ALarson Posted February 3, 2014 Posted February 3, 2014 As I stated on another thread, I have been discussing this new essay with some members of the church (including my Bishop) and one of the questions some brought up is regarding Adam and Eve. This new essay states that there were many Native Americans in the New World thousands of years BEFORE the Book of Mormon people arrived here. What does that say about Adam and Eve? Were there pre-Adamites? Also, did the flood just happen to miss these people? There was quite the discussion about this and I'm left wondering myself. Thoughts?
daz2 Posted February 3, 2014 Posted February 3, 2014 The article is an implicit defense of evolution and presumes that readers accept the evolutionary origin of human beings. I think the science is overwhelming on that point. 2
ALarson Posted February 3, 2014 Author Posted February 3, 2014 The article is an implicit defense of evolution and presumes that readers accept the evolutionary origin of human beings. I think the science is overwhelming on that point.Oh, I agree and this is what I tried to explain as we discussed it. However, most stated that goes against church doctrine. There is just a lot of confusion on this.
Garden Girl Posted February 3, 2014 Posted February 3, 2014 Oh, I agree and this is what I tried to explain as we discussed it. However, most stated that goes against church doctrine. There is just a lot of confusion on this. In Gospel Doctrine class a couple of weeks ago, the substitute teacher (a woman who is strong LDS but also a scientist) asked the questions... "DO WE BELIEVE IN EVOLUTION??!!" And then... Of course we do! Because, she said, evolution means "change." The majority of the class seemed comfortable with evolution per se, but not Darwin's approach and theory... and that's where I fall... I believe we had a form of evolution that took place over thousands or more probably even millions of years. I believe there was adaptation and natural selection, etc. I don't know how it all worked but I don't believe in what most would consider the evolution according to Darwin. I know there are some opinions expressed by I believe Joseph Fielding Smith on the age of earth, etc., that I simply disagree with... And I don't agree with the no death before the fall concept... and think most LDS tend to lean in the same direction in spite of past teachings... I personally am not all that concerned.. I know that these things will be explained (D&C 101:32-34) and that current science offers much more now than was available in the past... GG 1
ALarson Posted February 3, 2014 Author Posted February 3, 2014 In Gospel Doctrine class a couple of weeks ago, the substitute teacher (a woman who is strong LDS but also a scientist) asked the questions... "DO WE BELIEVE IN EVOLUTION??!!" And then... Of course we do! Because, she said, evolution means "change." The majority of the class seemed comfortable with evolution per se, but not Darwin's approach and theory... and that's where I fall... I believe we had a form of evolution that took place over thousands or more probably even millions of years. I believe there was adaptation and natural selection, etc. I don't know how it all worked but I don't believe in what most would consider the evolution according to Darwin. I know there are some opinions expressed by I believe Joseph Fielding Smith on the age of earth, etc., that I simply disagree with... And I don't agree with the no death before the fall concept... and think most LDS tend to lean in the same direction in spite of past teachings... I personally am not all that concerned.. I know that these things will be explained (D&C 101:32-34) and that current science offers much more now than was available in the past... GGThanks Garden Girl. I agree with you that many active LDS take this approach to evolution. I do believe though that many active Mormons still hold on to the literal story of Adam and Eve and also believe that the earth is only 6,000 years old. However, with the release of this new essay and other new teachings, many will probably change what they believe on this. At least that's my take on it....we'll see...
Freedom Posted February 3, 2014 Posted February 3, 2014 Adam is the first man. First is not a number of chronology, but a number of importance. He was the first son of God, the most important man of God. Religion teaches gospel principles not history. History, when teaching a principle, inevitably gets distorted. Allegories and hyperbole are found throughout the scriptures. 1 Nephi, from how I read it, is an allegory and not a completely accurate portrayal of early Nephite history. 1
Freedom Posted February 3, 2014 Posted February 3, 2014 I do believe though that many active Mormons still hold on to the literal story of Adam and Eve and also believe that the earth is only 6,000 years old. You do not need to hold to this as a belief. It is a fact. Statistics tell us that the majority of mormons accept creationism. Over time, this will change as the church opens up more about these controversial issues.
ALarson Posted February 3, 2014 Author Posted February 3, 2014 (edited) You do not need to hold to this as a belief. It is a fact. Statistics tell us that the majority of mormons accept creationism. Over time, this will change as the church opens up more about these controversial issues. The new essay contradicts this then. Which are we to believe? Or, am I missing something here? Edited February 3, 2014 by ALarson
cinepro Posted February 3, 2014 Posted February 3, 2014 (edited) As I stated on another thread, I have been discussing this new essay with some members of the church (including my Bishop) and one of the questions some brought up is regarding Adam and Eve. This new essay states that there were many Native Americans in the New World thousands of years BEFORE the Book of Mormon people arrived here. What does that say about Adam and Eve? Were there pre-Adamites? Also, did the flood just happen to miss these people? There was quite the discussion about this and I'm left wondering myself. Thoughts? Are you referring specifically to these paragraphs from the essay? The evidence assembled to date suggests that the majority of Native Americans carry largely Asian DNA.3 Scientists theorize that in an era that predated Book of Mormon accounts, a relatively small group of people migrated from northeast Asia to the Americas by way of a land bridge that connected Siberia to Alaska.4 These people, scientists say, spread rapidly to fill North and South America and were likely the primary ancestors of modern American Indians.5 The Book of Mormon provides little direct information about cultural contact between the peoples it describes and others who may have lived nearby. Consequently, most early Latter-day Saints assumed that Near Easterners or West Asians like Jared, Lehi, Mulek, and their companions were the first or the largest or even the only groups to settle the Americas. Building upon this assumption, critics insist that the Book of Mormon does not allow for the presence of other large populations in the Americas and that, therefore, Near Eastern DNA should be easily identifiable among modern native groups. This does totally contradict the traditional chronology, which has the entire planet being "cleansed" by Noah's flood, then the Jaredites leaving from the Tower of Babel. Here is how it was described in an Ensign article in 1998: For some in the modern world, the historicity of the tower of Babel story, as with the Flood, is often discounted. One modern school of thought considers the account to be nothing more than an “artful parable” and an “old tale.”11 But Latter-day Saints accept the story as it is presented in Genesis. Further, we have the second witness of the Book of Mormon. The title page of the Book of Mormon explains that the book of Ether “is a record of the people of Jared, who were scattered at the time the Lord confounded the language of the people, when they were building a tower to get to heaven.” The book of Ether itself then tells of when “Jared came forth with his brother and their families, with some others and their families, from the great tower, at the time the Lord confounded the language of the people, and swore in his wrath that they should be scattered upon all the face of the earth” (Ether 1:33). The Flood and the Tower of Babel Even if there were others who made it to the New World after the flood but before the Jaredites, they wouldn't have had much time to do anything. Most LDS-published chronologies estimate about 100 years between the Flood and the Tower of Babel. Edited February 3, 2014 by cinepro
Rivers Posted February 3, 2014 Posted February 3, 2014 The church now needs to gives us an article on evolution.
cinepro Posted February 3, 2014 Posted February 3, 2014 It's also somewhat ironic that the Church's DNA article references a few talks by Elder Holland in the right side of the page, when he was the one who taught this back in 1976 regarding "America": Two generations later the Lord was so pained by that generation “without affection” (Moses 7:33) that he opened the windows of heaven and cleansed the entire earth with water. Thus, the “everlasting decree” (Ether 2:10) was first taught that he who will not obey the Lord in righteousness will be swept from his sacred land. The lesson would be tragically retaught in dispensations yet to come. Holy scripture records that “after the waters had receded from off the face of this land it became a choice land above all other lands, a chosen land of the Lord; wherefore the Lord would have that all men should serve him who dwell upon the face thereof.” (Ether 13:2.) Such a special place needed now to be kept apart from other regions, free from the indiscriminate traveler as well as the soldier of fortune. To guarantee such sanctity the very surface of the earth was rent. In response to God’s decree, the great continents separated and the ocean rushed in to surround them. The promised place was set apart. Without habitation it waited for the fulfillment of God’s special purposes. With care and selectivity, the Lord began almost at once to repeople the promised land. The Jaredites came first, with stories of the great flood fresh in their memories and the Lord’s solemn declaration ringing in their ears: “Whoso should possess this land of promise, from that time henceforth and forever, should serve him, the true and only God, or they should be swept off when the fulness of his wrath should come upon them.” (Ether 2:8.) Despite such counsel, however, the Jaredite civilization steadily degenerated into a violent society which forced a man to keep “the hilt of his sword in his right hand” (Ether 14:2)—until finally he “ate and slept, and prepared for death on the morrow.” (Ether 15:26.) But even as the last light flickered on Jaredite civilization, a bold new sun rose to illuminate a thousand years of Nephite-Lamanite experience on the same soil. Despite periods of war and rebellion, these people nevertheless had great moments of power and purity, including the personal ministry of the resurrected Christ, who walked and talked and prayed with these New World inhabitants for three indescribable days. There in the meridian of time the land enjoyed three generations of peace and perfection, which it would not know again until the Master’s millennial reign. https://www.lds.org/ensign/1976/06/a-promised-land?lang=eng(Emphasis added) I honestly and sincerely wonder if Elder Holland still believes what he taught in this talk.
Freedom Posted February 3, 2014 Posted February 3, 2014 The new essay contradicts this then. Which are we to believe? Or, am I missing something here?I am not sure what you mean. The fact that the majority of mormons believe in creationism does not make it true. The article is a small step in the direction of correcting this false belief.
frank_jessop Posted February 3, 2014 Posted February 3, 2014 As I stated on another thread, I have been discussing this new essay with some members of the church (including my Bishop) and one of the questions some brought up is regarding Adam and Eve. This new essay states that there were many Native Americans in the New World thousands of years BEFORE the Book of Mormon people arrived here. What does that say about Adam and Eve? Were there pre-Adamites? Also, did the flood just happen to miss these people? There was quite the discussion about this and I'm left wondering myself. Thoughts? Does the DNA Essay definatively state there were "many" in the New World? Or does the essay say there are "hints" of other peoples. I believe B.H. Roberts entertained the idea of "others" (apart from Jaredites and Mulekites) in the New World. Science (land bridge from North Asia) does not mix well with Religion (Lehi; Mulekites; Jaredites).
ALarson Posted February 3, 2014 Author Posted February 3, 2014 Does the DNA Essay definatively state there were "many" in the New World? Or does the essay say there are "hints" of other peoples. I believe B.H. Roberts entertained the idea of "others" (apart from Jaredites and Mulekites) in the New World. Science (land bridge from North Asia) does not mix well with Religion (Lehi; Mulekites; Jaredites). Here's some of what the essay states: "Scientists theorize that in an era that predated Book of Mormon accounts, a relatively small group of people migrated from northeast Asia to the Americas by way of a land bridge that connected Siberia to Alaska.4 These people, scientists say, spread rapidly to fill North and South America and were likely the primary ancestors of modern American Indians."...."The Book of Mormon itself, however, does not claim that the peoples it describes were either the predominant or the exclusive inhabitants of the lands they occupied. In fact, cultural and demographic clues in its text hint at the presence of other groups."...."What seems clear is that the DNA of Book of Mormon peoples likely represented only a fraction of all DNA in ancient America." It then references a paper written by Ugo Perego which dates the migration of these "other groups" as being older than 10,000 years ago. Here's a link to the entire essay:https://www.lds.org/topics/book-of-mormon-and-dna-studies?lang=eng
ALarson Posted February 3, 2014 Author Posted February 3, 2014 I am not sure what you mean. The fact that the majority of mormons believe in creationism does not make it true. The article is a small step in the direction of correcting this false belief. Oh, ok....now I understand what you were stating. I agree.
Freedom Posted February 3, 2014 Posted February 3, 2014 Does the DNA Essay definatively state there were "many" in the New World? Or does the essay say there are "hints" of other peoples. I believe B.H. Roberts entertained the idea of "others" (apart from Jaredites and Mulekites) in the New World. Science (land bridge from North Asia) does not mix well with Religion (Lehi; Mulekites; Jaredites). This is like saying gravity does mix well with religion because angels float. The Book of Mormon is about a small civilization in a very small piece of geography. There is no conflict between religion and science
The Nehor Posted February 3, 2014 Posted February 3, 2014 This is like saying gravity does mix well with religion because angels float. The Book of Mormon is about a small civilization in a very small piece of geography. There is no conflict between religion and scienceThere is no such thing as gravity. Many have known for years it is "intelligent falling" but our school system refuses to teach the controversy or even acknowledge the competing theory.http://www.theonion.com/articles/evangelical-scientists-refute-gravity-with-new-int,1778/
Rivers Posted February 3, 2014 Posted February 3, 2014 (edited) It's also somewhat ironic that the Church's DNA article references a few talks by Elder Holland in the right side of the page, when he was the one who taught this back in 1976 regarding "America":I honestly and sincerely wonder if Elder Holland still believes what he taught in this talk.I think his views have likely evolved a bit since this time. 1976 was a long time ago. The priesthood ban was still in place. Edited February 3, 2014 by Rivers
Freedom Posted February 3, 2014 Posted February 3, 2014 When I die, I dread being assigned the job of dragging rain drops down to the earth. How tedious is that.
thesometimesaint Posted February 4, 2014 Posted February 4, 2014 The Church takes no position on Evolution. We are free to believe or not believe as is our choice.http://eom.byu.edu/index.php/Evolution
Recommended Posts