The Origin Of (Our) Species

[JLHPROF]

That's a lot of unwarranted assumptions. Animals fulfill the measure of their creation. There is nothing in the Gospel that includes or precludes them from being in the Celestial Kingdom.

 

Ok, not the point.

It's not an issue of "will animals and lesser life forms be eternally happy (fill the measure of their creation)".  I'm sure they will be.

 

It's that:

1. The idea that the only thing separating God's children from lesser life forms is one genetic (mortal) generation.

2. That this means that everyone gets to be sealed to their parents as one happy eternal family, except Adam.  He has to know that he doesn't get to have his father, grandfather, mother, grandmother as an eternal family etc because they aren't considered "people" by some arbitrary cutoff.

[thesometimesaint]

Ok, not the point.

It's not an issue of "will animals and lesser life forms be eternally happy (fill the measure of their creation)".  I'm sure they will be.

 

It's that:

1. The idea that the only thing separating God's children from lesser life forms is one genetic (mortal) generation.

2. That this means that everyone gets to be sealed to their parents as one happy eternal family, except Adam.  He has to know that he doesn't get to have his father, grandfather, mother, grandmother as an eternal family etc because they aren't considered "people" by some arbitrary cutoff.

I've never claimed it was genetic, as I have no idea as to the genetics of any omnipotent, omnipresent, omniscient, immortal, indestructible, being.

At what point does man call man a man, and at what point does God call a man a man?

[JLHPROF]

 

At what point does man call man a man, and at what point does God call a man a man?

 

Exactly my point.  That dividing line seems incompatible with the gospel.  At least to me.

[bluebell]

That's a lot of unwarranted assumptions. Animals fulfill the measure of their creation. There is nothing in the Gospel that includes or precludes them from being in the Celestial Kingdom.

 

Animals do not get to be exalted however.  They don't get to become joint-heirs with Christ or gain all that the Father has.  If evolution is true (and i'm still very much on the fence about it all), then that means that at some point someone's father is not eligible for exaltation because of their biology and their child is because of their biology.

 

That seems to be a problem that needs to be dealt with.

[JLHPROF]

Animals do not get to be exalted however.  They don't get to become joint-heirs with Christ or gain all that the Father has.  If evolution is true (and i'm still very much on the fence about it all), then that means that at some point someone's father is not eligible for exaltation because of their biology and their child is because of their biology.

 

That seems to be a problem that needs to be dealt with.

 

Thank you.

Exaclty my point (and my objection to evolution).  That division could never be anything but unjust, and God is absolutely just.  And the idea that "they'll be happy anyway" doesn't remove the injustice. 

[ERayR]

I do not believe that Evolution is compatible, not only with the creation of Adam and Eve, but with the gospel.

I cannot accept that in a direct lineal descent one generation is considered a lower lesser form of life (outside of the family of God and inelligible for exaltation) and the very next one will be resurrected to the Celestial Kingdom and Godhood.

 

Imagine evolution is true.  We have passed through neanderthal, cromagnon, and then you are the father of "Adam", the first homo sapiens, and the first being eligible for the Celestial Kingdom.  You are basically as intelligent as any father/son.  Just as Christ was in the image of his father, so your son is in your image.  You watched him being born. You loved his mother.  But because you aren't advanced enough you cannot be exalted with him to the top degree of the Celestial Kingdom.  You can never follow him in his progression to godhood, because you are one generation too early for homo sapiens - the children of God.

 

Nope, can't accept such a situation.

 

Can we say it?  Calvinism.

[ERayR]

Animals do not get to be exalted however.  They don't get to become joint-heirs with Christ or gain all that the Father has.  If evolution is true (and i'm still very much on the fence about it all), then that means that at some point someone's father is not eligible for exaltation because of their biology and their child is because of their biology.

 

That seems to be a problem that needs to be dealt with.

 

Yep sure is but not by me.  I'm not going to straddle that fence.  Besides if you broaden your knowledge base you find anomalies that macro-evolution can not account for, especially in nobody is asking the questions.

Edited February 27, 2015 by ERayR

[thesometimesaint]

Animals do not get to be exalted however.  They don't get to become joint-heirs with Christ or gain all that the Father has.  If evolution is true (and i'm still very much on the fence about it all), then that means that at some point someone's father is not eligible for exaltation because of their biology and their child is because of their biology.

 

That seems to be a problem that needs to be dealt with.

 

That would be the same problem with any of God's once living creations. At what point does any creature become ineligible for exaltation? Some have suggested that our pets will be with us in the Celestial Kingdom. Not to be flip but how far down the evolutionary scale does that extend? If not why not?

 

I don't see any solution other that the Gospel neither includes nor excludes non-humans.

[ERayR]

At what point does man call man a man, and at what point does God call a man a man?

 

That is only a problem if you accept macro-evolution.

[JLHPROF]

That would be the same problem with any of God's once living creations. At what point does any creature become ineligible for exaltation? Some have suggested that our pets will be with us in the Celestial Kingdom. Not to be flip but how far down the evolutionary scale does that extend? If not why not?

 

I don't see any solution other that the Gospel neither includes nor excludes non-humans.

 

Presence in the Celestial Kingdom is not the same as exaltation.  What happens to animals is irrelevant to this discussion.

 

The issue is that some MEN are eligible and some MEN are not based on a pre-Adam/post-Adam model and it has nothing to do with their actions and agency.  If we trace man back there is an unavoidable dividing line where some can become Gods /joint-heirs and some cannot based on no action of their own but through the bodies into which they are born.

 

Bluebell really explained the problem perfectly: "at some point someone's father is not eligible for exaltation because of their biology and their child is because of their biology"

Edited February 27, 2015 by JLHPROF

[bluebell]

That would be the same problem with any of God's once living creations. At what point does any creature become ineligible for exaltation? Some have suggested that our pets will be with us in the Celestial Kingdom. Not to be flip but how far down the evolutionary scale does that extend? If not why not?

 

I don't see any solution other that the Gospel neither includes nor excludes non-humans.

You have forgotten though that someone can inherit the celestial kingdom but still not be eligible for exaltation.  Therefore there is gospel doctrine which creates a precedent that supports animals in the celestial kingdom.  However, there is absolutely no gospel precedent to support that anyone except spirit children of God can be exalted.  No creation except humans are eligible for that.  

 

But if evolution is correct then that means that at some point non-human (a creation which did not house a spirit child of God) gave birth to a human (a creation which DID house a spirit child of God) and the birth parent was ineligible for something that the child was eligible.  It also means that the child cannot be sealed to their parents.

 

I have never seen an answer for that theological problem.

Edited February 27, 2015 by bluebell

[ERayR]

I sincerely hope that no one is going to tell me that.  The doctrine of the Fall is the only thing that makes the Savior necessary.  It is why the scriptures teach the creation and the fall before introducing someone to the Atonement and the Savior.

 

It sure does damage to the concept of agency too. 

[ERayR]

You have forgotten though that someone can inherit the celestial kingdom but still not be eligible for exaltation.  Therefore there is gospel doctrine which creates a precedent that supports animals in the celestial kingdom.  However, there is absolutely no gospel precedent to support that anyone except spirit children of God can be exalted.  No creation except humans are eligible for that.  

 

But if evolution is correct then that means that at some point a non human (a creature which did not house a spirit child of God) gave birth to a human (a creature which DID house a spirit child of God) and the birth parent was ineligible for something that the child was eligible.  It also means that the child cannot be sealed to their parents.

 

I have never seen an answer for that theological problem.

 

Like, hey meet my pet cro-magnon and by the way he is my grandfather.

[bluebell]

Like, hey meet my pet cro-magnon and by the way he is my grandfather.

 

This issue, along with how a symbolic adam and eve can give us a literal fall (which is a necessary doctrine according to the plan of salvation), are serious hurdles that i have yet to see evolution supporters over come.

 

Though i also admit that there are issues with evolution that I have not seen theology overcome either.  This is why i'm not comfortable declaring my allegiance to either concept yet.  I do lean towards support of gospel themes and doctrine over science though.

[thesometimesaint]

That is only a problem if you accept macro-evolution.

 

Sure. One can accept any theological claim if they reject enough science. The earth is flat with a solid dome over it according to the Bible. The earth is at the center of the universe. Colored sticks change the coloring of animals. Pi is equal to exactly three. The list goes on and on. The interesting part comes in in trying to reconcile Theology with Science without making hash of both. 

[ERayR]

Sure. One can accept any theological claim if they reject enough science. The earth is flat with a solid dome over it according to the Bible. The earth is at the center of the universe. Colored sticks change the coloring of animals. Pi is equal to exactly three. The list goes on and on. The interesting part comes in in trying to reconcile Theology with Science without making hash of both. 

 

Back to the ridicule again.  Must have surpassed your ability to converse reasonably.  You are free to embrace what you will, even the theology of macro-evolution.

[MormonFreeThinker]

That is only a problem if you accept macro-evolution.

 

How do you define macro-Evolution?

How do you define micro-Evolution?

How do you define "kind"?

How do you define "species"?

 

It also means that the child cannot be sealed to their parents.

 

Your logic: Adam cannot be sealed to his Mother Earth, you believe Adam was literally created out of the dust. 

 

Exaclty my point (and my objection to evolution).

 

What about the Greenish warbler ring species? In central Siberia, two distinct forms of greenish warbler coexist without interbreeding, and therefore these forms can be considered distinct species. The two forms are connected by a long chain of populations encircling the Tibetan Plateau to the south, and traits change gradually through this ring of populations.

 

Edited February 27, 2015 by MormonFreeThinker

[stemelbow]

I sincerely hope that no one is going to tell me that.  The doctrine of the Fall is the only thing that makes the Savior necessary.  It is why the scriptures teach the creation and the fall before introducing someone to the Atonement and the Savior.

The story of the fall is nothing but symbolic it seems to me. Some couple ate a piece of fruit off a tree and thus all of humanity fell? I can't see that as literal just as I can't see in Lehi's dream the word of God literally being a fruit on a tree. The story, on the face of it, seems symbolic to me, and I don't see anyway how such symbolism makes the Savior unnecessary.

I probably struggle as much as you to understand that someone out there actually sees the story of Adam and Eve eating the fruit and thus all are fallen as literal.

We're all so different, we.

[Ahab]

Can you believe in macro evolution, particularly the part about the the evolution Homo sapiens, AND believe in a literal Adam and Eve? Do you? How do you manage? Do you synchronize the two beliefs or compartmentalize them?

You're asking the wrong questions, and we did not "originate" at any time. We have no ultimate origin. We are eternal.

Now try asking WHO we came from and be prepared for multiple answers which are all true, although a single word like "parents" describes WHAT each of them is.

And no you don't come from any kind of living being other than the kind you have always been.

[JLHPROF]

Sure. One can accept any theological claim if they reject enough science. The earth is flat with a solid dome over it according to the Bible. The earth is at the center of the universe. Colored sticks change the coloring of animals. Pi is equal to exactly three. The list goes on and on. The interesting part comes in in trying to reconcile Theology with Science without making hash of both. 

 

The issue here is NOT one of Adam & Eve vs Evolution, not of Bible vs Science.

It's about God's plan for his children.

Even if you completely ignore/dismiss the Adam & Eve creation story evolution still produces the same problem - animal becoming man, a one generation point where God makes us his children, potential Gods, but our father isn't eligible even though he is as identical to his children as I am to mine.

[JLHPROF]

How do you define macro-Evolution?

How do you define micro-Evolution?

How do you define "kind"?

How do you define "species"?

 

 

Your logic: Adam cannot be sealed to his Mother Earth. 

 

 

What about the Greenish warbler ring species? In central Siberia, two distinct forms of greenish warbler coexist without interbreeding, and therefore these forms can be considered distinct species. The two forms are connected by a long chain of populations encircling the Tibetan Plateau to the south, and traits change gradually through this ring of populations.

 

 

Repeat after me - ANIMALS ARE NOT THE ISSUE.

 

The issue is that some men in the "evolutionary line" are considered advanced enough to become Gods and some men, just one generation earlier are not.  Some can be saved/exalted, some cannot.  And they have no control, agency or ability to influence that, it's just biology.

That's just plain wrong.  We might as well reinstate the priesthood ban if we believe that.

Edited February 27, 2015 by JLHPROF

[bluebell]

The story of the fall is nothing but symbolic it seems to me. Some couple ate a piece of fruit off a tree and thus all of humanity fell? I can't see that as literal just as I can't see in Lehi's dream the word of God literally being a fruit on a tree. The story, on the face of it, seems symbolic to me, and I don't see anyway how such symbolism makes the Savior unnecessary.

I probably struggle as much as you to understand that someone out there actually sees the story of Adam and Eve eating the fruit and thus all are fallen as literal.

We're all so different, we.

 

From my understanding, without the Fall then we don't need a Savior and the Atonement was unnecessary.

 

Without the Fall the Plan of Salvation doesn't actually exist.

 

I can understand how the creation story and adam and eve can be seen as symbolic.  I just struggle to see how a completely symbolic adam and eve story does not completely destroy Christian doctrine?

Edited February 27, 2015 by bluebell

[thesometimesaint]

Back to the ridicule again.  Must have surpassed your ability to converse reasonably.  You are free to embrace what you will, even the theology of macro-evolution.

 

Back to making ridiculous statements again. Serious reasonable people from time immemorial have made statements that later have been show to be totally false, and ridiculous. IE; The theology of macro-evolution.  

[stemelbow]

From my understanding, without the Fall then we don't need a Savior and the Atonement was unnecessary.

 

Without the Fall the Plan of Salvation doesn't actually exist.

 

I can understand how the creation story and adam and eve can be seen as symbolic.  I just struggle to see how a completely symbolic adam and eve story does not completely destroy Christian doctrine?

Because the fall is not Adam and Eve eating fruit from a tree. it is something deeper, it seems to me. We are all fallen, after all. The story is a symbol to teach us how we are all in need of a Savior--well that's how I see it anyway.

[Uncle Dale]

Repeat after me - ANIMALS ARE NOT THE ISSUE.

 

The issue is that some men in the "evolutionary line" are considered advanced enough to become Gods and some men, just one generation earlier are not.  Some can be saved/exalted, some cannot.  And they have no control, agency or ability to influence that, it's just biology.

That's just plain wrong.  We might as well reinstate the priesthood ban if we believe that.

Animals can evolve?

Regular sea-going fish really can spawn

lung-fish that can hobble about the

seashore and breathe a little air, before

returning to the watery home environment?

Next thing you'll be telling me is that a

population of island finches, blown in a

hurricane to another island, could develop

beaks and wings much different than their

ancestors back on the first island!

What imaginations these Beagle boys have!

UD