The Creation, The Fall, Evolution...sunday School Discussions?

[JLHPROF]

JLHPROF,

 

You are too intelligent to be making statements like this.  Science is all around us and is immersed in almost every aspect of our lives.  Do you question the science that allowed you to write your post, or the science that was used to cure an illness you may have had?  What about the science that allowed man to walk on the moon or level an entire city with one bomb?  I think too often in the church we can hear the word science and instantly become skeptical, getting caught up on evolution or the big bang theory without realizing those concepts represent just a small fraction of the big picture.

 

True enough.  I am not "anti-science" but it really bugs me that when the question comes up of a conflict between science and the gospel that we always assume science is right and the gospel must be flawed/interpreted wrong.  For example, that statement that the earth fell from near Kolob.  I really don't care that science says that's impossible.  I prefer to believe that if God said that's what happened then that's what happened and science needs to figure this out.

 

But no, I'm not completely anti-science.  I am anti forcing science and the gospel to mesh by saying the gospel is flawed.  They don't have to mesh.

[thesometimesaint]

True enough.  I am not "anti-science" but it really bugs me that when the question comes up of a conflict between science and the gospel that we always assume science is right and the gospel must be flawed/interpreted wrong.  For example, that statement that the earth fell from near Kolob.  I really don't care that science says that's impossible.  I prefer to believe that if God said that's what happened then that's what happened and science needs to figure this out.

 

But no, I'm not completely anti-science.  I am anti forcing science and the gospel to mesh by saying the gospel is flawed.  They don't have to mesh.

 

The history of the conflict between science and religion isn't going to be resolved here, or any time soon. I'm perfectly fine with science telling me how God did it. That being said God has to mean more to you than what you don't know.

[canard78]

Indeed. God gives revelations to his servants "in their weakness, after the manner of their language, that they might come to understanding."

Elder Stephen L. Richards expressed this concept in his 1933 address, "An Open Letter to College Students." Responding to skeptics' claims that "the God of the Hebrews is a capricious, jealous, tribal God, fighting the battles of his favored people and reveling in the defeat of their enemies," Richards asked:

What if Hebrew prophets, conversant with only a small fraction of the surface of the earth, thinking and writing in terms of their own limited geography and tribal relations did interpret Him in terms of a tribal king and so limit His personality and the laws of the universe under His control to the dominion with which they were familiar? Can any interpreter even though he be inspired present his interpretation and conception in terms other than those with which he has had experience and acquaintance? Even under the assumption that Divinity may manifest to the prophet higher and more exalted truths than he has ever before known and unfold to his spiritual eyes visions of the past, forecasts of the future and circumstances of the utmost novelty, how will the inspired man interpret? Manifestly, I think, in the language he knows and in the terms of expression with which his knowledge and experience have made him familiar. So is it not therefore ungenerous, unfair and unreasonable to impugn the validity and the whole worth of the Bible merely because of the limited knowledge of astronomy and geography that its writers possessed.

I think there is every reason to allow that scripture is not infallible.

That is an absolutely knock-out quote.

I feel that's just as applicable to modern prophets as it is to the ancients.

It's been added to my online quotes library.

[canard78]

JLHPROF,

You are too intelligent to be making statements like this. Science is all around us and is immersed in almost every aspect of our lives. Do you question the science that allowed you to write your post, or the science that was used to cure an illness you may have had? What about the science that allowed man to walk on the moon or level an entire city with one bomb? I think too often in the church we can hear the word science and instantly become skeptical, getting caught up on evolution or the big bang theory without realizing those concepts represent just a small fraction of the big picture.

Have I already shared this great quote from James E Talmage:

The scientific spirit acknowledges without reserve the laws of God, but discriminates between such and the rules made by man. It abhors bigotry, denounces the extravagances of the blind zealot, religious or otherwise, and seeks to perfect the faith of its possessor as a purified, sanctified power, pleasing alike mind and heart, reason and soul. In the charges that have been preferred by the theologians against science, and the counter accusations by the scientists against theology, it is evident that in each case the accuser is not fully informed as to what he is attacking. Irrational zeal is not to be commended; and the substitution of theory for fact, though often declared to be the prevailing weakness of the scientist, is wholly unscientific.

But it is easy to denounce; so to do is a favorite pastime of ignorance. That scientific theories have been and are being discarded as unworthy because untrue is well known; but no one is more ready to so renounce than the scientist himself. To him a theory is but a scaffolding whereon he stands while placing the facts which are his building blocks; and from these he rears the tower from which a wider horizon of truth is opened to his eye. When the structure is made, the scaffold,- unsightly, shaky, and unsafe, as it is likely to be, is removed. Tis not always possible to judge of the building from the rough poles and planks which serve the temporary purpose of him who builds. Yet how often may we hear from our pulpits, usually however when they are occupied by the little-great men, scathing denunciations of science, which is represented as a bundle of vagaries, and of scientific men, who are but Will-o-the-wisps enticing the traveler into quagmires of spiritual ruin. Would it not be better for those who so inveigh to acquaint themselves with at least the first principles of the doctrines of science? So general has this practice become amongst us, that the most inexperienced speaker feels justified in thus indulging himself, and in the minds of many the conclusion is reached, none the less pernicious in its present effects because unfounded, that the higher development of the intellect is not a part of the Gospel of Christ.

Yet revelation is not given to save man from self effort; if he want knowledge let him ask of God, and prove himself worthy of the desired gift by his own faithful search. Such are the teachings of our Church. The leaders amongst us, those who are acknowledged as prophets and revelators to the people, are not heard in authoritative denunciation of the teachings of science. Yet under the freedom allowed by our liberal Church organization the lay speaker is prone to indulge in unguarded criticism, and the undiscriminating hearer is apt to regard such as the teachings of the Church. The scientist in his self-denying earnest labors is a true child of God; as he is strengthened spiritually will his work be the better. The scientific spirit is divine.

James E. Talmage

The Methods and Motives of Science, by Dr. James E. Talmage, Professor of Geology at the University of Utah. This address was delivered in the Logan Temple about 12 years before he became an apostle.

Also published in The Improvement Era 1900, Volume 3

http://www.archive.org/stream/improvementerav01assogoog/improvementerav01assogoog_djvu.txt

[canard78]

Agree with everything you say except perhaps this...this would depend on what you are applying it to. There are many things the scientific approach can't help us with...it can't tell me what my experience with reading books to my grandkids is like or what I think when going on a date with my husband...or what I experience when praying. There is a huge part of our experience that science has little to say about. It is definitely better at measuring and explaining sciency things though.

I work in advertising research.

There are tools that can answer some of these questions. We have tools that read facial expressions, brain waves, emotions and intuitive responses. We are measuring and defining what these experiences are like both for the conscious and sub-consious mind. It's really exciting.

If, for example, you had a web-cam clipped on the top of your book we could tell how you were feeling about the story, your grand kids reactions etc (even when you don't realise you are feeling that way).

[canard78]

While science may be able to measure parts of our experiences...such as what is happening physically, until it gets to the point it can start mind reading and being able to predict with precision that I will laugh at a particular moment with my grandchild or feel an urge to hug one of them because she gave me a crooked smile with her twinkling eyes that look like they could dance right off her...I doubt it will have much to say about the parts that matter most to me.

We already can do all of that

[canard78]

Does anyone have any LDS sources to show we have no official position on evolution etc?

[thesometimesaint]

Does anyone have any LDS sources to show we have no official position on evolution etc?

Yes.

http://eom.byu.edu/index.php/Evolution

[BCSpace]

Those LDS who hew to the teachings of the Church don't seem afraid to defend their positions here online, but do any of the scientifically-oriented LDS who so creatively reinterpret LDS teachings online ever dare speak up in Sunday School

 

 

You have a Loaded Question here which is a logical fallacy.

 

Yes I do dare speak up and I was able to recently.  No, I don't creatively reinterpret any teachings.

[BCSpace]

Apparently, this Feb 2002 Ensign article is lost on some who don't even have a cursory knowledge of the gospel:

http://www.lds.org/e...of-man?lang=eng

 

I'm still wondering when someone is going to point out precisely where in the 1909 statement is Evolution precluded.  Perhaps the good poster, despite numerous reminders over the years, has forgotten again that debate among the authorities in the Church following the 1909 statement led to the 1931 statement in which we find out that the Church has no doctrine for or against the notion of pre Adamite races of man. 

 

When one combines the possibility of pre Adamite races of man with the doctrine that there is no doctrine on the age of the earth, then Evolution becomes quite reasonable vis a vis LDS doctrine.  Add to that 2 Nephi 2:22 wherein we read that Adam was created AND THEN placed into the garden state, we can almost assume that Evolution IS the doctrine of the Church. Not to worry, I freely admit that one can be a Creationist or an Evolutionist or something in between and not conflict with LDS doctrine.

 

I would certainly caution those who oppose Evolution to make sure they know what they are talking about before they attack it.  For example:

 

Evolution...

 

1) Does not preclude the existence of God or His hand in Creation.

2) Does not preclude man being created in God's image.

3) Teaches that like produces like; everything 'after it's own kind'.

Edited February 4, 2014 by BCSpace

[cinepro]

Yes.

http://eom.byu.edu/index.php/Evolution

 

The Encyclopedia of Mormonism isn't an "LDS source":

 

Lest the role of the Encyclopedia be given more weight than it deserves, the editors make it clear that those who have written and edited have only tried to explain their understanding of Church history, doctrines, and procedures; their statements and opinions remain their own. The Encyclopedia of Mormonism is a joint product of Brigham Young University and Macmillan Publishing Company, and its contents do not necessarily represent the official position of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. In no sense does the Encyclopedia have the force and authority of scripture.

 

http://eom.byu.edu/index.php/Preface

 

The Ensign and official statements of the First Presidency, however, are.

 

This statement "expresses the Church's doctrinal position on "these matters" (i.e. evolution):

 

https://www.lds.org/ensign/2002/02/the-origin-of-man?lang=eng

 

"Ever wondered about the Church’s official teachings on the creation of mankind and evolution? Find assistance for your study of Genesis 1–3 on page 26."

https://www.lds.org/ensign/2002/02/making-the-most-of-this-issue?lang=eng

(page 26 is the statement above)

[cinepro]

When one combines the possibility of pre Adamite races of man <snip>

Tell me, BCSpace, do you understand this possibility better than President Harold B. Lee?

 

I was somewhat sorrowed recently to hear someone, a sister who comes from a church family, ask, “What about the pre-Adamic people?” Here was someone who I thought was fully grounded in the faith.

I asked. “What about the pre-Adamic people?”

She replied, “Well, aren’t there evidences that people preceded the Adamic period of the earth?”

I said, “Have you forgotten the scripture that says, ‘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. …’” (Moses 3:7.) I asked, “Do you believe that?”

She wondered about the creation because she had read the theories of the scientists, and the question that she was really asking was: How do you reconcile science with religion? The answer must be, If science is not true, you cannot reconcile truth with error.

Find Answers in the Scriptures

What do you know about the scriptures and Pre-Adamites that President Lee didn't?

[Rob Osborn]

The 1909 statement remains the most up to date material  concerning the "official" position in regards to man and evolution. The answer- "NO" man did not evolve from a lower order of species and is in fact the literal lineal offspring of deity. That is the official position of the church. Whether man evolving from a lower order of species is true or false (I believe it to be emphatically FALSE) let no one question where the church stands- man did not evolve from a lower order of species.

[cinepro]

The 1909 statement remains the most up to date material  concerning the "official" position in regards to man and evolution. The answer- "NO" man did not evolve from a lower order of species and is in fact the literal lineal offspring of deity. That is the official position of the church. Whether man evolving from a lower order of species is true or false (I believe it to be emphatically FALSE) let no one question where the church stands- man did not evolve from a lower order of species.

 

I can understand why people don't want to believe the Church takes that position, but it remains endlessly interesting (and entertaining!) to me to see how they convince themselves it isn't the case.

 

I mean, when you look at what President Hinckley, President Packer, Elder Nelson and others have said recently and in official LDS talks and publications, it is astounding that there is any confusion on the issue.

Edited February 4, 2014 by cinepro

[Rob Osborn]

In the early 1900s, questions concerning the Creation of the earth and the theories of evolution became the subject of much public discussion. In the midst of these controversies, the First Presidency issued the following in 1909, which expresses the Church’s doctrinal position on these matters. A reprinting of this important First Presidency statement will be helpful as members of the Church study the Old Testament this year.

 

It is held by some that Adam was not the first man upon this earth and that the original human being was a development from lower orders of the animal creation. These, however, are the theories of men. The word of the Lord declared that Adam was “the first man of all men” (Moses 1:34), and we are therefore in duty bound to regard him as the primal parent of our race.

 

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, basing its belief on divine revelation, ancient and modern, proclaims man to be the direct and lineal offspring of Deity.https://www.lds.org/ensign/2002/02/the-origin-of-man?lang=eng

Edited February 4, 2014 by Rob Osborn

[Rob Osborn]

I can understand why people don't want to believe the Church takes that position, but it remains endlessly interesting (and entertaining!) to me to see how they convince themselves it isn't the case.

I agree. There are some things the church calls "official position" or "doctrine" that i do not agree with but I still at least recognize the very truths that the Church defines as official doctrine.

[BCSpace]

What do you know about the scriptures and Pre-Adamites that President Lee didn't?

 

What did Lee say was not true?  He is obviously aware of the 1931 statement as he dances around the issue without coming to a conclusion.

[canard78]

So in other words: no, we have no statement by the church that supports a perspective of evolution. I'm looking for something I could legitimately quote in a SS lesson for example.

 

I agree, EOM doesn't count. The prevailing statements are actually against evolution.

[BCSpace]

The 1909 statement remains the most up to date material  concerning the "official" position in regards to man and evolution. The answer- "NO" man did not evolve from a lower order of species and is in fact the literal lineal offspring of deity. That is the official position of the church. Whether man evolving from a lower order of species is true or false (I believe it to be emphatically FALSE) let no one question where the church stands- man did not evolve from a lower order of species.

 

Incorrect.  Evolution merely addresses the physical body of man and not the gospel definition of man (body and spirit).  In addition, did you notice the context of the 1909 statement?

 

It is held by some that Adam was not the first man upon this earth and that the original human being was a development from lower orders of the animal creation. These, however, are the theories of men. The word of the Lord declared that Adam was “the first man of all men” (Moses 1:34), and we are therefore in duty bound to regard him as the primal parent of our race. It was shown to the brother of Jared that all men were created in the beginning after the image of God; whether we take this to mean the spirit or the body, or both, it commits us to the same conclusion: Man began life as a human being, in the likeness of our Heavenly Father.

 

True it is that the body of man enters upon its career as a tiny germ embryo, which becomes an infant, quickened at a certain stage by the spirit whose tabernacle it is, and the child, after being born, develops into a man. There is nothing in this, however, to indicate that the original man, the first of our race, began life as anything less than a man, or less than the human germ or embryo that becomes a man.

 

This is a 'like produces like' argument which evolution also teaches.  So it's not really evolution the Church has a problem with, it's an atheist conclusion about evolution the Church has a problem with.  Unfortunately, some in the Church, including some in it's top leadership, Russel M. Nelson, confuse the two (such as when Nelson argued to Pew Research that 'dogs have always been dogs and cats have always been cats').  However, they continue to be restrained as evidenced by Nelson himself taking long distance pot shots in Conference but missing the mark completely.

Edited February 4, 2014 by BCSpace

[BCSpace]

So in other words: no, we have no statement by the church that supports a perspective of evolution. I'm looking for something I could legitimately quote in a SS lesson for example.

 

I listed a few in post #35.

[canard78]

The 1909 statement remains the most up to date material  concerning the "official" position in regards to man and evolution. The answer- "NO" man did not evolve from a lower order of species and is in fact the literal lineal offspring of deity. That is the official position of the church. Whether man evolving from a lower order of species is true or false (I believe it to be emphatically FALSE) let no one question where the church stands- man did not evolve from a lower order of species.

 

The statement is indeed clear. I would challenge anyone to find an official statement that supports anything other than Adam as the "origin of the species" in official LDS sources.

https://www.lds.org/ensign/2002/02/the-origin-of-man?lang=eng

 

(emphasis added)

 

It is held by some that Adam was not the first man upon this earth and that the original human being was a development from lower orders of the animal creation. These, however, are the theories of men. The word of the Lord declared that Adam was “the first man of all men” (Moses 1:34), and we are therefore in duty bound to regard him as the primal parent of our race. It was shown to the brother of Jared that all men were created in thebeginning after the image of God; whether we take this to mean the spirit or the body, or both, it commits us to the same conclusion: Man began life as a human being, in the likeness of our Heavenly Father.

 

True it is that the body of man enters upon its career as a tiny germ embryo, which becomes an infant, quickened at a certain stage by the spirit whose tabernacle it is, and the child, after being born, develops into a man. There is nothing in this, however, to indicate that the original man, the first of our race, began life as anything less than a man, or less than the human germ or embryo that becomes a man.

 

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.

 

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, basing its belief on divine revelation, ancient and modern, proclaims man to be the direct and lineal offspring of Deity. God Himself is an exalted man, perfected, enthroned, and supreme. By His almighty power He organized the earth and all that it contains, from spirit and element, which exist coeternally with Himself. He formed every plant that grows and every animal that breathes, each after its own kind, spiritually and temporally—“that which is spiritual being in the likeness of that which is temporal, and that which is temporal in the likeness of that which is spiritual.” He made the tadpole and the ape, the lion and the elephant, but He did not make them in His own image, nor endow them with godlike reason and intelligence. Nevertheless, the whole animal creation will be perfected and perpetuated in the Hereafter, each class in its “distinct order or sphere,” and will enjoy “eternal felicity.” That fact has been made plain in this dispensation (seeD&C 77:3).

 

Man is the child of God, formed in the divine image and endowed with divine attributes, and even as the infant son of an earthly father and mother is capable in due time of becoming a man, so the undeveloped offspring of celestial parentage is capable, by experience through ages and aeons, of evolving into a God.

 

There's little (perhaps no) room for evolution in this statement. 

 

(What's that odd statement at the end about animals later being perfected etc. Are they implying that Dogs will eventually progress to perfection/godhood too?!)

 

When it comes to the church stance on evolution, maybe eventually there will be a greater willingness to use the phrase Joseph Fielding Smith found useful after being questioned about the moon landings he said would probably never happen:

 

"Well, I was wrong, wasn't I?"

http://ldsthoughtfulquotes.blogspot.co.uk/2014/01/in-answers-to-gospel-questions-joseph.html

[cinepro]

So in other words: no, we have no statement by the church that supports a perspective of evolution. I'm looking for something I could legitimately quote in a SS lesson for example.

 

I agree, EOM doesn't count. The prevailing statements are actually against evolution.

 

Sorry, but there's nothing on the Church website that indicates even the slightest chance that there was physical death anywhere on the planet before the Fall, or that Adam's body was the result of an evolutionary process.  There are countless statements saying there was no physical death anywhere on the planet before the fall, and that Adam's body was not the result of an evolutionary process.

[BCSpace]

The statement is indeed clear. I would challenge anyone to find an official statement that supports anything other than Adam as the "origin of the species" in official LDS sources.

 

I would challenge anyone to show how evolution in connection with LDS doctrine precludes Adam from being the primal parent of our race. 

 

The scriptural evidence (2 Nephi 2;22) doesn't apply a state of no death on the creative state, that only comes when you hit the garden and we know all things were created first, before the garden state.  The official doctrine in the in the OT institute manual teaches us that first flesh doesn't mean Adam was created before the animals but was the first of them to Fall, to become mortal (contextually after they became immortal when placed in the garden state).

 

 

There is nothing in this, however, to indicate that the original man, the first of our race, began life as anything less than a man

 

How does this preclude Evolution which teaches like produces like?

 

 

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.

 

This merely demonstrates room for evolution or other theories and hypothesis.  None of the facts that have been revealed about the creation  conflict with evolution.

 

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, basing its belief on divine revelation, ancient and modern, proclaims man to be the direct and lineal offspring of Deity. God Himself is an exalted man, perfected, enthroned, and supreme.

 

Yes, man's spirit, as per doctrine, is the direct offspring of God.  We teach, even in Primary, that his physical body is not.  Some are tempted to turn to the genealogy of Christ in Luke which goes back to Adam, however, I would recommend reading the JST excerpt on that before making that argument.

 

Nothing else you bolded seems to be relevant.

[thesometimesaint]

cinepro:

 

The question wasn't for an Official LDS Source. I provided an LDS Source.

 

More to the point there has never been unanimous agreement among the Brethren on the subject of Evolution. Without which there is no doctrine.

http://biology.byu.edu/DepartmentInfo/EvolutionandtheOriginofMan.aspx

[BCSpace]

Sorry, but there's nothing on the Church website that indicates even the slightest chance that there was physical death anywhere on the planet before the Fall, or that Adam's body was the result of an evolutionary process.  There are countless statements saying there was no physical death anywhere on the planet before the fall, and that Adam's body was not the result of an evolutionary process.

 

2 Nephi 2;22 gives us an excellent chance:

 

And now, behold, if Adam had not transgressed he would not have fallen, but he would have remained in the garden of Eden. And all things which were created must have remained in the same state in which they were AFTER they were created; and they must have remained forever, and had no end.

 

If Adam had not transgressed, they would have remained immortal, which is the state they were in AFTER they were created.  The state of no death is applied ONLY to the garden state, NOT the creative process that preceded the garden state.  So how does this jive with no death before the Fall?  A simple timeline illustrates it:

 

Creative state (death and evolution) --> Garden State (no death) --> The Fall --> Death and Evolution

 

So here is a hypothetical timeline, supported by doctrine and the scriptures, which if true allows us to say there was no death before the Fall, yet that Adam's physical body, and the bodies of everything else could have come about by evolution because they were created before being placed in the garden.

 

 

and that Adam's body was not the result of an evolutionary process

 

No such statement has been presented in this thread as far as I can tell.