A Theory Of Lds Evolution (Add Yours Here)

[Lightbearer]

Yeah, I understand your theory, but there doesn't seem to be much geologic evidence to support it.

Your point? The OP aske about our belief of the theory of LDS evolution. Nowhere did it ask for any geologic evidence, I am not a geologist or a scientist, but I do have faith in the principles of the restored Gospel of Jesus Christ, I believe in the atonement and the fall and the creation. That is the benchmark of how I determine what I think reguarding the theory of evolution. I am sure my opinions do not make supporters of Mr. Darwin proud, in fact I suppose most intellectuals and most on this board look down their nose at this ignorant unsophisticated fool and rather point their mocking fingers at my most unenlightened primitive thinking. But that is their opinion, which they are entitiled to as I am mine.

[Rivers]

My Theory for evolution:

 

During the period of time in which the earth was being created, it was in a telestial state.  Death, reproduction, and evolution and were taking place.  When the creation was finished, the earth was transformed into an Edenic state in the same manner that the earth will be transformed in the millenium.  Then the earth fell back into a telestial state after Adam and Eve ate the fruit.

 

This is the best way I can harmonize evolution with official church teachings. 

 

I also like to think of the foundational stories in Genesis as theological constructs rather than historical facts.  Either way, I can't wait til the day promised in the Doctrine in Covenants when God will explain everything to us.

 

D&C 101 32-33

  Yea, verily I say unto you, in that ^aday when the Lord shall come, he shall ^breveal all things—

  Things which have passed, and ^ahidden things which no man knew, things of the ^bearth, by which it was made, and the purpose and the end thereof—

 

 

Edited February 9, 2014 by Rivers

[Stone holm]

Your point? The OP aske about our belief of the theory of LDS evolution. Nowhere did it ask for any geologic evidence, I am not a geologist or a scientist, but I do have faith in the principles of the restored Gospel of Jesus Christ, I believe in the atonement and the fall and the creation. That is the benchmark of how I determine what I think reguarding the theory of evolution. I am sure my opinions do not make supporters of Mr. Darwin proud, in fact I suppose most intellectuals and most on this board look down their nose at this ignorant unsophisticated fool and rather point their mocking fingers at my most unenlightened primitive thinking. But that is their opinion, which they are entitiled to as I am mine.

Most LDS teachings can be understood in ways consistent with the geologic evidence and an understanding that God works through a higher understanding of natural laws. We only wind up looking like cranks when we become science deniers.

[EllenMaksoud]

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?)

I just wish that I had lived when there were knights and dragons.

[thesometimesaint]

I find it interesting that you must resort to such a juvenile statement to try to disprove my opinion. However why do you suppose God would have to "magically transport" anything? I believe this world was composed of matter left over from other worlds, the supposed dinosaur "poop" was not organically intact was it? I mean it was fossilized? So who can say when the creatures did their business. How does this prove your point?

 

Coprolites are a serious scientific study of fossilized feces. There is absolutely no evidence that life on our planet was transported from life on other planets.

[Flyonthewall]

Coprolites are a serious scientific study of fossilized feces. There is absolutely no evidence that life on our planet was transported from life on other planets.

Out of curiosity, what would that evidence look like?

[Stone holm]

Coprolites are a serious scientific study of fossilized feces. There is absolutely no evidence that life on our planet was transported from life on other planets.

Since we have no knowledge of what life on other planets is like, there is no way to prove or disprove to what extent life on this planet has been infiltrated by life from other planets, let alone be able to identify what is or is not evidence of such infiltration. A categoric statement that no evidence exists is therefore not viable. We can say that if all life was transported, then it had to have been a very , very early infection. We cannot, however, say that no life forms were ever transported.

[Lightbearer]

Most LDS teachings can be understood in ways consistent with the geologic evidence and an understanding that God works through a higher understanding of natural laws. We only wind up looking like cranks when we become science deniers.

So are you resorting to ad hominem attacks? I do not consider myself a crank or an science denier... But to your point, in what way is the literal resurrection consistent with geologic evidence? Or perhaps walking on water? Why could the creation not be God working through a higher understanding of natural laws? Which laws are we referring to? Telestial? Terrestrial? or Celestial? To me these laws are just as real as "natural laws" and we cannot deny miracles and remain true to our faith in the restored Gospel of Jesus Christ. To me science is a tool that can be used with wisdom, but it is not the fount of all knowledge and wisdom. God has that distinction and some things can only be discovered or understood through revelation. I do not believe man is the measure of all things, I do not believe that we mortals are omniscient but I know God is. I trust not in the arm of flesh, but I try to trust in the Lord and His Gospel. Therefore any doctrine or philosophy or teaching that does not square with the revelations of God to His servants I reject out of hand. I believe that the theory of organic evolution that teaches that there was death from the beginning of the creation and denies that Adam was the first man and that the fall did not bring death into the world, is  a false theory of men and to me is useless and rather unimportant to me.

[Stone holm]

So are you resorting to ad hominem attacks? I do not consider myself a crank or an science denier... But to your point, in what way is the literal resurrection consistent with geologic evidence? Or perhaps walking on water? Why could the creation not be God working through a higher understanding of natural laws? Which laws are we referring to? Telestial? Terrestrial? or Celestial? To me these laws are just as real as "natural laws" and we cannot deny miracles and remain true to our faith in the restored Gospel of Jesus Christ. To me science is a tool that can be used with wisdom, but it is not the fount of all knowledge and wisdom. God has that distinction and some things can only be discovered or understood through revelation. I do not believe man is the measure of all things, I do not believe that we mortals are omniscient but I know God is. I trust not in the arm of flesh, but I try to trust in the Lord and His Gospel. Therefore any doctrine or philosophy or teaching that does not square with the revelations of God to His servants I reject out of hand. I believe that the theory of organic evolution that teaches that there was death from the beginning of the creation and denies that Adam was the first man and that the fall did not bring death into the world, is  a false theory of men and to me is useless and rather unimportant to me.

What is meant is that God is subject to natural laws which He did not make up. One can believe in Adam being the first man and also in evolution. Rather than reject either science or religious beliefs it is better to look for ways to make them consistent or to patiently endure cognitive dissonance. Mormons have an easier time of it given BY rejected the literal reading of Genesis as fable, and because of the Snow Couplet.

[thesometimesaint]

Out of curiosity, what would that evidence look like?

 

The sudden introduction of advanced life forms in really old rocks.

[thesometimesaint]

Since we have no knowledge of what life on other planets is like, there is no way to prove or disprove to what extent life on this planet has been infiltrated by life from other planets, let alone be able to identify what is or is not evidence of such infiltration. A categoric statement that no evidence exists is therefore not viable. We can say that if all life was transported, then it had to have been a very , very early infection. We cannot, however, say that no life forms were ever transported.

 

 We just have no evidence for advanced life forms suddenly appearing in very old rock. I guess it is possible that God, or little green men, visiting our planet billions of years ago left a few very simple bacteria. But now we're getting into highly speculative matters.

Edited February 10, 2014 by thesometimesaint

[thesometimesaint]

What is meant is that God is subject to natural laws which He did not make up. One can believe in Adam being the first man and also in evolution. Rather than reject either science or religious beliefs it is better to look for ways to make them consistent or to patiently endure cognitive dissonance. Mormons have an easier time of it given BY rejected the literal reading of Genesis as fable, and because of the Snow Couplet.

 

Us humans are very good at enduring cognitive dissonance.

[Stone holm]

 We just have no evidence for advanced life forms suddenly appearing in very old rock. I guess it is possible that God, or little green men, visiting our planet billions of years ago left a few very simple bacteria. But now we're getting into highly speculative matters.

 

Granted, but we do not know that extraterrestrial life forms were not introduced at various stages of the evolutionary process, and we do not know exactly what was in the fruit that converted Adam and Eve into mortal beings.  Nor do we know for sure that Adam and Eve who may have had very similar DNA were not introduced into a pre-existing homonid gene pool.  Further, the idea of extraterrestrials being "little green men" is definitely contrary to our religious beliefs with respect to Heavenly Father being a resurrected and exalted man who lived His mortality on another planet.  At least, I have never seen Heavenly Father who is definitely an extraterrestrial ever depicted as a "little green man"  -- have you?

[thesometimesaint]

Granted, but we do not know that extraterrestrial life forms were not introduced at various stages of the evolutionary process, and we do not know exactly what was in the fruit that converted Adam and Eve into mortal beings.  Nor do we know for sure that Adam and Eve who may have had very similar DNA were not introduced into a pre-existing homonid gene pool.  Further, the idea of extraterrestrials being "little green men" is definitely contrary to our religious beliefs with respect to Heavenly Father being a resurrected and exalted man who lived His mortality on another planet.  At least, I have never seen Heavenly Father who is definitely an extraterrestrial ever depicted as a "little green man"  -- have you?

 

No offense was intended by my reference to "little green men". The term just means something extraterrestrial. IE; In 1967, Jocelyn Bell Burnell and Antony Hewish of the University of Cambridge, UK dubbed the first discovered pulsar LGM-1 for "little green men" because the regular oscillations of its signal suggested a possible intelligent origin. Its designation was later changed to CP 1919, and is now known as PSR B1919+21.

[Rob Osborn]

 We just have no evidence for advanced life forms suddenly appearing in very old rock. I guess it is possible that God, or little green men, visiting our planet billions of years ago left a few very simple bacteria. But now we're getting into highly speculative matters.

And yet, life evolving from nonintelligent matter is at the extreme of "highly speculative matters".

[thesometimesaint]

And yet, life evolving from nonintelligent matter is at the extreme of "highly speculative matters".

 

Again Evolution doesn't concern itself with how life first got here. That is Abiogenesis. Moreover I never said that we know exactly how life first got here. Its study is still at the very beginning state. Our working model(Theory) seems to hold up well so far. We have plenty to learn, and no doubt some ideas will be rejected, and some will be furthered. That is what is demanded of any science. We can't say: "Well God did it", and let it go at that.

[Gray]

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?)

 

My theory is that the creation story is a spiritual text, not a history, and that natural science has the best explanation for the origin of our species. Literalism doesn't add anything to the text - I think it rather detracts from its message

[thesometimesaint]

My theory is that the creation story is a spiritual text, not a history, and that natural science has the best explanation for the origin of our species. Literalism doesn't add anything to the text - I think it rather detracts from its message

 

Agreed.

[The Nehor]

Out of curiosity, what would that evidence look like?

Most of the planet would be much older if it came from another dead world. It would be much less uniformly dated. The fossils would not need to be placed in the right ecosystems.

Basically if the bits of older worlds theory is right either God covered up the whole thing or intended it as a trial of our faith. Basically it is a reversal of the argument that Satan hid sealife fossils on mountains to trick us but switches God in instead of Satan.

[Rob Osborn]

Again Evolution doesn't concern itself with how life first got here. That is Abiogenesis. Moreover I never said that we know exactly how life first got here. Its study is still at the very beginning state. Our working model(Theory) seems to hold up well so far. We have plenty to learn, and no doubt some ideas will be rejected, and some will be furthered. That is what is demanded of any science. We can't say: "Well God did it", and let it go at that.

But yet we seem to say that birds evolved from dinosaurs, draw a few pictures and let it go at that. Whats the difference?

[David T]

But yet we seem to say that birds evolved from dinosaurs, draw a few pictures and let it go at that. Whats the difference?

 

Well, after predicting such, they have found dinosaur fossils with distinct feathers. That's pretty good for something you're claiming was made up fantasy.

[Rob Osborn]

Well, after predicting such, they have found dinosaur fossils with distinct feathers. That's pretty good for something you're claiming was made up fantasy.

Its disputable though, was it really just a bird all along?

Edited February 11, 2014 by Rob Osborn

[Rob Osborn]

https://www.apologeticspress.org/apcontent.aspx?category=9&article=918

[BCSpace]

Grudunza:

 

I was there in the mid 70's under Dallin Oaks. The controversy had pretty well died down by that time, but not fondly remembered.

 

What's interesting is in the mid 1970's you have the apostle Ezra Taft Benson giving his Book of Mormon speech.  In it he says that the Book of Mormon is good for combating all sorts of false ideas such as evolution.  But in the mid 1980's as the prophet, he gave essentially the same talk but left evolution off the list.

[thesometimesaint]

But yet we seem to say that birds evolved from dinosaurs, draw a few pictures and let it go at that. Whats the difference?

 

It is called evidence. Ancient bird/dinosaur fossils

https://www.google.com/search?q=Ancient+bird/dinosaur+fossils&client=firefox-a&hs=Pq&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&channel=rcs&tbm=isch&tbo=u&source=univ&sa=X&ei=eub5UsAJyoyoAfeKgegP&ved=0CCkQsAQ&biw=1366&bih=568

Edited February 11, 2014 by thesometimesaint