A Theory Of Lds Evolution (Add Yours Here)

[cinepro]

With the recent lessons in Gospel Doctrine, the Nye/Ham debate, and discussions on this board, I am once again thinking of the different theories of evolution. 

 

Most interesting to me are the theories presented by LDS who try and blend LDS teachings on Adam and Eve and the Fall into a more scientific setting.

 

As far as I can tell, this is the predominate theory among such people.  If you consider yourself a believing LDS who also believes in macro-evolution, please share your personal theory if it diverges from this one:

 

 

- God creates the Earth in a mortal, fallen state.  Plants and animals evolve from lower forms through countless generations of birth and death.

 

- After many hundreds of thousands of years, God takes a humanoid pair (one male, one female) and transforms them from their mortal, fallen state into immortal beings, and places them in an isolated "garden" and imbues them with "spirits", thus separating them from their parents and other humanoid relatives that continue to exist outside the "garden".  Plants and animals outside the garden continue to have babies, live their lives, die, and evolve.

 

- After an unspecified length of time in the garden, Adam and Eve partake of the forbidden fruit, thus instigating a "Fall" that returns them to their mortal state (where they can now have the children and physical death that they probably would have had anyway).  But now they and their children will have spirits that are begotten from God, instead of the non-begotten spirits that the other humanoids (including Adam and Eve when they were born) had.

 

- After the Fall, Adam and Eve must leave the garden and return to the mortal world from whence they came.  They and their children then intermingle with the other humanoids, their kids having spirits from God (since that would be the dominant spirit-trait).  Hence, all current humans are somehow, but not necessarily solely, descended from Adam and Eve.

 

- (Noah's global flood serves to eliminate any last remnants of non-spirit children of God?)

Edited February 5, 2014 by cinepro

[The Nehor]

That is a reasonable abbreviated approximation of the Gospel according to Nehor on this topic though I would put provisos and maybes around most of it and will not share it in Church or even with most members. I would place the garden on another planet. I also believe Adam and Eve and the preexisting humanoid population, if any, all had spirits at birth that were children of God. I suspect our "world" that started with Adam and Eve is not the first "batch" of God's children to go through this test or one like it suited to whoever they were.

Edited February 5, 2014 by The Nehor

[Rob Osborn]

With the recent lessons in Gospel Doctrine, the Nye/Ham debate, and discussions on this board, I am once again thinking of the different theories of evolution. 

 

Most interesting to me are the theories presented by LDS who try and blend LDS teachings on Adam and Eve and the Fall into a more scientific setting.

 

As far as I can tell, this is the predominate theory among such people.  If you consider yourself a believing LDS who also believes in macro-evolution, please share your personal theory if it diverges from this one:

 

 

- God creates the Earth in a mortal, fallen state.  Plants and animals evolve from lower forms through countless generations of birth and death.

 

- After many hundreds of thousands of years, God takes a humanoid pair (one male, one female) and transforms them from their mortal, fallen state into immortal beings, and places them in an isolated "garden" and imbues them with "spirits", thus separating them from their parents and other humanoid relatives that continue to exist outside the "garden".  Plants and animals outside the garden continue to have babies, live their lives, die, and evolve.

 

- After an unspecified length of time in the garden, Adam and Eve partake of the forbidden fruit, thus instigating a "Fall" that returns them to their mortal state (where they can now have the children and physical death that they probably would have had anyway).  But now they and their children will have spirits that are begotten from God, instead of the non-begotten spirits that the other humanoids (including Adam and Eve when they were born) had.

 

- After the Fall, Adam and Eve must leave the garden and return to the mortal world from whence they came.  They and their children then intermingle with the other humanoids, their kids having spirits from God (since that would be the dominant spirit-trait).  Hence, all current humans are somehow, but not necessarily solely, descended from Adam and Eve.

 

- (Noah's global flood serves to eliminate any last remnants of non-spirit children of God?)

Completely counter to all of LDS doctrine. This can't even be considered in part anything representing LDS belief.

[The Nehor]

Completely counter to all of LDS doctrine. This can't even be considered in part anything representing LDS belief.

Sweet, I am now an apostate along with being orthodox. Woohoo!!!!!

Edited February 5, 2014 by The Nehor

[ksfisher]

My theory on Lds evolution:

 

I believe that Lds evolved from a lower form of Lds (some call them proto-lds).  No trace of their DNA (or proto-DNA) has yet been found, but scientists are even now unearthing their remains in Zarahemla (which has yet to be found), which may lead to many startling revelations in a yet to be unsealed Tom Phillips lawsuit.

 

Bill Nye, however, doesn't believe a word of it.

Edited February 5, 2014 by ksfisher

[erdoch]

My theory is that we don't know anything about spiritual creation and thus can't assume that evolution presents a problem to the concept of being "children of God". I also believe that the story of Adam and Eve in the garden is mythical - as well as an allegory about pre-existence and earth life. Evolution shows that the nature of God is not to drastically intervene in the universe, though I do believe God is part of the Creation and evolution at some spiritual level - sort of like a gardener who doesn't force the growth and process of the plant in its becoming but waters it and makes sure the conditions are there for it to grow. 

[Palerider]

My theory on Lds evolution:

 

I believe that Lds evolved from a lower form of Lds (some call them proto-lds).  No trace of their DNA (or proto-DNA) has yet been found, but scientists are even now unearthing their remains in Zarahemla (which has yet to be found), which may lead to many startling revelations in a yet to be unsealed Tom Phillips lawsuit.

 

Bill Nye, however, doesn't believe a word of it.

 

  Pretty good.....I'm likin' it......

[thesometimesaint]

My position is that we know so little about either/both that it is best not to mingle the two. That doing so mangles both.

[KevinG]

The official answer is we know why we were created but not how.

 

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

[The Nehor]

The official answer is we know why we were created but not how.

 

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

Well, I suppose someone has to tell you at some point. You see, when a daddy God and a mommy Goddess who love each other very much....................

[KevinG]

My personal theory is we came from a planet where brussel sprouts tasted like cotton candy, and gravity was so low we could fly.   We were dumped here to learn self-restraint and hard work.

[longview]

I had this conversation with a co-worker years ago:

 

him:  I believe evolution is fact.

 

me:  What do you think will happen when you die?  Will there be no trace left of you when your body crumbles completely to dust?  Will there be any "essence" remaining of you?  Will it be as if you never existed?

 

him:  hmmmm, I think there will be something . . .

 

me:  Do you believe that your spirit person will separate from your body at the time of death?

 

him:  Yes.

 

me:  Then what conceivable reason (or need) would evolution have for "creating" a spirit essence or person?

 

him:  [speechless] with shrugging of shoulders.

 

 

======================================================================

 

 

A question for doctors of physics:

 

Did the Big Bang happen?

 

Is the only evidence for it based on the "red shift" seen in photons reaching our eyes from various places in the Universe?

 

We know that elements decay at a certain rate where sub-atomic particles are emitted.  Could the same thing happen for photons?  If so, the wavelength within the photon would become longer (indicating loss of energy).  The longer the photon has to travel, the more steadily would it be decaying and shifting to the longer wavelengths.  The shift would be much greater for a photon that has been traveling for 15 light-years than for one that traveled for 5 light-years.

 

What if the "lifespan" of photons is less than 30 light-years?  Then we would not be able to visually observe anything of the Universe beyond the radius of 30 light-years.  What if God is able to see in other set of dimensions?  That we are unable to access these things?  Also, God would not be constrained by time delays regardless of distances of various parts of the Universe?

 

 

======================================================================

 

 

Religion does not have a conflict with science.  All "scientific" truths are wholly contained within God's truths.  The only problem with science is that scientists are forced to make numerous assumptions and projections about all kinds of factors in order to develop their theories.  We do not know how God performed His creative works but we can learn a few of the details, some figuratively, some literally.

 

Global warming false hysteria?  CO2 only makes 0.000397 of the atmosphere (trace gas) but it is critical for plants and animals.  Makes you question why would the EPA want to classify CO2 as a "pollutant" ?  Water vapor (not droplets) is a much more powerful greenhouse gas than CO2 (even considering equal volumes of vapor and CO2, vapor still has multiples stronger effect than CO2).   Scientists have observed simultaneous rise in temperatures in all the planets in our Solar System.  It is NOT due to global warming but most definitely caused by cyclic changes in the Sun.  But the alarmists refuse to discuss the Sun.  The Michael Mann "hockey stick" projection of global warming?  He deliberately left off the data from the Medieval Warm Period (about 1000 A.D, the "Little Ice Age" occurred about 1300 A.D.) and misreported the temperature readings in various locations (such as stations in "heat islands" of major cities).  Computer projections of Global Warming?  Those people refuse to allow impartial review of the programming code for how calculations are being made.  Why?  Because it is bunk.  Remember the kerfuffle at the University of East Anglia?  The hundreds emails that were unearthed showed the cynicism of the so called scientist who make their living off Government funding and phony research grants).

 

I could go on and on about various abuses various kinds of professors and researchers and scientists.  The debate is NOT settled.  Do not be fooled.  Keep questioning.

[Freedom]

Since there is not such thing as LDS evolution, just as there is no such thing as LDS gravity, it is rather difficult to answer the question. We know the earth is very old, we know the account in Genesis is part of the endowment, and we know that the endowment is highly symbolic. conclusion? evolution is how we came to be, genesis is why. It is a temple vision plain and simple. 

[KevinG]

Since there is not such thing as LDS evolution, just as there is no such thing as LDS gravity, it is rather difficult to answer the question...

 

...but we do know it includes men losing their facial hair over succeeding generations. 

[DBMormon]

Completely counter to all of LDS doctrine. This can't even be considered in part anything representing LDS belief.

 

I didn't read any of this but as Rob has disagreed, I take the opposite position of Rob Osborn

[KevinG]

I didn't read any of this but as Rob has disagreed, I take the opposite position of Rob Osborn

 

2 Nephi 2:11 For it must needs be, that there is an opposition in all things...

[cinepro]

The official answer is we know why we were created but not how.

 

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

 

There may be an "official answer", but that's not it (nothing in the Encyclopedia of Mormonism is "official").

 

The point is that LDS teachings and doctrines make some very specific claims that appear to contradict the theory of evolution.  I understand it is the polite and easy thing to do to punt and pretend there isn't an incompatibility (or that the incompatibilities are minor and will be harmonized with future knowledge).  But for those who have actually tried to move beyond this, I'm interested in the ways people try to get one to fit with the other.

 

Do any LDS believers in evolution disagree with the scenario presented in the OP, and if so, what are some alternate versions of events that might be considered?

Edited February 5, 2014 by cinepro

[The Nehor]

A question for doctors of physics:

 

Did the Big Bang happen?

 

Is the only evidence for it based on the "red shift" seen in photons reaching our eyes from various places in the Universe?

 

We know that elements decay at a certain rate where sub-atomic particles are emitted.  Could the same thing happen for photons?  If so, the wavelength within the photon would become longer (indicating loss of energy).  The longer the photon has to travel, the more steadily would it be decaying and shifting to the longer wavelengths.  The shift would be much greater for a photon that has been traveling for 15 light-years than for one that traveled for 5 light-years.

 

What if the "lifespan" of photons is less than 30 light-years?  Then we would not be able to visually observe anything of the Universe beyond the radius of 30 light-years.  What if God is able to see in other set of dimensions?  That we are unable to access these things?  Also, God would not be constrained by time delays regardless of distances of various parts of the Universe?

 

The problem with this is that we can see further then 30 light years.

[KevinG]

There may be an "official answer", but that's not it (nothing in the Encyclopedia of Mormonism is "official").

 

Try to get over the fact that the quote from the President of the Church was taken from the Encyclopedia of Mormonism.  I don't have access to the original manuscript of the first presidency note to the general authorities.

 

However- my thought is if we cannot reconcile what we know of the physical universe with what we learn through revelation then we probably don't have the full story yet (aka the blind men and the elephant).

 

It is extreme hubris on the part of the scientifically minded and the religious to think they have all knowledge in their own sphere of influence.

Edited February 5, 2014 by KevinG

[The Nehor]

There may be an "official answer", but that's not it (nothing in the Encyclopedia of Mormonism is "official").

 

The point is that LDS teachings and doctrines make some very specific claims that appear to contradict the theory of evolution.  I understand it is the polite and easy thing to do to punt and pretend there isn't an incompatibility (or that the incompatibilities are minor and will be harmonized with future knowledge).  But for those who have actually tried to move beyond this, I'm interested in the ways people try to get one to fit with the other.

 

Do any LDS believers in evolution disagree with the scenario presented in the OP, and if so, what are some alternate versions of events that might be considered?

 

I just think there are many things contained in the complete written record of the apostles and prophets we can disagree with and some we can't. If President Monson stands up in Conference in April and announces the earth is 6,000 years old and there were no pre-Adamites and the Holy Ghost confirms then I will need to do a LOT of revising.

 

I have many ideas that I suspect are true with a bit of revelatory backing but keep quiet about. A few would probably get me condemned even here for blasphemy. If I told my Bishop all of them I would probably be involved in a long interview.

 

There are some core tenets you have to accept to be a member in good standing. I accept all of those though I reject some bits of explanatory baggage people have built up around them.

[KevinG]

I have many ideas that I suspect are true with a bit of revelatory backing but keep quiet about. A few would probably get me condemned even here for blasphemy. If I told my Bishop all of them I would probably be involved in a long interview.

 

Other than believing in God the Eternal Father, His Son Jesus Christ and the Holy Spirit, that Joseph Smith was and Thomas Monson is a prophet, and the the LDS Chruch is God's authorized church, there is very little in terms of beliefs that are required to be a member in good standing.

 

Behaviors and actions on the other hand include a longer list like the Word of Wisdom, Chastity, Tithing, Honesty, etc.

 

We really don't do blasphemy short of public apostasy.

[The Nehor]

Other than believing in God the Eternal Father, His Son Jesus Christ and the Holy Spirit, that Joseph Smith was and Thomas Monson is a prophet, and the the LDS Chruch is God's authorized church, there is very little in terms of beliefs that are required to be a member in good standing.

 

Behaviors and actions on the other hand include a longer list like the Word of Wisdom, Chastity, Tithing, Honesty, etc.

 

We really don't do blasphemy short of public apostasy.

 

True, but it would offend some people. I mentioned it a long time ago on a message board far far away and wow, people went nuts. It was kind of fun actually.

 

It can be helpful to be an oddball though. When I was teaching Elder's Quorum a few Sundays back and teaching President Uchtdorf's talk about inclusiveness and doubting your doubts and inviting people to stay I could testify that I was an oddball and I had found a place in the Church.

[longview]

The problem with this is that we can see further then 30 light years.

A very interesting statement!

 

I checked Wikipedia (hopefully a good representative entry reflecting academia),

 

"According to the theory, the Big Bang occurred approximately 13.798 ± 0.037 billion years ago".

 

Are you saying that photons have been seen from prior to the Big Bang?  Please explain.

[longview]

A very interesting statement!

 

I checked Wikipedia (hopefully a good representative entry reflecting academia),

 

"According to the theory, the Big Bang occurred approximately 13.798 ± 0.037 billion years ago".

 

Are you saying that photons have been seen from prior to the Big Bang?  Please explain.

Oops, my mistake.  I was equating billion years with a light-year.   I should have asked instead:  "What if a photon has a lifespan of only 12 billion years?"

[Freedom]

Oops, my mistake.  I was equating billion years with a light-year.   I should have asked instead:  "What if a photon has a lifespan of only 12 billion years?"

What if Santa Clause is a butterfly? What if snow is really angel snot?