planet don't accept that knowledge as the truth.

For some reason some people won't accept knowledge from God unless the majority of other people do, too.

[thesometimesaint]

We do, collectively, even though some of the people on this planet don't accept that knowledge as the truth.

For some reason some people won't accept knowledge from God unless the majority of other people do, too.

I believe there are people on other planets. But that belief and $5 will get me a Frappuccino at Starbucks.

[Stone holm]

We do, collectively, even though some of the people on this planet don't accept that knowledge as the truth.

For some reason some people won't accept knowledge from God unless the majority of other people do, too.

And some won't because a majority of other people do, the point being what as respects the Garden of Eden?

[cinepro]

Someone had to be the first to make those Toll House cookies by tinkering with(evolving) the combinations of this ingredient or that ingredient over generations of cookies till they were exactly what they were after. Then they had to be test marketed, and then only after successful completion in the test markets was the recipe put on the package.

But according to LDS doctrine, God started out knowing what the final product needed to look like. It needed to look exactly like Him. Two arms. Two legs. Two eyes. Two ears. One nose. Bipedal. Hair on top of the head.

If you start out knowing exactly what the animal needs to look like and do, then evolution is the wrong tool for the job.

In other words, if you had the power to create animals, and I told you to create an animal that looked like this:

why would you spend billions of years evolving the animal? You already know what it needs to look like and do, and you have the ability to make it.

Evolution would be the wrong tool for the job.

[Ahab]

I believe there are people on other planets. But that belief and $5 will get me a Frappuccino at Starbucks.

Money is irrelevant as it relates to knowledge of truth, and instead of only believing you can know something is true when God gives that knowledge to you.

[thesometimesaint]

But according to LDS doctrine, God started out knowing what the final product needed to look like. It needed to look exactly like Him. Two arms. Two legs. Two eyes. Two ears. One nose. Bipedal. Hair on top of the head.

If you start out knowing exactly what the animal needs to look like and do, then evolution is the wrong tool for the job.

In other words, if you had the power to create animals, and I told you to create an animal that looked like this:

why would you spend billions of years evolving the animal? You already know what it needs to look like and do, and you have the ability to make it.

Evolution would be the wrong tool for the job.

We mere mortals evolve plants and animals all the time with a final result in mind. The process works whether we are Gods or merely mortals.

Why not spend all the time necessary to imbue whatever traits you want? What is a few billion years to eternal beings?

PS; See

Edited June 25, 2013 by thesometimesaint

[thesometimesaint]

Money is irrelevant as it relates to knowledge of truth, and instead of only believing you can know something is true when God gives that knowledge to you.

Now just take that belief to any store you want and try to exchange that belief for any product.

[Ahab]

Now just take that belief to any store you want and try to exchange that belief for any product.

Money really isn't necessary at all in this world except to the people who believe it really is.

[thesometimesaint]

Money really isn't necessary at all in this world except to the people who believe it really is.

I didn't say money. I said belief in an exchange for goods.

[CV75]

For me it is just a way to understand, as faultily as I do, how God did it.

Yes, I think this goes for all of us as far as however we might think He did it.

[Ahab]

I didn't say money. I said belief in an exchange for goods.

I know, and I said something about money as it relates to beliefs and goods..

I do take my beliefs to any store where I want something and I don't have to exchange any of my beliefs for any product i want.

[Stone holm]

But according to LDS doctrine, God started out knowing what the final product needed to look like. It needed to look exactly like Him. Two arms. Two legs. Two eyes. Two ears. One nose. Bipedal. Hair on top of the head.

If you start out knowing exactly what the animal needs to look like and do, then evolution is the wrong tool for the job.

In other words, if you had the power to create animals, and I told you to create an animal that looked like this:

why would you spend billions of years evolving the animal? You already know what it needs to look like and do, and you have the ability to make it.

Evolution would be the wrong tool for the job.

Not necessarily. God had the knowledge of the generation of gods before Him. It may well be that if you terra-form a planet in a certain way, it is like following a cake recipe -- you don't wind up with an Angel Food Cake if you are following a Devil Food Cake recipe -- you just need to make sure that you put in the right ingredients, use the right cake pan, and adjust the heat properly. Evolution most likely follows a pattern. But, although He may well have, and the evidence strongly suggest that He did, use evolution for most of the plant and animal life, that does not necessarily mean that is what He did with regards to Adam and Eve.

[CV75]

But, although He may well have, and the evidence strongly suggest that He did, use evolution for most of the plant and animal life, that does not necessarily mean that is what He did with regards to Adam and Eve.

I think you have a point here, where human beings are exceptional in that they are born to covenant with God, and it is also by covenant that they are spiritually re-born, and again by covenant as they are born by way of the “continuation of the seeds.” And as far as we know, there is only one approved way to make them, which is through marriage.

I do not think it is much of a stretch to view all forms of life in the same light. While they do not make covenants as we do, they are subject to the Light of Christ and the powers of procreation, which are also eternal principles.

This covenant might make the difference between genetic changes that properly fall under a divine stewardship and those that do not. At the same time, those "fundamental principles" that have to do with the physical makeup of human beings (or any life form for that matter) may not be subject to those forces that might be considered to be "evolution" simply because of relatively superficial changes observed in the expression (or kind of expression) of the genetic material in their systems.

Edited June 25, 2013 by CV75