Two Questions For The Scientifically Oriented

[Freedom]

That's not it says. Here's what the First Presidency had to say on the subject

Man, by searching, cannot find out God. Never, unaided, will he discover the truth about the beginning of human life. The Lord must reveal Himself or remain unrevealed; and the same is true of the facts relating to the origin of Adam’s race—God alone can reveal them. Some of these facts, however, are already known, and what has been made known it is our duty to receive and retain.

 

That is exactly what it says. God reveals is. All knowledge comes from God. Evolution is knowledge that has come from God. You think it comes through personal revelation while sitting beside your bed. The church teaches it comes through intense study and investigation. You can believe what you wish, I prefer to follow the council of the living prophet go to and get an education. 

[teddyaware]

That is exactly what it says. God reveals is. All knowledge comes from God. Evolution is knowledge that has come from God. You think it comes through personal revelation while sitting beside your bed. The church teaches it comes through intense study and investigation. You can believe what you wish, I prefer to follow the council of the living prophet go to and get an education.

It is only when the Prophets, Seers, and Revelators at the head of the Church declare by revelation that it is so that I will cease to remain neutral on the matter. And why do you say a knowledge of truth comes by study and investigation while leaving out the crowning step in the process -- revelation.

 

By the way, I have a challenge for you, if you are willing to take it on: Demonstrate for me how the following passages of scripture can be harmonized with organic evolution. Hopefully you will be able to illuminate me so that I no longer need to wonder. Here are the verses of which I speak:

4 And now, behold, I say unto you, that these are the generations of the heaven and of the earth, when they were created, in the day that I, the Lord God, made the heaven and the earth,

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)

Edited January 14, 2014 by teddyaware

[mfbukowski]

Let us assume you are standing out of doors, among a multitude of others, and the Saviour descends from the sky right in front of your eyes. After he touches ground, you and some others are fortunate enough to be positioned in very close proximity to Him, close enough for all 5 of your empirical senses to be actively engaged in what is about to take place. The Lord stands before the empty table and then miraculously produces bread and wine for the administration of the sacrament, seemingly out of thin air, just as He did in 3 Nephi 20. So...

 

1. As someone with a scientific background or inclination, would be able to solemnly testify to present and future generations that the Lord did indeed miraculously produce the bread and wine?

 

Or...

 

Would your insistence on scientific methodology prohibit you from testifying to the reality of the miracle because the demonstration didn't satisfy enough scientific criteria* ?

 

* e.g. strictly controlled conditions and environment, repeatability factor, etc.

 

 

Science is what can be repeated.

 

Unless every person in the world can repeat the experiment with the right equipment, it's not science.  Simple as that.

 

Of course it is a real miracle and I would testify of it til my voice went hoarse and then start over again when it got better.

[teddyaware]

Science is what can be repeated.

 

Unless every person in the world can repeat the experiment with the right equipment, it's not science.  Simple as that.

 

Of course it is a real miracle and I would testify of it til my voice went hoarse and then start over again when it got better.

I'd do the same. Wouldn't it be wonderfully exciting to have been privileged to be there?

I guess one of the things I was fishing for with these questions is to find out if there are any Latter-day Saint scientific types who are so wedded to scientific methodology that they in all good conscience wouldn't be able to testify to the reality of a miracle even if they could see, hear, feel, smell and taste it. Make sense?

[cinepro]

I believe I answer the questions you pose here in my post # 33 on this thread.

 

Thanks for reminding me of something else.

 

Your whole point is understandably, yet tragically, LDS-centric.  Do you so willingly accept as 100% historical all claims of supernatural events everywhere in the world, just because they were written down?  I suspect not, and this being an LDS-themed board, I can understand why you might expect to be granted special consideration for the claims in the Book of Mormon as being superior and more reliable than those of other religions or superstitions.

 

But it's that very assumption that totally nullifies your argument and, ironically, makes it unscientific.  It is based on a premise that involves a host of other LDS-specific claims, as well as general religious claims.

 

That's why science is a worldwide endeavor.  You don't have "Chinese physics" that is different than "Mexican physics".  It's all the same physics, and anyone throughout the world can use the same methods (or different methods) to "discover" the same laws and principles.  But if we're accepting ancient stories as valid data, then "Chinese supernatural science" will be much more different than "American supernatural science", and both will be very different than "Russian supernatural science".  In other words, chupacabra isn't always a chupacabra, and that's why it's not scientific.

[mfbukowski]

I'd do the same. Wouldn't it be wonderfully exciting to have been privileged to be there?

I guess one of the things I was fishing for with these questions is to find out if there are any Latter-day Saint scientific types who are so wedded to scientific methodology that they in all good conscience wouldn't be able to testify to the reality of a miracle even if they could see, hear, feel, smell and taste it. Make sense?

I don't think you could be LDS and believe that, unless you include spiritual experiences as seeing it feeling it etc, which actually I do I guess.

 

For me, that is why it being replicable is so important.  In a very real sense a testimony experience is completely "empirical" from my point of view- it's just not repeatable for others.

 

I distinguish between subjective and objective knowledge.  Subjective knowledge is knowing that you love someone or have heard the word of God, or even being hungry or having a pain in your toe.  You can be totally certain of any of these things, and know they are true, and yet no one can know that YOU know them.

 

Objective knowledge is what we can all verify- the boiling point of water, if the box of salt is really on the top shelf, the speed of light.  All of those can in principle be verified by anyone.

 

Science deals only in objective knowledge

[strappinglad]

Consider the power man has to use the energy of the atom to annihilate his fellow creatures. The world's nations are currently in a battle to restrict that power. Why? Can anyone build a nuclear device if the right equipment is available? Well, yes with some serious caveats. Why do we fear the idea of the bomb in the hands of certain groups? Because they can't be trusted . Now if men were able to develop the ability to " suspend" gravity, who could be trusted to use the power to only advance the benefits of man? And who would decide what a ' benefit' was?

Some here have said that if they were to witness the miracle as described, they would immediately ask how He did it. Why would they want to know? So they could do it themselves? Why? For what purpose? To gain the praise of the world, or to feed the starving, or just to do parlour tricks for their friends?

Is this not why the beasts and the elements obey God? God can be trusted. Most men ,as yet, cannot.

Edited January 15, 2014 by strappinglad

[teddyaware]

Thanks for reminding me of something else.

 

Your whole point is understandably, yet tragically, LDS-centric.  Do you so willingly accept as 100% historical all claims of supernatural events everywhere in the world, just because they were written down?  I suspect not, and this being an LDS-themed board, I can understand why you might expect to be granted special consideration for the claims in the Book of Mormon as being superior and more reliable than those of other religions or superstitions.

 

But it's that very assumption that totally nullifies your argument and, ironically, makes it unscientific.  It is based on a premise that involves a host of other LDS-specific claims, as well as general religious claims.

 

That's why science is a worldwide endeavor.  You don't have "Chinese physics" that is different than "Mexican physics".  It's all the same physics, and anyone throughout the world can use the same methods (or different methods) to "discover" the same laws and principles.  But if we're accepting ancient stories as valid data, then "Chinese supernatural science" will be much more different than "American supernatural science", and both will be very different than "Russian supernatural science".  In other words, chupacabra isn't always a chupacabra, and that's why it's not scientific.

But in spite of all you say the burden of the prophets is that knowledge by revelation from the Holy Ghost is by far the greatest and most beneficial way of obtaining knowledge. And if the prophets have told and are telling us the truth, tragically, too much time spent focused on this sort of scientific approach is time away from the fount of exalting knowledge.

 

I recognize all this is totally contingent on whether or not the Church is true, and the prophets truly inspired of God; but if they are truly inspired, by the greatest Scientist in the universe, much of the focus on methodologies of this ilk might turn out to be not much more than largely unprofitable distractions. 

 

Nevertheless, I can imagine that even heavy absorption into this world would be fine as long as the things of God take major precedence in the lives of those so occupied. The geological scientist in the article you posted demonstrates to me how it's actually possible to be a dedicated scientist and simultaneously be an inspired member of the Church. But my fear is that when admiration of scientific inquiry is elevated above the gospel of Christ it may draw away some members into unprofitable paths that hinder a wholehearted quest to seek out God and obtain His promised blessings.

Edited January 15, 2014 by teddyaware

[thesometimesaint]

You are surely aware of the fact that it's the humblest and meekest of the diligent seekers after the truth who will obtain the greatest knowledge in the end.

 

Yep, I'm still working on it.

[thesometimesaint]

I'd do the same. Wouldn't it be wonderfully exciting to have been privileged to be there?

I guess one of the things I was fishing for with these questions is to find out if there are any Latter-day Saint scientific types who are so wedded to scientific methodology that they in all good conscience wouldn't be able to testify to the reality of a miracle even if they could see, hear, feel, smell and taste it. Make sense?

 

No one is that perfect.

 

I accept miracles, it is that miracles aren't science.

[thesometimesaint]

Consider the power man has to use the energy of the atom to annihilate his fellow creatures. The world's nations are currently in a battle to restrict that power. Why? Can anyone build a nuclear device if the right equipment is available? Well, yes with some serious caveats. Why do we fear the idea of the bomb in the hands of certain groups? Because they can't be trusted . Now if men were able to develop the ability to " suspend" gravity, who could be trusted to use the power to only advance the benefits of man? And who would decide what a ' benefit' was?

Some here have said that if they were to witness the miracle as described, they would immediately ask how He did it. Why would they want to know? So they could do it themselves? Why? For what purpose? To gain the praise of the world, or to feed the starving, or just to do parlour tricks for their friends?

Is this not why the beasts and the elements obey God? God can be trusted. Most men ,as yet, cannot.

 "I don't know what kind of weapons will be used in the third world war, assuming there will be a third world war. But I can tell you what the fourth world war will be fought with -- stone clubs."

Albert Einstein

 

Gravity is one of the four fundamental forces in the universe. Matter flies apart without it.  We can't suspend it, but we can use it to go to interesting places.

 

Edited January 15, 2014 by thesometimesaint

[teddyaware]

No one is that perfect.

 

I accept miracles, it is that miracles aren't science.

That's good to know. This means, I presume, you understand there are certain concrete realities of existence that science, as presently constituted, is inadequate to explain.

I'm reminded of a question I meant to ask of our scientifically inclined board members. But first a preface...

 

I'm sure we all agree none of the scientists who've lived throughout the history of the human race were actually present at the beginning and at the earlier stages of the creation of life on earth. We can also agree that none of these scientists were there to apply the strict protocols of scientific method to the physical, chemical and biological phenomena that would have been observed if qualified people were present to do the work of systematic observation, measurement, experimentation and testing.

 

With the above in mind, I ask the following question:

 

1. Why are some so sure that organic evolution, as presently best understood, is verily true when no scientists were there in real time to apply approved scientific methods to whatever phenomena were actually taking place?

 

In anticipation of some of the kinds of answers I believe I might receive, I will say I thought someone actually has to be present at the actual event in order for scientific method to be applied; or at very least that a phenomenon believed to have occurred in the past must be replicated under very strict laboratory conditions in order for it to be verified as an example of a legitimate scientific theory. So a logical example of scientific testing to affirm phenomena believed to have occurred in the past might be to find a group of apes, whose DNA is closest to humans, and then try to stimulate gradual genetic change through diet, environment, activity, etc., without actually tampering with the genome, and this to see if the apes can be made to show verifiable signs of evolutionary progression. I know the aforesaid experiment will likely be ridiculed for its naivety, but in all honesty, I'm sure by now there must have been some kinds of real time experiments carried out in attempts to prove men a descendants of apes, or that birds are descended form dinosaurs. 

Edited January 15, 2014 by teddyaware

[ERayR]

Absolutely. Would you?

 

Don't be so sure of yourself the Jews didn't recognize him the first time.

[thesometimesaint]

That's good to know. This means, I presume, you understand there are certain concrete realities of existence that science, as presently constituted, is inadequate to explain.

I'm reminded of a question I meant to ask of our scientifically inclined board members. But first a preface...

 

I'm sure we all agree none of the scientists who've lived throughout the history of the human race were actually present at the beginning and at the earlier stages of the creation of life on earth. We can also agree that none of these scientists were there to apply the strict protocols of scientific method to the physical, chemical and biological phenomena that would have observed if qualified people were present to do the work of systematic observation, measurement, experimentation and testing.

 

With the above in mind, I ask the following question:

 

1. Why are some so sure that organic evolution, as presently best understood, is verily true when no scientists were there, in real time, to apply approved scientific methods to whatever phenomena were actually taking place?

 

In anticipation of some of the kinds of answers I believe I might receive, I will say I thought someone actually has to be present at the actual event in order for scientific method to be applied; or at very least that a phenomenon believed to have occurred in the past must be replicated under very strict laboratory conditions in order for it to be verified as an example of a legitimate scientific theory. So a logical example of scientific testing to affirm phenomena believed to have occurred in the past might be to find a group of apes, whose DNA is closest to humans, and then try to stimulate gradual genetic change through diet, environment, activity, etc., without actually tampering with the genome, and this to see if the apes can be made to show verifiable signs of evolutionary progression. I know the aforesaid experiment will likely be ridiculed for its naivety, but in all honesty, I'm sure by now there must have been some kinds of real time experiments carried out in attempts to prove men a descendants of apes, or that birds descended form dinosaurs. 

 

Always. IE; Dark Matter and Dark Energy we know they exist because of their effect, but beyond that it truly is Dark.

 

Scientists don't have to "be there".  IE; I can go to Egypt as see the pyramids. I didn't have to be there observing their construction to know they exist. The thing is that you don't have to be a scientist to know they exist too.

 

Organic evolution is what can be demonstrated. See my above example.

 

We've demonstrated evolution in the lab. We've demonstrated outside the lab, and we use evolution to get what we want. From puppy dogs, to faster race horses to good tasting dinosaurs(We just call them by a different name now "Fried Chicken").

[SeekingUnderstanding]

Don't be so sure of yourself the Jews didn't recognize him the first time.

Nice dodge. Best not to be too sure of yourself. The Jews (God's faithful) didn't recognize him the first time.

Edited January 15, 2014 by SeekingUnderstanding

[teddyaware]

Always. IE; Dark Matter and Dark Energy we know they exist because of their effect, but beyond that it truly is Dark.

 

Scientists don't have to "be there".  IE; I can go to Egypt as see the pyramids. I didn't have to be there observing their construction to know they exist. The thing is that you don't have to be a scientist to know they exist too.

 

Organic evolution is what can be demonstrated. See my above example.

 

We've demonstrated evolution in the lab. We've demonstrated outside the lab, and we use evolution to get what we want. From puppy dogs, to faster race horses to good tasting dinosaurs(We just call them by a different name now "Fried Chicken").

I await with baited breath to see what Rob Osborn might have to say about my question and your comment...

 

But remember, I'm talking about scientifically replicating what actually occurred, not someone's notion of induced "evolution" (changes) within discrete pre-existing species.

Edited January 15, 2014 by teddyaware

[SeekingUnderstanding]

I'm sure we all agree none of the scientists who've lived throughout the history of the human race were actually present at the beginning and at the earlier stages of the creation of life on earth. We can also agree that none of these scientists were there to apply the strict protocols of scientific method to the physical, chemical and biological phenomena that would have been observed if qualified people were present to do the work of systematic observation, measurement, experimentation and testing.

 

With the above in mind, I ask the following question:

 

1. Why are some so sure that organic evolution, as presently best understood, is verily true when no scientists were there in real time to apply approved scientific methods to whatever phenomena were actually taking place?

 

In anticipation of some of the kinds of answers I believe I might receive, I will say I thought someone actually has to be present at the actual event in order for scientific method to be applied; or at very least that a phenomenon believed to have occurred in the past must be replicated under very strict laboratory conditions in order for it to be verified as an example of a legitimate scientific theory. So a logical example of scientific testing to affirm phenomena believed to have occurred in the past might be to find a group of apes, whose DNA is closest to humans, and then try to stimulate gradual genetic change through diet, environment, activity, etc., without actually tampering with the genome, and this to see if the apes can be made to show verifiable signs of evolutionary progression. I know the aforesaid experiment will likely be ridiculed for its naivety, but in all honesty, I'm sure by now there must have been some kinds of real time experiments carried out in attempts to prove men a descendants of apes, or that birds are descended form dinosaurs. 

 

TeddyAware:

 

The evidence for common descent is staggering.  If you'd like to convince some of us on this board to doubt the evidence, perhaps you should examine it piece by piece, dismantle it and show how a literal genesis better explains the data. Here is a place to start: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/

 

Might want to start a new thread.

[thesometimesaint]

I await with baited breath to see what Rob Osborn might have to say about my question and your comment...

 

I'll let Rob speak for himself. I like Rob a lot. I hope he feels the same. However Rob is no scientist, and IMNTBHO prefers it that way.

[thesometimesaint]

TeddyAware:

 

The evidence for common descent is staggering.  If you'd like to convince some of us on this board to doubt the evidence, perhaps you should examine it piece by piece, dismantle it and show how a literal genesis better explains the data. Here is a place to start: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/

 

Might want to start a new thread.

 

You might also like this.

SEEhttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K7tQIB4UdiY

[Rob Osborn]

That's good to know. This means, I presume, you understand there are certain concrete realities of existence that science, as presently constituted, is inadequate to explain.

I'm reminded of a question I meant to ask of our scientifically inclined board members. But first a preface...

 

I'm sure we all agree none of the scientists who've lived throughout the history of the human race were actually present at the beginning and at the earlier stages of the creation of life on earth. We can also agree that none of these scientists were there to apply the strict protocols of scientific method to the physical, chemical and biological phenomena that would have been observed if qualified people were present to do the work of systematic observation, measurement, experimentation and testing.

 

With the above in mind, I ask the following question:

 

1. Why are some so sure that organic evolution, as presently best understood, is verily true when no scientists were there in real time to apply approved scientific methods to whatever phenomena were actually taking place?

 

In anticipation of some of the kinds of answers I believe I might receive, I will say I thought someone actually has to be present at the actual event in order for scientific method to be applied; or at very least that a phenomenon believed to have occurred in the past must be replicated under very strict laboratory conditions in order for it to be verified as an example of a legitimate scientific theory. So a logical example of scientific testing to affirm phenomena believed to have occurred in the past might be to find a group of apes, whose DNA is closest to humans, and then try to stimulate gradual genetic change through diet, environment, activity, etc., without actually tampering with the genome, and this to see if the apes can be made to show verifiable signs of evolutionary progression. I know the aforesaid experiment will likely be ridiculed for its naivety, but in all honesty, I'm sure by now there must have been some kinds of real time experiments carried out in attempts to prove men a descendants of apes, or that birds are descended form dinosaurs. 

Stephen Jay Gould who passed away a decade or so ago was pretty much the Darwin of our day promoting evolution, coming up with and pioneering the theory of punctuated equalibrium in evolutionary theory. This is what he said after a lifetime of researching the geologic column- the fossil record within it-

 

From (Gould, Stephen Jay, The Structure of Evolutionary Theory, 2002.):

• “…the tale itself illustrates the central fact of the fossil record so well [the] geologically abrupt origin and subsequent extended stasis of most species…Anatomy may fluctuate through time, but the last remnants of a species look pretty much like the first representatives.” (p. 749.)
• “…the greatest and most biologically astute paleontologist of the 20th century…acknowledged the literal appearance of stasis and geologically abrupt origin as the outstanding general fact of the fossil record and as a pattern which would ‘pose one of the most important theoretical problems in the whole history of life.’” (p. 755 quoting George Gaylord Simpson.)
• “…the long term stasis following geologically abrupt origin of most fossil morphospecies, has always been recognized by professional paleontologists.” (p. 752.)
• “The great majority of species do not show any appreciable evolutionary change at all. These species appear in the section (first occurrence) without obvious ancestors in the underlying beds, are stable once established and disappear higher up without leaving any descendants.” (p. 753.)

 

• I find it interesting that even though evolutionists wish there were intermediate or "transitional" fossil, they do not exist. As Gould says himself, species appear suddenly in the fossil record, stay unchanged for a very long time then abruptly disappear. He developed his theory now recognized worldwide on punctuated equalibrium to counter what Darwin himself and entire evolutionary theory predicted, which it turns out was false.-

 Punctuated equilibrium (also called punctuated equilibria) is a theory in evolutionary biology which proposes that most species will exhibit little net evolutionary change for most of their geological history, remaining in an extended state called stasis. When significant evolutionary change occurs, the theory proposes that it is generally restricted to rare and rapid (on a geologic time scale) events of branching speciation called cladogenesis. Cladogenesis is the process by which a species splits into two distinct species, rather than one species gradually transforming into another

 

 The reality is that there is no evidence- no true evidence of evolution over a broad area- no species is shown to show small changes leading into entirely new species.

[Rob Osborn]

I'll let Rob speak for himself. I like Rob a lot. I hope he feels the same. However Rob is no scientist, and IMNTBHO prefers it that way.

You are right- I am no scientist but I do find stuff like this interesting-

 

“Paleontologists just were not seeing the expected changes in their fossils as they pursued them up through the rock record. …That individual kinds of fossils remain recognizably the same throughout the length of their occurrence in the fossil record had been known to paleontologists long before Darwin published his Origin. Darwin himself, …prophesied that future generations of paleontologists would fill in these gaps by diligent search …One hundred and twenty years of paleontological research later, it has become abundantly clear that the fossil record will not confirm this part of Darwin’s predictions. Nor is the problem a miserably poor record. The fossil record simply shows that this prediction is wrong. …The observation that species are amazingly conservative and static entities throughout long periods of time has all the qualities of the emperor’s new clothes: everyone knew it but preferred to ignore it. Paleontologists, faced with a recalcitrant record obstinately refusing to yield Darwin’s predicted pattern, simply looked the other way.” (Eldredge, N. and Tattersall, I., The Myths of Human Evolution, 1982, p. 45-46.)

[SeekingUnderstanding]

• I find it interesting that even though evolutionists wish there were intermediate or "transitional" fossil, they do not exist. As Gould says himself, species appear suddenly in the fossil record, stay unchanged for a very long time then abruptly disappear. He developed his theory now recognized worldwide on punctuated equalibrium to counter what Darwin himself and entire evolutionary theory predicted, which it turns out was false.-

 

 

Quick request. Please define in your own words what a "transitional" fossil is.

[thesometimesaint]

Stephen Jay Gould who passed away a decade or so ago was pretty much the Darwin of our day promoting evolution, coming up with and pioneering the theory of punctuated equalibrium in evolutionary theory. This is what he said after a lifetime of researching the geologic column- the fossil record within it-

 

• I find it interesting that even though evolutionists wish there were intermediate or "transitional" fossil, they do not exist. As Gould says himself, species appear suddenly in the fossil record, stay unchanged for a very long time then abruptly disappear. He developed his theory now recognized worldwide on punctuated equalibrium to counter what Darwin himself and entire evolutionary theory predicted, which it turns out was false.-

 The reality is that there is no evidence- no true evidence of evolution over a broad area- no species is shown to show small changes leading into entirely new species.

 

See

 

Funny thing happened on the way to the lab.

http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn14094-bacteria-make-major-evolutionary-shift-in-the-lab.html#.Utbx9LTgy_d

[teddyaware]

TeddyAware:

 

The evidence for common descent is staggering.  If you'd like to convince some of us on this board to doubt the evidence, perhaps you should examine it piece by piece, dismantle it and show how a literal genesis better explains the data. Here is a place to start: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/

 

Might want to start a new thread.

The only problem with a so called "literal" rendering of Genesis is that the literal interpretation you speak of is not actually literal. (you can believe I speak the truth on this point because I've studied it very thoroughly). The creation accounts of the first six days, as set forth in Genesis and the Book of Moses, speak of the spiritual creation. It is not at all speaking of early earth life as understood by the organic evolutionists.

 

Then, after the spirit creation of the first six days, there is another phase of creation that takes place on the seventh day. This creation, we are told, is an additional spiritual creation, but of another sort. The kind of spiritual creation, that takes place on the 7th day, is that of immortal spiritual bodies that are given to clothe the spirit, spiritual bodies composed of spiritual flesh and bone, animated by spirit and not by blood. The Book of Moses goes on to say that up to this point in the creation process there was , believe it or not, no flesh (in the sense we understand that word today) yet upon the earth. We are also informed all other physical plant and animal life forms existed in this special spiritual state as well.  And to top it all off, we are told that rather than being the last creature of spiritual flesh and bone to appear on the earth, Adam is the very first creature on the face of this earth to have a body of flesh, bone and spirit.

 

Moses' account then goes on to say that it wasn't until the fall that all the creatures thus far created, in the special immortal spiritual state, were changed in such a manner that the spiritual bodies they possessed transitioned into the mortal bodies of flesh, bone and blood, as we know such bodies today. And as perplexing as it might be for the organic evolutionists, a significant number of Church leaders over the years  have had no problem believing, endorsing and advocating for the creation account found in the Book of Moses. So until somebody can explain how the theory of organic evolution can be made to square with Genesis and Moses, I will await further light and knowledge from the Lord.

Edited January 15, 2014 by teddyaware

[SeekingUnderstanding]

The only problem with a so called "literal" rendering of Genesis is that the literal interpretation you speak of is not actually literal. (you can believe I speak the truth on this point because I've studied it very thoroughly). The creation accounts of the first six days, as set forth in Genesis and the Book of Moses, speak of the spiritual creation. It is not at all speaking of early earth life as understood by the organic evolutionists.

 

Then, after the spirit creation of the first six days, there is another phase of creation that takes place on the seventh day. This creation, we are told, is an additional spiritual creation, but of another sort. The kind of spiritual creation, that takes place on the 7th day, is that of immortal spiritual bodies that are given to clothe the spirit, spiritual bodies composed of spiritual flesh and bone, animated by spirit and not by blood. The Book of Moses goes on to say that up to this point in the creation process there was , believe it or not, no flesh (in the sense we understand that word today) yet upon the earth. We are also informed all other physical plant and animal life forms existed in this special spiritual state as well.  And to top it all off, we are told that rather than being the last creature of spiritual flesh and bone to appear on the earth, Adam is the very first creature on the face of this earth to have a body of flesh, bone and spirit.

 

Moses' account then goes on to say that it wasn't until the fall that all the creatures thus far created, in the special immortal spiritual state, were changed in such a manner that the spiritual bodies they possessed transitioned into the mortal bodies of flesh, bone and blood, as we know such bodies today.

Fine. I'll rephrase.

The evidence for common descent is staggering. If you'd like to convince some of us on this board to doubt the evidence, perhaps you should examine it piece by piece, dismantle it and show how a literal interpretation of genesis, the book of moses, the book of abraham better explains the data. Here is a place to start: http://www.talkorigi...g/faqs/comdesc/

Might want to start a new thread.

 

And as perplexing as it might be for the organic evolutionists, a significant number of Church leaders over the years  have had no problem believing, endorsing and advocating for the creation account found in the Book of Moses. So until somebody can explain how the theory organic evolution can be made to square Genesis and Moses, I will await further light and knowledge from the Lord.

I take it then that you will not be looking at the evidence and providing a point by point refutation. That is fine.

I can answer your question though: common decent is not compatible with a literal reading of the scriptures and certainly not compatible with most, if not all, of the public and official statements from Church leaders over the years. This does not perplex me at all. I don't believe the account to be literal, and I don't believe that Church leaders or the scriptures are inerrant.

Edited January 15, 2014 by SeekingUnderstanding