The Origin Of (Our) Species

[MormonFreeThinker]

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.

 

The church has been revealed nothing about pre-adamites, we can only speculate. Nibley, Talmage, Witdsoe believed in pre-adamites.  

 

Your concern is that the Biological parents of Adam cannot be exalted, the answer is we don't know. If they can't, it means they are simply animals. 

 

Your argument only backfires. you believe the mother of Adam is planet Earth because Adam was created out of the dust. 

 

Can Earth be sealed to Adam? 

Edited February 27, 2015 by MormonFreeThinker

[JLHPROF]

The church has been revealed nothing about pre-adamites, we can only speculate. Nibley, Talmage, Witdsoe believed in pre-adamites.  

 

Your concern is that the Biological parents of Adam cannot be exalted, the answer is we don't know. If they can't, it means they are simply animals. 

 

Your argument only backfires. you believe the mother of Adam is planet Earth because Adam was created out of the dust. 

 

Can be Earth be sealed to Adam? 

 

I don't believe that at all.  I am an Adam-God proponent.

[bluebell]

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.

 

We are all fallen, which is just a simple way to say that we are all spiritually dead.  

 

But we did not start out that way.  So the problem becomes, without the Fall, how did we all become fallen?  How did we become spiritual separated from God and incur the need for a Savior?

Edited February 27, 2015 by bluebell

[stemelbow]

We are all fallen.  But we did not start out that way.  So the problem becomes, without the Fall, how did we all become fallen?  How did we become spiritual separated from God and incur the need for a Savior?

I'm not saying there was no fall. I am saying that the story used to help us understand the fall is not The Fall. It is symbolism.

[MormonFreeThinker]

I don't believe that at all.  I am an Adam-God proponent.

 

That is against church doctrine, do you believe that Adam-God had a Father? 

[bluebell]

I'm not saying there was no fall. I am saying that the story used to help us understand the fall is not The Fall. It is symbolism.

 

If there was a fall, why would God teach us a make believe version of it and not teach us about the actual fall?  

[JLHPROF]

That is against church doctrine, do you believe that Adam-God had a Father? 

 

Yes, on a previous earth that was exalted.

Man came from Adam who came from a previous planet who had a father there that was human.

One long eternal family of humans/Gods without beginning or end, as symbolized in the mirrors in the sealing room.

 

Since we don't believe the "dust of the earth" to be literal, even in current Church doctrine, either man came from man, or as evolution teaches, man came from less advanced creatures.

 

I don't care what Church doctrine teaches.  I care about what God has said in the scriptures about man and salvation.  Evolution precludes any justice in that.  Adam-God provides for it.  If there's a middle ground I have yet to hear it.

[stemelbow]

If there was a fall, why would God teach us a make believe version of it and not teach us about the actual fall?

Perhaps there was no better way. What does the fall mean? It means we are all fallen, short of the glory of God, it seems to me. How it happened? Well, apparently it had something to do with our choice, individually. We all are Adam's and Eve's, individually. Adam's sins aren't ours, really. That's silly.

[SmileyMcGee]

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.

This is a great point. Where is the cutoff? since evolution is imperceptibly gradual, Adam and Eve's parents would be of the same species, why would they not receive the same opportunities? In light of modern prophetic teachings, I don't know that a symbolic Adam and Eve is currently compatible with the lds faith.

[JLHPROF]

This is a great point. Where is the cutoff? since evolution is imperceptibly gradual, Adam and Eve's parents would be of the same species, why would they not receive the same opportunities? In light of modern prophetic teachings, I don't know that a symbolic Adam and Eve is currently compatible with the lds faith.

 

The other point is that even without the Adam & Eve story you still have the same issue.  There would have to be a cutoff between animal and man.

[bluebell]

Perhaps there was no better way. What does the fall mean? It means we are all fallen, short of the glory of God, it seems to me. How it happened? Well, apparently it had something to do with our choice, individually. We all are Adam's and Eve's, individually. Adam's sins aren't ours, really. That's silly.

 

The doctrine of the Fall means that we are spiritually dead and physically dead without the Savior.  That is literally what the doctrine is.  Adam and Eve's sins are not ours, but it is the result of their sins that make our sins possible.

 

A symbolic spiritual and physical death just seems very problematic to me, theologically speaking.

[MormonFreeThinker]

I don't care what Church doctrine teaches.  I care about what God has said in the scriptures about man and salvation.  Evolution precludes any justice in that.  Adam-God provides for it.  If there's a middle ground I have yet to hear it.

 

What if scientists create life in the lab? 

 

This is a great point. Where is the cutoff? since evolution is imperceptibly gradual, Adam and Eve's parents would be of the same species, why would they not receive the same opportunities?

 

See post 51. 

 

One long eternal family of humans/Gods without beginning or end, as symbolized in the mirrors in the sealing room.

 

We can only speculate, but the scriptures say nothing about Adam-God or an infinite number of Gods. 

I don't know if there is an infinite number of Gods, but I like the idea that God the Father is infinite. 

 

An infinite chain is an unsolved problem, how can you apply infinitesimal Calculus to the real world? The smallest known length in physics is the Planck length. 

 

Infinity is an fun paradox

 

 

You have been telling others what they believe. You are one post away from being removed. 

[Nofear]

Can I reconcile evolution and our theological origins? Yes, yes I can.

 

First, I accept the fact that our species transcends this world and inhabits countless worlds. Blind evolution, in of itself, is not compatible with that theology. But I also recognize that our mortal forms on this world are uniquely and specifically adapted to this planet. Evolution is a remarkably robust mechanism for that customization to occur. Indeed, mortal life on this globe is uniquely and specifically adapted to this world and will not thrive on other worlds without adaptation.

 

Some species are unique results from evolution on this planet and not found on other worlds. Others species are found on other worlds and had to be transplanted from them. The Garden of Eden probably served as a temporary abode to allow transplanted species enough time for their physical bodies to adapt suitable for mortality in our world's unique biosphere. Were it not so, transplanted species (included man) would quickly perish in a new mortal sphere.

[bluebell]

Can I reconcile evolution and our theological origins? Yes, yes I can.

 

First, I accept the fact that our species transcends this world and inhabits countless worlds. Blind evolution, in of itself, is not compatible with that theology. But I also recognize that our mortal forms on this world are uniquely and specifically adapted to this planet. Evolution is a remarkably robust mechanism for that customization to occur. Indeed, mortal life on this globe is uniquely and specifically adapted to this world and will not thrive on other worlds without adaptation.

 

Some species are unique results from evolution on this planet and not found on other worlds. Others species are found on other worlds and had to be transplanted from them. The Garden of Eden probably served as a temporary abode to allow transplanted species enough time for their physical bodies to adapt suitable for mortality in our world's unique biosphere. Were it not so, transplanted species (included man) would quickly perish in a new mortal sphere.

 

I might not be understanding what you are saying so feel free to clarify or correct.

 

But it seems like you are saying that you don't believe our bodies were made in the image of God?  That our bodies are completely the result of evolution and that we don't look like Him and our spirits do not look at all like our physical bodies.

[Uncle Dale]

...

I don't care what Church doctrine teaches. 

...

 

How on earth were you ever ordained as a high priest?

 

I can only imagine that your Bishop and Stake President

have granted you a special dispensation, to say and do

as the Spirit leads you.

 

But, just out of curiosity, do you reside in the USA?

 

UD

[JLHPROF]

How on earth were you ever ordained as a high priest?

 

I can only imagine that your Bishop and Stake President

have granted you a special dispensation, to say and do

as the Spirit leads you.

 

But, just out of curiosity, do you reside in the USA?

 

UD

 

I'm an Elder, not a high priest, if that matters.

 

I keep my mouth shut at Church so my Bishop & SP have no idea what doctrines I disagree with the Church on.  Religious belief and religous practice are two different things.

 

Yes, I reside in Utah.

[pogi]

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.

 

I agree that this is a seeming problem that needs to be addressed.

 

Here is why I see it as a non-issue.  First, we have to go back, far back, before physical creation, before spiritual creation, back when we were all intelligences unorganized.  Some intelligences were greater than others.  It seems reasonable to assume that if you mapped out the greatness of each intelligence on a scale from 1 (the least great) to 100 (the greatest intelligence), you would notice that each individual intelligence would fall somewhere in this continuum of greatness.  It would appear as if a solid line was drawn from 1-100 with no obvious gaps.  Where each adjacent intelligence is not perceptibly different in greatness from each other, although the extremes are quite distinct.  That seems most likely to me.  This model support evolution of almost imperceptible differences in greatness over time until Adam and Eve.  In either model, God had to draw the line somewhere between two intelligences to create one as a spirit child of God, and one as a spirit creation.  Why is that line any more fair than the line we are discussing?

 

Some people compare this decisive division between two similar intelligences to Calvinism, I say the alternate model is no different.  God had to draw a line somewhere and call one intelligence "child of God" while the one immediately behind it, "something else".   There is no difference, even though people make it seems as if there is. 

 

I think this continuum of intelligences fits much better with a gradual evolutionary model for many reasons.

Edited February 27, 2015 by pogi

[stemelbow]

The doctrine of the Fall means that we are spiritually dead and physically dead without the Savior.  That is literally what the doctrine is.  Adam and Eve's sins are not ours, but it is the result of their sins that make our sins possible.

 

A symbolic spiritual and physical death just seems very problematic to me, theologically speaking.

hmmmm...I kinda feel like you said what I said...only much better. I suppose I can quibble with the wording in your second to last sentence or your third sentence. I'm not sure that our sins were ever impossible. After all we could have decided before the fall to go along with Lucifer, which seems to me to be sinful.

[Calm]

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.

My opinion….Adam and Eve were acting as representatives on behalf of all creation at that time as well as the first covenant people.  When the Fall occurred for them, it occurred for all.

 

In Genesis, the animals and plants, etc. did not participate directly in accepting the fruit (or whatever the actual commandment that was broken was) and thus commiting the transgression that led to the Fall.  Yet they were part of it.  So why cannot other humans be a part of it as well?

Edited February 27, 2015 by calmoriah

[Uncle Dale]

 

...First, we have to go back, far back,...

 

This is fun. Can we go back even more than that?

Back to eternal matter, existing as scattered particles,

each possessing a smidgeon of intelligence?

 

That's the cosmos I want to see depicted by some modern

Michelangelo, -- one I can hang up in my living room and

gaze at when life's petty problems become too irritating.

 

Of course I'd settle for the next stage in the grand design

of things -- when some of those eternal particles began

to coalesce and form entities destined for progression to 

godhood. That would also make for a pretty mural.

 

Then again, I'm told that eternal progression had no

beginning and will have no end. So perhaps both of my

desired Sistine Chapel temperas are but imagination.

 

???

 

UD

[Nofear]

I might not be understanding what you are saying so feel free to clarify or correct.

 

But it seems like you are saying that you don't believe our bodies were made in the image of God?  That our bodies are completely the result of evolution and that we don't look like Him and our spirits do not look at all like our physical bodies.

 

While our physical, mortal forms are specifically adapted to this world  the basic form (eyes, ears, two arms, two legs, etc.) is pre-determined -- in the "image" of God. On the phenotypical level things are very recognizable. But while the basic form is pre-determined, the specific manifestation of it suitable for a mortal probation is unique to this world.

 

One facet of this unique world customization.

 

[Ahab]

While our physical, mortal forms are specifically adapted to this world the basic form (eyes, ears, two arms, two legs, etc.) is pre-determined -- in the "image" of God. On the phenotypical level things are very recognizable. But while the basic form is pre-determined, the specific manifestation of it suitable for a mortal probation is unique to this world.

So maybe other children of God on other worlds breathe nitrogen or helium or whatever just as we breathe oxygen, and other people (let's call us all people okay?) on other worlds have green or orange or whatever color skin instead of the colors we have, and stuff like that?

Fun stuff to imagine I suppose but it's just speculation with no evidence to support it.

[Jeanne]

I figure that the times of days are different in the life in the heavens...God's days were a lot longer and where he works with the laws of nature includes evolution..perhaps many moons later..Adam and Eve presented themselves to be a beginning in God's story.  Makes as much sense as anything else..but I don't believe there was an Adam and Eve..your interpretations may vary.

[bluebell]

I agree that this is a seeming problem that needs to be addressed.

 

Here is why I see it as a non-issue.  First, we have to go back, far back, before physical creation, before spiritual creation, back when we were all intelligences unorganized.  Some intelligences were greater than others.  It seems reasonable to assume that if you mapped out the greatness of each intelligence on a scale from 1 (the least great) to 100 (the greatest intelligence), you would notice that each individual intelligence would fall somewhere in this continuum of greatness.  It would appear as if a solid line was drawn from 1-100 with no obvious gaps.  Where each adjacent intelligence is not perceptibly different in greatness from each other, although the extremes are quite distinct.  That seems most likely to me.  This model support evolution of almost imperceptible differences in greatness over time until Adam and Eve.  In either model, God had to draw the line somewhere between two intelligences to create one as a spirit child of God, and one as a spirit creation.  Why is that line any more fair than the line we are discussing?

 

Some people compare this decisive division between two similar intelligences to Calvinism, I say the alternate model is no different.  God had to draw a line somewhere and call one intelligence "child of God" while the one immediately behind it, "something else".   There is no difference, even though people make it seems as if there is. 

 

I think this continuum of intelligences fits much better with a gradual evolutionary model for many reasons.

 

I've never thought about the spirits of animals being intelligences that were just less 'great' than humans.  Is that a part of our theology that i just never noticed before or is that from your perspective?

[Rob Osborn]

Kind of ridiculous that man can get so confused as to his origins when in fact the good book states emphatically that we are the very sons of God. Our own doctrine even goes further to say that we are not the result of a lower order of animals. But yet, we will continue to deny such truths in light of man's feeble and corrupt understandings.