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

[Rob Osborn]

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

Officially, man did not evolve from a lower order of animals. Unanimous or not, the Church doctribe is clear- man did not evolve from a lower order of species. Perhaps you could just acknowledge that your opinion is different than official church doctrine.

[thesometimesaint]

Officially, man did not evolve from a lower order of animals. Unanimous or not, the Church doctribe is clear- man did not evolve from a lower order of species. Perhaps you could just acknowledge that your opinion is different than official church doctrine.

 

That isn't what the doctrine says. There was no man before God made man. What those other creatures were is not man.

[BCSpace]

Officially, man did not evolve from a lower order of animals.

 

Officially, man is a spirit child of God in connection with a physical body.  Even the 1909 statement emphasizes this context.  It is only the spirit which is the literal offspring, the physical body was created and the spirit placed within.  So still nothing to preclude evolution as the  process God used to create man.

[Rob Osborn]

That isn't what the doctrine says. There was no man before God made man. What those other creatures were is not man.

You are free to your opinions regarding evolution. However, the Church stance is clear in that the teaching of man evolving from a loweroder of creature are just the theories of man. If you would take time to read it, it clearly states that man absolutely did not evolve from a lower order of species. Lets agree on that fact and move on.

[Rob Osborn]

Officially, man is a spirit child of God in connection with a physical body.  Even the 1909 statement emphasizes this context.  It is only the spirit which is the literal offspring, the physical body was created and the spirit placed within.  So still nothing to preclude evolution as the  process God used to create man.

Read it again. It clearly states that man did not evolve. There is no context for man obly being the offspring in the Spirit. The context is clear that man is the literal offspring of God, not a lower order of species.

[BCSpace]

However, the Church stance is clear in that the teaching of man evolving from a loweroder of creature are just the theories of man.

 

Which it (the 1909 statement) does not say are wrong.  Plus in this case, Evolution itself does not create any concern.  How does God using Evolution to create man's physical body conflict with the doctrine of the Church?

Edited February 4, 2014 by BCSpace

[BCSpace]

Read it again. It clearly states that man did not evolve.

 

 

Please provide a specific quote for this with surrounding context.

 

 

There is no context for man obly being the offspring in the Spirit.

 

 

Sure there is:

 

"The creation was twofold—first spiritual, secondly temporal."

 

"If, therefore, we can ascertain the form of the “Father of spirits,” “The God of the spirits of all flesh,” we shall be able to discover the form of the original man."

 

Etc.

 

What is the doctrine of the Church on who is the literal father of the spirit and who is the literal father of the physical body? Hint: It can be found, among other places, in a Primary manual.

 

The context is clear that man is the literal offspring of God, not a lower order of species.

 

I agree with all doctrine of the Church on the Creation.  How does this preclude evolution as the process God used to create our physical bodies?

[Rob Osborn]

Which it (the 1909 statement) does not say are wrong.  Plus in this case, Evolution itself does not create any concern.  How does God using Evolution to create man's physical body conflict with the doctrine of the Church?

It makes man the sons of animals not sons of God. Its pretty clear that God needs a wife who also is a God in order so that their seed is continued on in eternity. We literally are the very seed of our God and his wife. Just as our own physical children are created in the likeness of ourselves so too were Adam and Eve created in like manner. We carry the seed of deity in our DNA and by this procreative power we hold we too advance into eternity the seed of the Gods. If God just used magic to create humans through a slow process of evolution he wouldnt need a wife so that his seed would continue.

[Rob Osborn]

That isn't what the doctrine says. There was no man before God made man. What those other creatures were is not man.

So, it automatically begs the question- if Adam and Eves parents werent "man", what were they? Even evolution demands that "man" has been around at least a 100,000 years.

[KevinG]

So, it automatically begs the question- if Adam and Eves parents werent "man", what were they? Even evolution demands that "man" has been around at least a 100,000 years.

 

Homo Sapiens Filium Dei

 

The fulfillment of the evolutionary process that created our physical bodies, quickened with those greater spirits who received agency and were to be tested in mortality so they could receive a fullness of joy and be joint heirs with Christ.

 

(My opinion mixed with scripture - believe with caution)

Edited February 4, 2014 by KevinG

[Rob Osborn]

Homo Sapiens Filium Dei

 

The fulfillment of the evolutionary process that created our physical bodies, quickened with those greater spirits who received agency and were to be tested in mortality so they could receive a fullness of joy and be joint heirs with Christ.

 

(My opinion mixed with scripture - believe with caution)

Im glad you recognize this as your opinion and not official doctrine of the which it is not.

[BCSpace]

It makes man the sons of animals not sons of God.

 

 

Not at all.  As I mentioned before, evolution teaches that like produces like.  Plus God is the literal father of our spirits.

 

Its pretty clear that God needs a wife who also is a God in order so that their seed is continued on in eternity. We literally are the very seed of our God and his wife.

 

 

God is not the literal father of our bodies.  We teach that in Primary.

 

Just as our own physical children are created in the likeness of ourselves so too were Adam and Eve created in like manner.

 

 

Correct.  Adam was formed in the image of God.

 

We carry the seed of deity in our DNA and by this procreative power we hold we too advance into eternity the seed of the Gods.

 

 

Yes.  The end result of the creative process by evolution was God DNA.

 

If God just used magic to create humans through a slow process of evolution he wouldnt need a wife so that his seed would continue.

 

Wouldn't a literal reading of God forming Adam out of the dust of the earth be closer to magic?

 

 

[BCSpace]

So, it automatically begs the question- if Adam and Eves parents werent "man", what were they? Even evolution demands that "man" has been around at least a 100,000 years.

 

250,000+ years actually.

 

Assuming pre Adamite races of man, which the Church's 1931 statement allows us to do, Adam's mother and father were homo sapiens.  As per 2 Nephi 2:22, when the creation was deemed complete, Adam was placed into the garden state of no death.

 

The above hypothesis illustrates how easily Evolution can swim with LDS doctrine. Feel free to accept Creationism, or whatever it is you accept, but you cannot accurately say that Evolution is precluded by LDS doctrine.

[KevinG]

Im glad you recognize this as your opinion and not official doctrine of the which it is not.

 

There is no official doctrine that defines exactly what role the process of macro evolution has to do with the creation of Adam.  Either in favor or against.  We just don't know for sure through doctrinal sources.  That never bothered me.  We also don't get instructions on how to plumb a toilet from the Old Testament, yet we know that science and wisdom can go a long way towards instructing us in creating a true seal between the bowl and the sewage line.

[BCSpace]

Im glad you recognize this as your opinion and not official doctrine of the which it is not.

 

I don't think anyone here is claiming Evolution to be LDS doctrine.  But then again, Creationism isn't LDS doctrine either.

[KevinG]

I don't think anyone here is claiming Evolution to be LDS doctrine.  But then again, Creationism isn't LDS doctrine either.

 

I marvel at your economy of words in getting my point across.  

[JDave]

I would say that while evolution is not precluded by LDS doctrine, the simplest understanding of what is taught in LDS sources (i.e. scriptures and manuals) is creationism.

 

I'm curious if Seminary or Institute teachers have "Notes to the Instructor" encouraging them to provide a more nuanced view of the Creation to allow room for evolution.

[Nevo]

.

Edited October 1, 2014 by Nevo

[thesometimesaint]

So, it automatically begs the question- if Adam and Eves parents werent "man", what were they? Even evolution demands that "man" has been around at least a 100,000 years.

 

We have no record of the parents of bodies of Adam and Eve.

[thesometimesaint]

I don't think anyone here is claiming Evolution to be LDS doctrine.  But then again, Creationism isn't LDS doctrine either.

 

Agreed.

[cinepro]

No, teachers aren't encouraged to provide a nuanced view. The clear teaching of the current Book of Mormon seminary manual is that the Fall of Adam and Eve "introduced pain, suffering, sin, and [physical] death into the world" (p. 78). 

 

This was a point that was repeated in the Nye/Ham debate by Ham: there could not have been "physical death" on the planet before the Fall of Adam.  But he even went so far as to say that all animals were vegetarians until after Noah's flood, which I hadn't heard before, so he obviously sees some things differently. 

 

But LDS scriptures and teachings by the Latter-day prophets are pretty clear on the subject, and I think that is what ultimately kills evolution when it comes to LDS doctrine:  there wasn't physical death anywhere on the planet until Adam's Fall.  God didn't "create" mortal animals and humanoids that were having kids and dying for countless generations before Adam.

 

I know the evidence says that these animals and humanoids existed, and the Church has done a bang-up job accommodating those who want to feel like they are maintaining faith in the gospel while also believing in macro-evolution.  But the two teachings just aren't compatible, no matter how creatively you redefine "physical death.  Perhaps one day the Church will officially acknowledge the possibility that there was physical death before Adam's Fall, but until they do, we'll just have to maintain the status quo of two different groups of thought co-existing in the Church, each thinking the other is crazy.

[thesometimesaint]

This was a point that was repeated in the Nye/Ham debate by Ham: there could not have been "physical death" on the planet before the Fall of Adam.  But he even went so far as to say that all animals were vegetarians until after Noah's flood, which I hadn't heard before, so he obviously sees some things differently. 

 

But LDS scriptures and teachings by the Latter-day prophets are pretty clear on the subject, and I think that is what ultimately kills evolution when it comes to LDS doctrine:  there wasn't physical death anywhere on the planet until Adam's Fall.  God didn't "create" mortal animals and humanoids that were having kids and dying for countless generations before Adam.

 

I know the evidence says that these animals and humanoids existed, and the Church has done a bang-up job accommodating those who want to feel like they are maintaining faith in the gospel while also believing in macro-evolution.  But the two teachings just aren't compatible, no matter how creatively you redefine "physical death.  Perhaps one day the Church will officially acknowledge the possibility that there was physical death before Adam's Fall, but until they do, we'll just have to maintain the status quo of two different groups of thought co-existing in the Church, each thinking the other is crazy.

They really do believe T-Rex was a vegetarian.

SEE Creationist Museum. http://www.science20.com/fish_feet/t_rex_ate_coconuts

 

From my reading of the LDS understanding of Creation there was no death inside the Garden of Eden. In the dark and dreary world it was otherwise.

 

I think it is assumptions some LDS start with, Like BRM, that is the problem. Not evolution or the Gospel themselves.

Edited February 5, 2014 by thesometimesaint

[Kevin Christensen]

SNIP

there wasn't physical death anywhere on the planet until Adam's Fall. 

SNIP

I can't help but notice that "anywhere on the planet" is not a quote from any scriptural or temple account. That makes it non-binding interpretive commentary, not binding canon.

And since first hearing a recording of Nibley's "Before Adam" talk, I also can't help but notice that our LDS creation accounts raise all sorts of interesting possibilities.

"Let the earth be prepared that it might bring forth..." That is, as Nibley observes, "future potential tense," that is, initiating a process, not creating whales on the spot. How long does it take? In the Abraham account, "until" which means take all the time you need. When viewing the life on the planet, and precisely how obedient the creatures are to the command to reproduce after their own kind, we find that they are "very obedient", the "very" implying variation, which variation we are told, gives beauty to the creation. So we have processes, lots of time, and variation in reproduction. Hmmm... reminds me of something...

We are also told in Moses 1 that "Adam" is "many", and that there are many lands and each land is called "earth", and that even as we find that beyond this earth there are worlds without number, and a process of creation and destruction that has been ongoing for a long long time.

And of course, the Garden, a symbolic account, is bounded location with an inside and an outside, which means that conditions there do not necessarily, or not even reasonably, apply the whole planet.

Margaret Barker's book Temple Theology points out that the Genesis account of creation is tightly paralleled by the account of the erection of the tabernacle, which is itself a model of creation. How do you then create the world in six days? By building a model. And since that model of creation, the tabernacle/temple, itself is symbolic representation, the days involved don't even have to be any particular days. They can be symbolic as well.

The whole notion of trying to decide exactly what all LDS must think for all time based on what some "official source" offers is utterly contrary to the essential charge for LDS to seek for ever greater light and knowledge.

"Is your knowledge perfect," Alma asks, and answers for us, "Nay." We have to continue learning. Not surprisingly, that open-ended expansive approach recommended in Alma 32 is a lot better for faith than prematurely committing to any mortal attempt at a Big Book of What to Think. (Note his contrast between those who seek to once and for all "know" and those who settle for an open-ended and ongoing "cause to believe.")

FWIW

Kevin Christensen

Pittsburgh, PA

Edited February 5, 2014 by Kevin Christensen

[cinepro]

I can't help but notice that "anywhere on the planet" is not a quote from any scriptural or temple account. That makes it non-binding interpretive commentary, not binding canon.

 

 

I didn't say it was "a quote" from a "scriptural or temple account".  That's something you made up as a condition, which is fine.  We all have to believe what we believe.

 

I did say that it is taught by "the scriptures" and "Latter-day prophets".  For some, that is enough to count as doctrine.  For others, it isn't.  Since most people tend to define doctrine based on whether or not they agree with something, I can't make everyone happy. 

 

It's also interesting to see LDS defend their pet theories of evolutionary creation with an insistence (bordering on indignation) that the prophets and apostles (and Church publications and Church curriculum) have been teaching "non-binding commentary" for the last 100+ years. 

[Rob Osborn]

We have no record of the parents of bodies of Adam and Eve.

Thats because the record we do have state that God was the father of Adam and Eve. This fact is why there is no record of pre-adamites- they never existed!