Tacenda Posted January 15, 2014 Posted January 15, 2014 http://bycommonconsent.com/2014/01/07/so-just-what-do-mormons-think-about-evolution/ Just thought you might want to read this article about us Mormons.
Freedom Posted January 15, 2014 Posted January 15, 2014 http://bycommonconsent.com/2014/01/07/so-just-what-do-mormons-think-about-evolution/ Just thought you might want to read this article about us Mormons. No worries. Our numbers were not so great concerning african americans not so long ago. We well evolve.
Freedom Posted January 15, 2014 Posted January 15, 2014 But if the evolutions is trues, why are there still monkys?!?!Checkmate, Darwin. To eat bananas and to star in tarzan movies.
SeekingUnderstanding Posted January 15, 2014 Posted January 15, 2014 (edited) http://bycommonconsent.com/2014/01/07/so-just-what-do-mormons-think-about-evolution/ Just thought you might want to read this article about us Mormons.I dislike the phrasing in that poll. A better question would be: "Do you believe all living organisms share a common ancestor?" Edited January 15, 2014 by SeekingUnderstanding
Tacenda Posted January 16, 2014 Posted January 16, 2014 I dislike the phrasing in that poll. A better question would be: "Do you believe all living organisms share a common ancestor?"These guys would agree with you. Ray says:January 7, 2014 at 4:23 pmI believe firmly that evolution is the process God used to create our physical bodies – but the question is worded in such a way that I would have a very hard time answering with anything except one of the disagree options if I was reading it literally and not trying to answer knowing people were going to draw incorrect conclusions about my answer. (Knowing that is the case, I would answer “mostly agree”.) The wording leaves no room for the distinction in Mormonism between body and spirit, and I have to assume many members see the question as saying, in practical terms, “Humans are the product of evolution and only evolution.”In other words, I think we would tend to read the question as asking about what I call “Godless evolution”, with the implication that we are nothing more than the smartest animals on the planet. For that reason, I’m not surprised at all with the results. SteveF says:January 7, 2014 at 5:07 pmI agree with Ray’s take. To me, looking at all the evidence, it becomes clear that evolution is a reality. But take God out of the picture, and then do I believe it is the best explanation for the origins of human life? No. I’ll take the explanation God created man (without discussing how He did it) over Godless evolution any day as a better explanation for the origins of human life–even though I fully accept evolution as a reality, and the means by which God creates mortal tabernacles.My guess is that results could be quite different with a different question, one that doesn’t seem to be pitting evolution against other theories (which usually include God). 1
katherine the great Posted January 16, 2014 Posted January 16, 2014 Just to clarify--Halconero is just playing. He's an anthro person.
katherine the great Posted January 16, 2014 Posted January 16, 2014 They ask it because Darwinism is incorrect.. Just Satan deciving the masses and the gullible.Apes and humans may have simillar DNA but thats about it.No my dear. The similarities between our species and the great apes were noticed long before any understanding of DNA. DNA studies just provide more evidence to a very well supported theory.
Cold Steel Posted January 16, 2014 Posted January 16, 2014 If we are eternal spirits, being given the gift of physical bodies to inhabit, does it really matter the process whereby those physical bodies came to be? Is your body any less sacred or valuable if it was developed through an evolutionary process? No, but it certainly is problematic. The question becomes, who was Adam's father? Who was Eve's father? We know that their being created out of the ground, out of the earth, is not literal. Brigham Young and others have taught that both of our first parents were born of woman, just as we are. That means that we can expect them both to have navels. The literal existence of our first parents also is necessary component of the plan of salvation in that they were the means of the fall. We know from the scriptures that Adam was physically the son of God, and that he and Eve were brought here from another world, meaning that their lines of descent did not come down from simpler life forms. I tread on some ice here, whether thin or not I know not, but some of the early brethren taught that Adam and Eve were resurrected beings. As such, their deaths were not the same as ours. Whereas death for us is a separation of body and spirit, to Adam and Even, death was separation of their exalted bodies from the corruption they had taken into themselves through sin and consisting of corruptible foods. This corruption enabled them to have mortal offspring. This concept was never canonized, but the question of descent remains viable. Did Adam and Eve both come from some sort of simian lineage and countless mutations from simple to more complex? That's the part I think is incompatible with the Christian and LDS theology. .
teddyaware Posted January 16, 2014 Posted January 16, 2014 (edited) Deleated Edited January 16, 2014 by teddyaware
teddyaware Posted January 16, 2014 Posted January 16, 2014 No, but it certainly is problematic. The question becomes, who was Adam's father? Who was Eve's father? We know that their being created out of the ground, out of the earth, is not literal. Brigham Young and others have taught that both of our first parents were born of woman, just as we are. That means that we can expect them both to have navels. The literal existence of our first parents also is necessary component of the plan of salvation in that they were the means of the fall. We know from the scriptures that Adam was physically the son of God, and that he and Eve were brought here from another world, meaning that their lines of descent did not come down from simpler life forms. I tread on some ice here, whether thin or not I know not, but some of the early brethren taught that Adam and Eve were resurrected beings. As such, their deaths were not the same as ours. Whereas death for us is a separation of body and spirit, to Adam and Even, death was separation of their exalted bodies from the corruption they had taken into themselves through sin and consisting of corruptible foods. This corruption enabled them to have mortal offspring. This concept was never canonized, but the question of descent remains viable. Did Adam and Eve both come from some sort of simian lineage and countless mutations from simple to more complex? That's the part I think is incompatible with the Christian and LDS theology. . I know what I'm about to say is unscientific and subjective, but when I imagine that Adam and Eve are the literal offspring of God in the flesh, and that I therefore am a literal descendent of God in the flesh, I get a wonderful emotional response that exalts my state of mind with an infusion light. But conversely, whenever I imagine I'm a descendent of pond scum, reptiles and apes I get a depressive response, a dark pall that puts me in the dumps.
cinepro Posted January 16, 2014 Posted January 16, 2014 No, but it certainly is problematic. The question becomes, who was Adam's father? Who was Eve's father? We know that their being created out of the ground, out of the earth, is not literal. Brigham Young and others have taught that both of our first parents were born of woman, just as we are. . CFR on this.
Tacenda Posted January 16, 2014 Posted January 16, 2014 CFR on this.I'd imagine it's LDS doctrine isn't it? Or I'm butting in and should let coldsteel answer.
Rob Osborn Posted January 16, 2014 Posted January 16, 2014 (edited) I know what I'm about to say is unscientific and subjective, but when I imagine that Adam and Eve are the literal offspring of God in the flesh, and that I therefore am a literal descendent of God in the flesh, I get a wonderful emotional response that exalts my state of mind with an infusion light. But conversely, whenever I imagine I'm a descendent of pond scum, reptiles and apes I get a depressive response, a dark pall that puts me in the dumps. The only way that I believe the gospel makes any sense is that we must be the literal descendants of God himself. Because we are made from the dust of the earth, so was Adam and how did we come to be? My theory is that the Gods (Heavenly Father and Mother) came down to earth on te seventh day, sanctified the earth (blessed the creation of the earth and made it holy in preparation for life), then caused it to rain which brought forth fruit which literally was made from the dust of the earth. Then the Gods ate of the fruit which nourishment gave life in their seed and Adam and Eve were then born through the natural process of procreation. This is why God needs to be married so that his seed continues on in eternity. Now how can the seed of God continue if it is not passed directly from God into Adam? And, both male and female gods are required for seed to continue- 19 And again, verily I say unto you, if a man marry a wife by my word, which is my law, and by the new and everlasting covenant, and it is sealed unto them by the Holy Spirit of promise, by him who is anointed, unto whom I have appointed this power and the keys of this priesthood; and it shall be said unto them—Ye shall come forth in the first resurrection; and if it be after the first resurrection, in the next resurrection; and shall inherit thrones, kingdoms, principalities, and powers, dominions, all heights and depths—then shall it be written in the Lamb’s Book of Life, that he shall commit no murder whereby to shed innocent blood, and if ye abide in my covenant, and commit no murder whereby to shed innocent blood, it shall be done unto them in all things whatsoever my servant hath put upon them, in time, and through all eternity; and shall be of full force when they are out of the world; and they shall pass by the angels, and the gods, which are set there, to their exaltation and glory in all things, as hath been sealed upon their heads, which glory shall be a fulness and a continuation of the seeds forever and ever. (D&C 132:19) Besides all that the lineage of Noah is traced back father by father until you get to Adam who was the son of God.- 38 Which was the son of Enos, which was the son of Seth, which was the son of Adam, which was the son of God. (luke 3) Edited January 16, 2014 by Rob Osborn
cdowis Posted January 16, 2014 Posted January 16, 2014 CFR on this. It has been quoted in this thread.
Freedom Posted January 16, 2014 Posted January 16, 2014 We know from the scriptures that Adam was physically the son of God, and that he and Eve were brought here from another world, .This most certainly is not doctrine. Jesus is the only begotten in the flesh. Their bodies came from this earth, not some other planet. Who their mortal bodies are do not matter. God can raise rocks to be of israel.
thesometimesaint Posted January 16, 2014 Posted January 16, 2014 I'd imagine it's LDS doctrine isn't it? Or I'm butting in and should let coldsteel answer. It is a common enough belief in LDS circles, but no it isn't LDS doctrine.
SeekingUnderstanding Posted January 16, 2014 Posted January 16, 2014 It is a common enough belief in LDS circles, but no it isn't LDS doctrine.I'd say it isn't LDS doctrine anymore. Back in Brigham's day, it was taught as doctrine.
thesometimesaint Posted January 16, 2014 Posted January 16, 2014 I'd say it isn't LDS doctrine anymore. Back in Brigham's day, it was taught as doctrine. I've read my D&C a few time now. I can't seem to find Brother Brigham's beliefs about Adam there. Would you please point them out to me?
DonBradley Posted January 16, 2014 Posted January 16, 2014 Just popping in here, but has anyone mentioned that the thread title would have made a great name for a '60s band? 2
mfbukowski Posted January 16, 2014 Posted January 16, 2014 Just to clarify--Halconero is just playing. He's an anthro person.Hey- what a coincidence! I'm anthropomorphic myself! 1
mfbukowski Posted January 16, 2014 Posted January 16, 2014 Just popping in here, but has anyone mentioned that the thread title would have made a great name for a '60s band? 1
mfbukowski Posted January 16, 2014 Posted January 16, 2014 I know what I'm about to say is unscientific and subjective, but when I imagine that Adam and Eve are the literal offspring of God in the flesh, and that I therefore am a literal descendent of God in the flesh, I get a wonderful emotional response that exalts my state of mind with an infusion light. But conversely, whenever I imagine I'm a descendent of pond scum, reptiles and apes I get a depressive response, a dark pall that puts me in the dumps.Wait a minute..... I thought the savior was the only begotten in the flesh. 1
cinepro Posted January 16, 2014 Posted January 16, 2014 It has been quoted in this thread. Here's an interesting compendium of teachings from Church leaders about where, exactly, Adam came from: http://emp.byui.edu/OpenshawR/Pearl%20of%20Great%20Price/Creation%20Of%20Adam.htm The idea that Adam's body was a result of generations of evolutionary steps from lower orders does seem a bit at odds with what has been taught...
Rob Osborn Posted January 16, 2014 Posted January 16, 2014 Here's an interesting compendium of teachings from Church leaders about where, exactly, Adam came from: http://emp.byui.edu/OpenshawR/Pearl%20of%20Great%20Price/Creation%20Of%20Adam.htm The idea that Adam's body was a result of generations of evolutionary steps from lower orders does seem a bit at odds with what has been taught... I don't care what anyone says, man evolving from a lower order of species is not doctrine. Church doctrine has been factual in this area of clarification- man did not evolve from a lower order of species- that is official church doctrine.
thesometimesaint Posted January 16, 2014 Posted January 16, 2014 I don't care what anyone says, man evolving from a lower order of species is not doctrine. Church doctrine has been factual in this area of clarification- man did not evolve from a lower order of species- that is official church doctrine. It is obvious that you don't care, but this should be a cautionary tale to creationists.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Owen Also SEE http://eom.byu.edu/index.php/Evolution Evolution Author: Evenson, William E.The position of the Church on the origin of man was published by the First Presidency in 1909 and stated again by a different First Presidency in 1925: The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, basing its belief on divine revelation, ancient and modern, declares man to be the direct and lineal offspring of Deity…. Man is the child of God, formed in the divine image and endowed with divine attributes (see Appendix, "Doctrinal Expositions of the First Presidency").The scriptures tell why man was created, but they do not tell how, though the Lord has promised that he will tell that when he comes again (D&C 101:32-33). In 1931, when there was intense discussion on the issue of organic evolution, the First Presidency of the Church, then consisting of Presidents Heber J. Grant, Anthony W. Ivins, and Charles W. Nibley, addressed all of the General Authorities of the Church on the matter, and concluded, Upon the fundamental doctrines of the Church we are all agreed. Our mission is to bear the message of the restored gospel to the world. Leave geology, biology, archaeology, and anthropology, no one of which has to do with the salvation of the souls of mankind, to scientific research, while we magnify our calling in the realm of the Church….Upon one thing we should all be able to agree, namely, that Presidents Joseph F. Smith, John R. Winder, and Anthon H. Lund were right when they said: "Adam is the primal parent of our race" [First Presidency Minutes, Apr. 7, 1931].
Recommended Posts