Evidence For Human Evolution (Simple)

[The Nehor]

I don't know how much more exact the wording could be to emphatically state that there was no race of the animal creation that led to Adam.

 

How about if the statement included: "Adam did not descend from any existing life already on the planet earth."

 

Hmmmmm.....yeah, I think that would do it.

 

Take it for what it is worth but it is the official position of our Church that Adam and Eve did not come from the evolution of the animal kingdom.

 

It is worth nothing and you don't get to define the official position of the Church no matter how many times you dogmatically repeat it like a broken record.

[Rob Osborn]

How about if the statement included: "Adam did not descend from any existing life already on the planet earth."

 

Hmmmmm.....yeah, I think that would do it.

 

 

It is worth nothing and you don't get to define the official position of the Church no matter how many times you dogmatically repeat it like a broken record.

I'm not defining the official church doctrine- its all plain and easy to read in its simple and accurate definition. If you keep reading it actually goes on to say that Adam is the literal lineage of God the Father. This of course is also repeated several times in scripture also stating that Adam was the son of God.

[The Nehor]

I'm not defining the official church doctrine- its all plain and easy to read in its simple and accurate definition. If you keep reading it actually goes on to say that Adam is the literal lineage of God the Father. This of course is also repeated several times in scripture also stating that Adam was the son of God.

 

Okay, I'll play. The statement continues:

 

"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."

 

Okay, so we are in the image of God either spiritually or physically or both. Check. Man begins life as a human being. Yes, every man and woman since (and including) Adam has.

 

"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."

 

Agreed completely. Adam was as human as I am though he may have been moderately better looking.

 

"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."

 

Backing up the "I am a Child of God" song. We are all children of God. Check.

 

"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."

 

Agree completely. My spirit is a son of God and my physical body is in the image of God....though God is definitely better looking then me. I plan to make up the difference in the resurrection.

 

And here is the clincher:

 

"Adam, our first progenitor, “the first man,” was, like Christ, a preexistent spirit, and like Christ he took upon him an appropriate body, the body of a man, and so became a “living soul.” The doctrine of the preexistence—revealed so plainly, particularly in latter days—pours a wonderful flood of light upon the otherwise mysterious problem of man’s origin. It shows that man, as a spirit, was begotten and born of heavenly parents and reared to maturity in the eternal mansions of the Father, prior to coming upon the earth in a temporal body to undergo an experience in mortality. It teaches that all men existed in the spirit before any man existed in the flesh and that all who have inhabited the earth since Adam have taken bodies and become souls in like manner."

 

Here is where they should define where the original bodies of our parents come from and they say nothing. We get a lot about the spirit but then just that Adam got a physical body somewhere.

 

All over this document there are plenty of opportunities for them to explicitly explain where the body of Adam came from but they left it a mystery. Sorry, they don't back you up on this.

[Rob Osborn]

It says man is the direct and lineal offspring of deity. It also states that Adam is not the product of evolution of animals. So, when one adds the two statements together it only makes sense that Adam is the very son of God in the physical sense. The lineage records of the scripture also document the lineage of man back to Adam and from him to God, Adam being his son.

[mfbukowski]

My Mission President broke that down for us:

 

"Adam was the first man of all men of the race of Adam."

 

I accept that without reservation.

Works for me.

 

And "No death before the fall"?   Before there was language there was no word, or concept for "death".  Animals just munched on each other.

 

Are you worried about "killing" a carrot when you eat it?  Do you miss it and feel bad about giving it a proper burial?  Just like the water cycle, there is a carbon cycle.

 

We eat things made of carbon and then we get eaten by others.  All this worrying about our "death" or the death of others requires a higher intelligence.  Elephants and others mourn, but they sure don't talk about it a lot.

 

I am sure that lawyers would love to write wills and trusts for pets, but getting them to think about their own deaths presents a problem.

Edited April 26, 2014 by mfbukowski

[mfbukowski]

Okay, I'll play. The statement continues:

 

"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."

 

Okay, so we are in the image of God either spiritually or physically or both. Check. Man begins life as a human being. Yes, every man and woman since (and including) Adam has.

 

"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."

 

Agreed completely. Adam was as human as I am though he may have been moderately better looking.

 

"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."

 

Backing up the "I am a Child of God" song. We are all children of God. Check.

 

"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."

 

Agree completely. My spirit is a son of God and my physical body is in the image of God....though God is definitely better looking then me. I plan to make up the difference in the resurrection.

 

And here is the clincher:

 

"Adam, our first progenitor, “the first man,” was, like Christ, a preexistent spirit, and like Christ he took upon him an appropriate body, the body of a man, and so became a “living soul.” The doctrine of the preexistence—revealed so plainly, particularly in latter days—pours a wonderful flood of light upon the otherwise mysterious problem of man’s origin. It shows that man, as a spirit, was begotten and born of heavenly parents and reared to maturity in the eternal mansions of the Father, prior to coming upon the earth in a temporal body to undergo an experience in mortality. It teaches that all men existed in the spirit before any man existed in the flesh and that all who have inhabited the earth since Adam have taken bodies and become souls in like manner."

 

Here is where they should define where the original bodies of our parents come from and they say nothing. We get a lot about the spirit but then just that Adam got a physical body somewhere.

 

All over this document there are plenty of opportunities for them to explicitly explain where the body of Adam came from but they left it a mystery. Sorry, they don't back you up on this.

Great post- could not agree more, even if I could not think of something funny to say.

[MormonFreeThinker]

I don't readily accept anything as truth without substantial evidence and there is no substancial evidence that Adam came from a lower order of the animal kingdom. Besides that, our church has already said and stated that Adam and Eve are not the product of evolution.

 

Did you watch the Miller video? Most religious scientists believe in human evolution. Virtually all Mormons with a PhD in Biology believe in Evolution. Nothing in the 1925 statement is against Evolution. 

http://en.fairmormon.org/Primary_sources/Evolution/First_Presidency_1925

 

Now if you read carefully, the 1909 statement says, "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 declares 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...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."

 

So, I agree that Adam was a man, not "less than a man" and Adam is the first man of "what we would call the human race". Human race in the scriptures means all the spirits that belong to the family of Adam. (See 2 Nephi 9:21)

 

So Homo sapiens before Adam do not belong to the family of Adam, like Hugh Nibley said, "their world is not our world"

 

For example, all members of the LDS church belong to the family of Abraham

 

"It does not matter if a person's lineage in the house of Israel is through bloodlines or by adoption. Church members are counted as a descendant of Abraham"

https://www.lds.org/topics/patriarchal-blessings?lang=eng

[thesometimesaint]

That too but your post had to do with evolution and time. 

 

I'm not a cell biologist so there is plenty I don't know about evolution. That being said all evolution is is change over time.

[thesometimesaint]

A point when speciation occurs = a point when a species becomes another species. For example, the common ancestor of apes and humans becoming ape or human, when before that change it was another species.

I understand the theory. I just don't buy into it.

 

I'm not demanding you do "buy it". But the evidence for it has been well accepted in the sciences for about a century and a half. We still have people who believe in a geocentric solar system. The don't "buy" a heliocentric one.

SEE The Principle

[Rob Osborn]

Did you watch the Miller video? Most religious scientists believe in human evolution. Virtually all Mormons with a PhD in Biology believe in Evolution. Nothing in the 1925 statement is against Evolution. 

http://en.fairmormon.org/Primary_sources/Evolution/First_Presidency_1925

 

Now if you read carefully, the 1909 statement says, "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 declares 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...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."

 

So, I agree that Adam was a man, not "less than a man" and Adam is the first man of "what we would call the human race". Human race in the scriptures means all the spirits that belong to the family of Adam. (See 2 Nephi 9:21)

 

So Homo sapiens before Adam do not belong to the family of Adam, like Hugh Nibley said, "their world is not our world"

 

For example, all members of the LDS church belong to the family of Abraham

 

"It does not matter if a person's lineage in the house of Israel is through bloodlines or by adoption. Church members are counted as a descendant of Abraham"

https://www.lds.org/topics/patriarchal-blessings?lang=eng

Thats not what the text says. The text from the 1909 statement clarifies that Adam was not the result of evolution from a lower order of the animal kingdom. The Church doesnt specifically say much about evolution except on this very point.

[thesometimesaint]

..Or so the theory goes. If we were to just take truth we would properly state-

Variation within species=micro-evolution over time.

 

Incorrect. Micro-evolution is at the species level and macro-evolution is above the species level.

Even your AiG says yours is a failed argument, and that you should not use it.

[thesometimesaint]

Thats not what the text says. The text from the 1909 statement clarifies that Adam was not the result of evolution from a lower order of the animal kingdom. The Church doesnt specifically say much about evolution except on this very point.

The position of the Church on the origin of man was published by the First Presidency in 1909 and stated again by a different First Presidency in 1925:

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, basing its belief on divine revelation, ancient and modern, declares man to be the direct and lineal offspring of Deity.... Man is the child of God, formed in the divine image and endowed with divine attributes (see Appendix, "Doctrinal Expositions of the First Presidency").

The scriptures tell why man was created, but they do not tell how, though the Lord has promised that he will tell that when he comes again (D&C 101:32-33). In 1931, when there was intense discussion on the issue of organic evolution, the First Presidency of the Church, then consisting of Presidents Heber J. Grant, Anthony W. Ivins, and Charles W. Nibley, addressed all of the General Authorities of the Church on the matter, and concluded,

Upon the fundamental doctrines of the Church we are all agreed. Our mission is to bear the message of the restored gospel to the world. Leave geology, biology, archaeology, and anthropology, no one of which has to do with the salvation of the soul of mankind, to scientific research, while we magnify our calling in the realm of the Church....

Upon one thing we should all be able to agree, namely, that Presidents Joseph F. Smith, John R. Winder, and Anthon H. Lund were right when they said: "Adam is the primal parent of our race" [First Presidency Minutes, April 7, 1931].

[thesometimesaint]

Mormonfreethinker:

 

I like the idea that God used the rational process of Evolution in the Creation of us and our world.

[Tiki]

Jesus Christ did not create the world and the life on it by using death (the keystone of the theory of evolution).

Death came into the world through the agency of man, or the agency given to Adam and Eve while in the garden.

They were given a choice.

This is why Charles Darwin is currently worm bait.

[thesometimesaint]

Jesus Christ did not create the world and the life on it by using death (the keystone of the theory of evolution).

Death came into the world through the agency of man, or the agency given to Adam and Eve while in the garden.

They were given a choice.

This is why Charles Darwin is currently worm bait.

Worm bait he may be. But he was buried in Westminster Abbey.

[Rob Osborn]

Incorrect. Micro-evolution is at the species level and macro-evolution is above the species level.

Even your AiG says yours is a failed argument, and that you should not use it.

Micro-evolution has only been shown to produce small variationswithin species. Anything beyond that is mere conjecture..

[Rob Osborn]

The position of the Church on the origin of man was published by the First Presidency in 1909 and stated again by a different First Presidency in 1925:

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, basing its belief on divine revelation, ancient and modern, declares man to be the direct and lineal offspring of Deity.... Man is the child of God, formed in the divine image and endowed with divine attributes (see Appendix, "Doctrinal Expositions of the First Presidency").

The scriptures tell why man was created, but they do not tell how, though the Lord has promised that he will tell that when he comes again (D&C 101:32-33). In 1931, when there was intense discussion on the issue of organic evolution, the First Presidency of the Church, then consisting of Presidents Heber J. Grant, Anthony W. Ivins, and Charles W. Nibley, addressed all of the General Authorities of the Church on the matter, and concluded,

Upon the fundamental doctrines of the Church we are all agreed. Our mission is to bear the message of the restored gospel to the world. Leave geology, biology, archaeology, and anthropology, no one of which has to do with the salvation of the soul of mankind, to scientific research, while we magnify our calling in the realm of the Church....

Upon one thing we should all be able to agree, namely, that Presidents Joseph F. Smith, John R. Winder, and Anthon H. Lund were right when they said: "Adam is the primal parent of our race" [First Presidency Minutes, April 7, 1931].

The official and current position of the church is the 1909 statement republushed in 2002 and stated by the first presidency to be the official position of the church.

[The Nehor]

Thats not what the text says. The text from the 1909 statement clarifies that Adam was not the result of evolution from a lower order of the animal kingdom. The Church doesnt specifically say much about evolution except on this very point.

 

I just showed you that that is not what it says. It takes no stand on the issue.

[Rob Osborn]

I just showed you that that is not what it says. It takes no stand on the issue.

It absolutely does take a stand on the question on if man eolved from a lower order of animals. The answere is -no, man did not evolve from a lower order of animals but instead is the direct and lineal offspribg of God.

[Shadrak]

The official and current position of the church is the 1909 statement republushed in 2002 and stated by the first presidency to be the official position of the church.

Listen to The Nehor and don't add to the interpretation of the 1909 statement you're own dogma.  It makes no claims to evolution (because even then they realized the significance of evolution to biology and had to stop dogmatic divisions), including how the "primal parent" Adam got to be in the divine form of God, who was the first man.  Whether he was made of dust in an instant or through evolution over time, the end result was the same: modern day man.  The "first man of all men" God chose to communicate with was called Adam, that is all the church claims.

[Shadrak]

It absolutely does take a stand on the question on if man eolved from a lower order of animals. The answere is -no, man did not evolve from a lower order of animals but instead is the direct and lineal offspribg of God.

Man is only formed in the image of God.  Adam was not a literal, lineal, direct offspring of God (in the flesh), Jesus was the only claimed, literal offspring of God. Man may be the direct "image of God" but was formed physically as man and not birthed as offspring.  How was he formed? Certainly not in way explained in scripture or in any church statement. Again, you read too much into the statement.

[The Nehor]

It absolutely does take a stand on the question on if man eolved from a lower order of animals. The answere is -no, man did not evolve from a lower order of animals but instead is the direct and lineal offspribg of God.

Willfull ignorance is a sin.

[Lachoneus]

Willfull ignorance is a sin.

 

Are you claiming that your interpretation of the 1909 statement is the only correct one?

[mfbukowski]

This is why Charles Darwin is currently worm bait.

And so he lives on, still making his contributions to ecology and the carbon cycle.

 

If his matter were not still with us, the law of conservation of matter would cease to exist.  Now THAT is a valuable contribution on-going contribution- he is keeping the worlds in balance.

[mfbukowski]

Worm bait he may be. But he was buried in Westminster Abbey.

With all the gasses generated by those bodies it's amazing the whole place just doesn't float away, since methane is lighter than air.

 

"It floats...."