Evolving Mormon Doctrine

[Teancum]

There is nothing in LDS doctrine on the creation (or anything doctrinal you might think of regarding 'Eternity') that precludes Evolution.

 

yes there is.  Tons and tons.  

[Teancum]

If these 'teachings' are not doctrinal (aka official), then an Evolutionist has nothing to worry about in terms of the Church's doctrine on the Creation.  However, I think it likely some of these teachings you are thinking of are actually doctrinal but will turn out not to conflict with Evolution anyway.

 

 

 

The scriptures are not doctrinal? 

[HappyJackWagon]

Over the weekend I read in Charles Harrel's, This is my Doctrine, that Joseph Smith had taught about the need for a restoration of all ordinances including animal sacrifice (Chapter 3). He went farther by explaining that JS taught that the Aaronic Priesthood would be responsible for these ordinances in temples (but they seemed to be different temples).

 

I've heard this wondered about before but hadn't seen any real discussion of it.

 

Can anyone shed any light on the veracity of the claim?

 

And if JS really did teach it, why has it never been implemented?

[Darren10]

If it is fair to say that "the Three Pillars" are an integral part of Mormon doctrine, then Mormon doctrine teaches this: there are two types of human bodies: perfect bodies and fallen bodies.  The fall is what caused perfect bodies to turn into fallen bodies. 

 

Biology--including evolution--teaches us that life has been going on continuously for well over 3 billion years, that all life is related in a complex, interrelated, and evolving web.  It teaches us that humans are an intrinsic part of this; we don't have alien genes, we have earthling genes and are directly related to every other living thing on the planet.  It teaches us that the "fallen" aspects of life are intrinsic parts of life that have always been here; blood, disease, bacteria, viruses, aging, and all manner of genetic variations have always existed and always will exist.

 

Granted, a Mormon biologist can believe in Mormon Doctrine on Sunday and in Science on Monday to Friday, but that doesn't mean the two views of life are compatible.  People might be willing to sweep the inconsistencies under the rug and make vague insinuations that Bruce R. McConkie believed a lot of stuff that really wasn't doctrine, but again, that doesn't mean these views are compatible.

 

If there wasn't a literal, perfect, deathless creation followed by literal fall, then what of the atonement and resurrection?  Are those metaphorical too?

I consistantly disagree with the convenience of the argument that "believers", "sweep [things] under the rug" when they appear inconsistent to their faith. I've said no such thing and perhaps it's my fault for not writing clearly. My argument is that I agree with the LDS Church that we do not know enough to make conclusions regarding the reality of how humans came into existence. This includes doctrinally concluding *how* humans came to be on earth.

For example you said, "we do not have alien genes" apparently as a supporting detail to expain to me what evolution teaches. How do you know that? Let's say that after the Big Bang there was life on a planet somewhere followed by a "small bang" where that planet's own sun, one of billions of suns already burning bright exploded. This could wipe out that planet, crumbling it (yes, I do like the story of Superman), and sending the DNA of its [supposed] humanoid across the universe in which some finally reached earth. If I'm not mistaken, one aspect of evolution believers argues that the first proteins required to create corpreal life on earth travelled here by puggy backing ob crystals. Why could these proteins not contain alien DNA? While I do not believe this piggybacking theory, if it did happen then why no alien DNA / genes?

So far as the reality of the creation and Fall, yes, if they were mere metaphores than so could the Atonement abd resurrection. But I believe they all were literal. Nevertheless, we are all truly clueless in making solid conclusions regarding of *how* it all happen, even with the restorative doctrines we have received since Joseph Smith clarifying the story of the Fall and role of the Savior because of the Fall, we are still far from being able to make conclusions on so very much of it.

[Analytics]

There is nothing in LDS doctrine on the creation (or anything doctrinal you might think of regarding 'Eternity') that precludes Evolution.

 

You can tell yourself that mantra as many times as you'd like, but it doesn't change these three facts:

 

1- According to classical Mormon doctrine, there was no death before the fall*

2- According to evolution, death and survival are what cause species to evolve

3- Those two things are contradictory

 

To be clear, you are free to believe anything you want, and the fact that you reject this inevitable implication of classical Mormon doctrine is a good sign and proves my basic point--Mormon doctrine is evolving.  But I am still left wondering, if the Plan of Salvation isn't what the Church teaches investigators, what is it?

 

 

____________________________________________

 

*See 2 Nephi 2:22, 2 Nephi 9:6, and the Church's published interpretation on this as taught to investigators, seminary students, and Sunday School students.  For example:

 

https://www.lds.org/manual/preach-my-gospel-a-guide-to-missionary-service/lesson-2-the-plan-of-salvation?lang=eng

https://www.lds.org/manual/book-of-mormon-student-manual/chapter-7-2-nephi-1-3?lang=eng

https://www.lds.org/manual/book-of-mormon-seminary-teacher-manual-2013/2-nephi/lesson-23?lang=eng

https://www.lds.org/manual/book-of-mormon-student-study-guide/2-nephi-2?lang=eng

https://www.lds.org/manual/book-of-mormon-study-guide-for-home-study-seminary-students/2-nephi/unit-5-day-3-2-nephi-2?lang=eng

https://www.lds.org/manual/doctrines-of-the-gospel-student-manual/chapter-30-death-and-the-postmortal-spirit-world?lang=eng

 



Edited November 23, 2015 by Analytics

[Darren10]

If you want to believe in official LDS doctrines and teachings and evolution at the same time, the first thing you have to do is create a little box for poor Elder McConkie and put him inside.  Then when someone cites one of his many teachings on the subject, you just have to say "Oh, you're talking about Elder McConkie.  I don't have to worry about any of that because I've put him in this little box here where I can't see or hear him, so nothing he says matters."

 

The only difference is that some people poke air holes in the box, and others don't.

 

But even if you take Elder McConkie out of the equation, there are huge problems with the theory of evolution and LDS doctrines about the creation and fall as taught in the scriptures and official Church publications.

 

For example, take something as simple as the spiritual creation.

 

Spiritual Creation

 

The doctrine is simple:

 

 

So to those who say there is no contradiction, please explain the process by which the Lord created all things (including plants, animals and humans) "spiritually", and then created them physically using evolution.  Please specifically address the dead-ends and intermediaries in the evolutionary process.

God created all things spiritually and when the "correct" body evolved, God put the correct spirit in that body. That's a common way to explain it and I fail to see why there may be a big gap between science and doctrine.

Also, didn't Brother Brigham Young teach that spiritually Mormons are the ultimate believers in evolution. They believe man may become God. I

[Darren10]

You can tell yourself that mantra as many times as you'd like, but it doesn't change these three facts:

 

1- According to classical Mormon doctrine, there was no death before the fall*

2- According to evolution, death and survival are what cause species to evolve

3- Those two things are contradictory

 

To be clear, you are free to believe anything you want, and the fact that you reject this inevitable implication of classical Mormon doctrine is a good sign and proves my basic point--Mormon doctrine is evolving.  But I am still left wondering, if the Plan of Salvation isn't what the Church teaches investigators, what is it?

 

 

____________________________________________

 

*See 2 Nephi 2:22, 2 Nephi 9:6, and the Church's published interpretation on this as taught to investigators, seminary students, and Sunday School students.  For example:

 

https://www.lds.org/manual/preach-my-gospel-a-guide-to-missionary-service/lesson-2-the-plan-of-salvation?lang=eng

https://www.lds.org/manual/book-of-mormon-student-manual/chapter-7-2-nephi-1-3?lang=eng

https://www.lds.org/manual/book-of-mormon-seminary-teacher-manual-2013/2-nephi/lesson-23?lang=eng

https://www.lds.org/manual/book-of-mormon-student-study-guide/2-nephi-2?lang=eng

https://www.lds.org/manual/book-of-mormon-study-guide-for-home-study-seminary-students/2-nephi/unit-5-day-3-2-nephi-2?lang=eng

https://www.lds.org/manual/doctrines-of-the-gospel-student-manual/chapter-30-death-and-the-postmortal-spirit-world?lang=eng

 



I think people resort to the "you may believe what you want" argument way too often. Essentially since people disagree with you, you condescend their opinion and their very person to an inferior intellectual status and cut off debate because your position is, "of course" absolutely correct.

Not very ethical and it is most definitely anti scientific.

[Zakuska]

You can tell yourself that mantra as many times as you'd like, but it doesn't change these three facts:

 

1- According to classical Mormon doctrine, there was no death before the fall*

2- According to evolution, death and survival are what cause species to evolve

3- Those two things are contradictory

 

To be clear, you are free to believe anything you want, and the fact that you reject this inevitable implication of classical Mormon doctrine is a good sign and proves my basic point--Mormon doctrine is evolving.  But I am still left wondering, if the Plan of Salvation isn't what the Church teaches investigators, what is it?

It depends on what kind of death we are talking about. If Physical then this does cause an issue. However if spiritual death then there is no issues. All things lived in Gods presence so no Spiritual death.

[Analytics]

I consistantly disagree with the convenience of the argument that "believers", "sweep [things] under the rug" when they appear inconsistent to their faith. I've said no such thing and perhaps it's my fault for not writing clearly. My argument is that I agree with the LDS Church that we do not know enough to make conclusions regarding the reality of how humans came into existence. This includes doctrinally concluding *how* humans came to be on earth.

For example you said, "we do not have alien genes" apparently as a supporting detail to expain to me what evolution teaches. How do you know that? Let's say that after the Big Bang there was life on a planet somewhere followed by a "small bang" where that planet's own sun, one of billions of suns already burning bright exploded. This could wipe out that planet, crumbling it (yes, I do like the story of Superman), and sending the DNA of its [supposed] humanoid across the universe in which some finally reached earth. If I'm not mistaken, one aspect of evolution believers argues that the first proteins required to create corpreal life on earth travelled here by puggy backing ob crystals. Why could these proteins not contain alien DNA? While I do not believe this piggybacking theory, if it did happen then why no alien DNA / genes?

 

According to science, we actually do know enough to make conclusions about where humans came from--we evolved from other life on earth.  You can peel that back and find questions we don't know the answer to (e.g. how did life originate, what caused the Big Bang), but the fact that humans evolved from life on earth is a scientific fact supported by overwhelming evidence.

 

What we see on earth is that some 3.7 billion years ago, life originated on earth.  All life contains DNA, and the DNA mutates in random ways but with predictable frequency.  Sometimes the mutations result in advantages that help organisms thrive in a heterogeneous and continuously changing environment, more often the mutations are disadvantageous, and even more often, the mutations don't have any clear advantages or disadvantages, but are rather just idiosyncrasies that appear and are passed on.

 

Personally, I think it is possible that the very first life on earth originated from some sort of primitive chemosynthetic bacteria that originated elsewhere in the universe.  However, that's not what I'm talking about here.  What I'm talking about is whether homo sapiens evolved from other species that already existed on earth, or whether we are decedents of "aliens".  The detailed evidence is overwhelming--we are earthlings, and if we were somehow cousins with life elsewhere, we are closer cousins to every other species of life on earth.

 

The idea that human-like creatures exist on other planets reminds me of this quote from Carl Sagan:

 

Star Trek, despite its strong international and interspecies perspective, often ignores the most elementary scientific facts. The idea that Mr Spock could be a cross between a human being and a life form independently evolved on the planet Vulcan is genetically far less probable than a successful cross of a man and an artichoke. 

[Analytics]

I think people resort to the "you may believe what you want" argument way too often. Essentially since people disagree with you, you condescend their opinion and their very person to an inferior intellectual status and cut off debate because your position is, "of course" absolutely correct.

Not very ethical and it is most definitely anti scientific.

 

On that point, I'm doing nothing more nor less than agreeing with Joseph Fielding McConkie when he said, 

 

Is the theory of evolution compatible with the doctrine of the Fall?  No.  We can tug, twist, contort, and sell our birthright, but we cannot overcome the irreconcilable differences between the theory of organic evolution and the doctrine of the Fall.

 

Do you think Joseph Fielding McConkie was acting anti-scientific and unethical when he said that?

[CV75]

On that point, I'm doing nothing more nor less than agreeing with Joseph Fielding McConkie when he said, 

 

Is the theory of evolution compatible with the doctrine of the Fall?  No.  We can tug, twist, contort, and sell our birthright, but we cannot overcome the irreconcilable differences between the theory of organic evolution and the doctrine of the Fall.

 

Do you think Joseph Fielding McConkie was acting anti-scientific and unethical when he said that?

I think he was acting like a normal person when he said that. When organic evolution denies the Fall, which it usually but unnecessarily does, it is obviously not compatible with the doctrine of the Fall. But it is also possible to see its coming about as a natural law after the Fall, with no harm/no foul against any of the principles of the Gospel.

[Analytics]

I think he was acting like a normal person when he said that. When organic evolution denies the Fall, which it usually but unnecessarily does, it is obviously not compatible with the doctrine of the Fall. But it is also possible to see its coming about as a natural law after the Fall, with no harm/no foul against any of the principles of the Gospel.

 

The evidence is quite clear that evolution has being happening continuously on earth for over 3,500,000,000 years.  Are you suggesting that perhaps Adam fell over 3.5 billion years ago?  Interesting idea.

[CV75]

The evidence is quite clear that evolution has being happening continuously on earth for over 3,500,000,000 years.  Are you suggesting that perhaps Adam fell over 3.5 billion years ago?  Interesting idea.

Why not?

 

We don’t know when the 7,000 year timetable clock started ticking. We don’t know how much time elapsed, or what happened, between Moses 4:22-31 and Moses 5:1, only that “it came to pass.” It could have taken billions of years between the time Adam was driven out of the garden and his beginning life as a mortal man through the natural processes (evolution) dictated by the fallen nature of the world that changed him from a paradisaical to a mortal man.

[Teancum]

You can tell yourself that mantra as many times as you'd like, but it doesn't change these three facts:

 

1- According to classical Mormon doctrine, there was no death before the fall*

2- According to evolution, death and survival are what cause species to evolve

3- Those two things are contradictory

 

To be clear, you are free to believe anything you want, and the fact that you reject this inevitable implication of classical Mormon doctrine is a good sign and proves my basic point--Mormon doctrine is evolving.  But I am still left wondering, if the Plan of Salvation isn't what the Church teaches investigators, what is it?

 

 

____________________________________________

 

*See 2 Nephi 2:22, 2 Nephi 9:6, and the Church's published interpretation on this as taught to investigators, seminary students, and Sunday School students.  For example:

 

https://www.lds.org/manual/preach-my-gospel-a-guide-to-missionary-service/lesson-2-the-plan-of-salvation?lang=eng

https://www.lds.org/manual/book-of-mormon-student-manual/chapter-7-2-nephi-1-3?lang=eng

https://www.lds.org/manual/book-of-mormon-seminary-teacher-manual-2013/2-nephi/lesson-23?lang=eng

https://www.lds.org/manual/book-of-mormon-student-study-guide/2-nephi-2?lang=eng

https://www.lds.org/manual/book-of-mormon-study-guide-for-home-study-seminary-students/2-nephi/unit-5-day-3-2-nephi-2?lang=eng

https://www.lds.org/manual/doctrines-of-the-gospel-student-manual/chapter-30-death-and-the-postmortal-spirit-world?lang=eng

 



  BC never lets facts get in the way of his pet claims.

[CV75]

You can tell yourself that mantra as many times as you'd like, but it doesn't change these three facts:

 

1- According to classical Mormon doctrine, there was no death before the fall*

2- According to evolution, death and survival are what cause species to evolve

3- Those two things are contradictory

 

To be clear, you are free to believe anything you want, and the fact that you reject this inevitable implication of classical Mormon doctrine is a good sign and proves my basic point--Mormon doctrine is evolving.  But I am still left wondering, if the Plan of Salvation isn't what the Church teaches investigators, what is it?

1- According to classical Mormon doctrine, there was no death before the fall*

True, and we don’t know how long before the 7,000 timeline the Fall took place. But the timeline seems to have started when Adam began keeping his book of remembrance according to the reckoning that was given him, and this wasn’t until after he became mortal and was taught somewhat in the ways of the Lord.

 

2- According to evolution, death and survival are what cause species to evolve

True, plus an element of chance. The process could have started as a consequence of the Fall, when natural law took over paradisiacal or translated or terrestrial law, which would have completely eradicated the only form of life there was at the time (paradisiacal),leaving the planet  and all life thereon to take the natural observed (as we understand it) course. Adam, whose paradisiacal body was eliminated appeared in his mortal form billions of years later and resumed his role as spiritual and temporal steward over the earth.

 

3- Those two things are contradictory

Not necessarily. In both instances, death and natural law (including evolution) are a consequence of the Fall.

 

I see no element of the Plan of salvation evolving. I think the Church teachings against evolution have to do with its misapplication to supplant the eternal doctrines, which it doesn't necessarily have to do.

[Analytics]

1- According to classical Mormon doctrine, there was no death before the fall*

True, and we don’t know how long before the 7,000 timeline the Fall took place. But the timeline seems to have started when Adam began keeping his book of remembrance according to the reckoning that was given him, and this wasn’t until after he became mortal and was taught somewhat in the ways of the Lord.

 

2- According to evolution, death and survival are what cause species to evolve

True, plus an element of chance. The process could have started as a consequence of the Fall, when natural law took over paradisiacal or translated or terrestrial law, which would have completely eradicated the only form of life there was at the time (paradisiacal),leaving the planet  and all life thereon to take the natural observed (as we understand it) course. Adam, whose paradisiacal body was eliminated appeared in his mortal form billions of years later and resumed his role as spiritual and temporal steward over the earth.

 

3- Those two things are contradictory

Not necessarily. In both instances, death and natural law (including evolution) are a consequence of the Fall.

 

I see no element of the Plan of salvation evolving. I think the Church teachings against evolution have to do with its misapplication to supplant the eternal doctrines, which it doesn't necessarily have to do.

 

Interesting perspective.  Just to be sure I understand what you are saying, the traditional view of the Fall is that Adam ate the fruit and in an instant his body (and the rest of creation) was zapped from its original perfect state into a fallen state.

 

You are taking the same basic story, but you are stretching out the time between Adam eating the fruit and Adam living as a fallen human from an instant to 3.5 billion years.  In that time period you insert the entire secular history of evolution.  Just so I understand how it all connects, Adam Version 2 was born into a tribe of homo sapiens and what separates him from his parents and everyone else that existed then is that they weren't "real" humans in terms of having the same quality of spirits that real humans do (or having spirits at all). 

 

A question this raises is whether everybody born after Adam was a real human, or if only Adam's decedents were.  Did Adam's siblings have human spirits?  Did his nieces and nephews?

Edited November 24, 2015 by Analytics

[CV75]

Interesting perspective.  Just to be sure I understand what you are saying, the traditional view of the Fall is that Adam ate the fruit and in an instant his body (and the rest of creation) was zapped from its original perfect state into a fallen state.

 

You are taking the same basic story, but you are stretching out the time between Adam eating the fruit and Adam living as a fallen human from an instant to 3.5 billion years.  In that time period you insert the entire secular history of evolution.  Just so I understand how it all connects, Adam Version 2 was born into a tribe of homo sapiens and what separates him from his parents and everyone else that existed then is that they weren't "real" humans in terms of having the same quality of spirits that real humans do (or having spirits at all). 

 

A question this raises is whether everybody born after Adam was a real human, or if only Adam's decedents were.  Did Adam's siblings have human spirits?  Did his nieces and nephews?

Adam and Eve Version 2 could have been saltations or implants. But if not, this takes nothing away from the humanity of their physical forebears and non-descendant contemporaries: the spiritual principle of looking both forward and backward to the same mortal Lord and the same mortal Adam with equal efficacy for every creature’s salvation and fall (respectively) covers them all. Assuming they have spirits.

 

But to indulge in a tangent, there are ways that none of Adam’s evolutionary "family" were “living” in the sense of having spirits. Many things we consider living may not have spirits (tissue cultures, viruses, etc.), and a lot of technology is viewed as having life and spirits by more primitive observers. If this were the case, their humanity or lack thereof wouldn’t matter. It would also mean that without a spirit, the cessation of life is not death because there is no separation of body and spirit; neither does it carry any meaning to a spirit-less life form, thus no authentic “death” in the world—everything is just acted upon.

 

As a further tangent, the curse on Satan (and his followers), who was cast down into the physical world (whether that means Eden of after the Fall) was, “upon thy belly shalt thou go, and dust shalt thou eat all the days of thy life.” If the devil and his followers were given leave to inhabit the bodies of earth’s life forms, which didn’t have spirits (as in Matthew 8 ), they would be going upon their belly (striving only for the temporal/physical/natural satisfaction of it) and eating dust all their days (all they could ever expect to experience was the death of the bodies they possessed).

Edited November 24, 2015 by CV75

[Analytics]

Adam and Eve Version 2 could have been saltations or implants. But if not, this takes nothing away from the humanity of their physical forebears and non-descendant contemporaries: the spiritual principle of looking both forward and backward to the same mortal Lord and the same mortal Adam with equal efficacy for every creature’s salvation and fall (respectively) covers them all. Assuming they have spirits.

 

But to indulge in a tangent, there are ways that none of Adam’s evolutionary "family" were “living” in the sense of having spirits. Many things we consider living may not have spirits (tissue cultures, viruses, etc.), and a lot of technology is viewed as having life and spirits by more primitive observers. If this were the case, their humanity or lack thereof wouldn’t matter. It would also mean that without a spirit, the cessation of life is not death because there is no separation of body and spirit; neither does it carry any meaning to a spirit-less life form, thus no authentic “death” in the world—everything is just acted upon.

 

As a further tangent, the curse on Satan (and his followers), who was cast down into the physical world (whether that means Eden of after the Fall) was, “upon thy belly shalt thou go, and dust shalt thou eat all the days of thy life.” If the devil and his followers were given leave to inhabit the bodies of earth’s life forms, which didn’t have spirits (as in Matthew 8 ), they would be going upon their belly (striving only for the temporal/physical/natural satisfaction of it) and eating dust all their days (all they could ever expect to experience was the death of the bodies they possessed).

 

Interesting views.  I'll admit it made me smile to imagine that a third of the host of heaven "going upon their bellies" meant that they were possessing trilobites for 250 million years. 

[mfbukowski]

Over the weekend I read in Charles Harrel's, This is my Doctrine, that Joseph Smith had taught about the need for a restoration of all ordinances including animal sacrifice (Chapter 3). He went farther by explaining that JS taught that the Aaronic Priesthood would be responsible for these ordinances in temples (but they seemed to be different temples).

 

I've heard this wondered about before but hadn't seen any real discussion of it.

 

Can anyone shed any light on the veracity of the claim?

 

And if JS really did teach it, why has it never been implemented?

There have been entire threads devoted to this which may be searched out.  I am not going into it here.

 

 

http://www.mormondialogue.org/topic/64685-animal-sacrifice-restored/?p=1209447845

 

There.

I even looked it up for you.  Am I a nice guy or what??

Edited November 24, 2015 by mfbukowski

[CV75]

Interesting views.  I'll admit it made me smile to imagine that a third of the host of heaven "going upon their bellies" meant that they were possessing trilobites for 250 million years. 

LOL Could happen!

 

I'm not sure how many times a devil would bother trying it before giving up...! It is possible that after awhile, there would just be spirit-less life forms left...

 

I wonder how many trilobites drove themselves "up a steep place, [out] of the sea, and perished in the [air]"... (or did a number with mutant control genes  not perish?)...

[Calm]

Sorry, i haven't been reading all the posts in detail so this idea may be a repeat.

A geologist friend was the one who I first encountered with this suggestion as a possibility. Since we are taught that Earth has a spirit, he suggested that many things we see as individual/separate were actually all part of Earth and thus their 'spirit' was actually the global spirit they shared with other similar entities. Think of trees and plants as the hair of Earth, dirt as skin, rocks and magma as bones and muscles, lower and higher (for a time at least perhaps) forms of animals like the bacteria that populate our own bodies. There would be no death because even in decomposition the spirit would not separate from the body since the spirit was Earth's and what decomposed was as much Earth as when it was a functioning 'cell' or organism of Earth. (Here I go further than he did at the time he shared the idea.) Thus the world was prepared to receive other spirits and did so at the time of Eden whenever that occurred, both human spirits and any other spirits that were placed into bodies essentially formed of the dust of Earth because all was Earth at that time. This could even include various ancestors and even homo sapiens itself in its beginnings. Once mankind and other bodies were ready to comprehend covenant making with God, Eden was created as a separated off teaching place, an incubator for spirits new to their physical forms so to speak...the first of their kinds on Earth as they were the first independent of Earth spiritually as well as physically; a garden because it provided all the needs of those now living as organisms in and of themselves. Placed there to learn both how to live in a covenant, but also as individuals and the rest became our history so to speak.

This could even be tied into how God creates spirits from spirit matter. After all, what is all that spirit matter doing before it is organized into the spirits of men and women (and apparently animals of some sort)? Perhaps part of organizing spirit matter is dividing it into first large entities and then dividing off parts of those for smaller entities. First is a universe size spiritual being, then God organizes out of that galaxies, then nebulae, solar systems, planets, and finally animals, which man is one example (and perhaps there is something unique in that particular organization). If the physical beginnings of our bodies were stars as they produced all the elements that make us up, why not our spirits as well?

I think this shares some aspects of CV's thoughts but not all. Will have to go back and checkwhat I missed.

Add-on: having reread some of his posts, very different in key areas. I find my version more parsimonious.

Edited November 24, 2015 by Calm

[katherine the great]

Add-on: having reread some of his posts, very different in key areas. I find my version more parsimonious.

Indeed!  

[CV75]

***

I think this shares some aspects of CV's thoughts but not all. Will have to go back and checkwhat I missed.

Add-on: having reread some of his posts, very different in key areas. I find my version more parsimonious.

Variety is the spice of life!

 

I’ve actually considered all Creation as comprising the mega-organism called Adam, and since he has dominion over all, as Adam goes, all nature goes (so to speak). And as the friend of God, his whole organism will be resurrected having fulfilled the measure of its creation. And since his offspring are all as Adam, they are in the unique position to choose to go wherever they find a stewardship they are willing to receive, even if it is in a lesser kingdom of glory than that anticipated by the Creation.

 

I’ve thought that in some cases, one spirit can occupy successive generations of the same body or colony, depending on its life cycle. For example, a bud, spore or shoot may not be offspring at all, but the means to extend the individual’s life and survival. And I may have mentioned it here already (I'm posting about this in two threads), but I don’t think all things that live necessarily have spirits possessing their bodies.

 

How does the scenario you presented address the Fall (perhaps the inevitable incapacity of the incubating spirits to make the moral grade)? How does it address God’s relationship to and initial communication with Adam in behalf of all mankind?

[Darren10]

According to science, we actually do know enough to make conclusions about where humans came from--we evolved from other life on earth. You can peel that back and find questions we don't know the answer to (e.g. how did life originate, what caused the Big Bang), but the fact that humans evolved from life on earth is a scientific fact supported by overwhelming evidence.

What we see on earth is that some 3.7 billion years ago, life originated on earth. All life contains DNA, and the DNA mutates in random ways but with predictable frequency. Sometimes the mutations result in advantages that help organisms thrive in a heterogeneous and continuously changing environment, more often the mutations are disadvantageous, and even more often, the mutations don't have any clear advantages or disadvantages, but are rather just idiosyncrasies that appear and are passed on.

Personally, I think it is possible that the very first life on earth originated from some sort of primitive chemosynthetic bacteria that originated elsewhere in the universe. However, that's not what I'm talking about here. What I'm talking about is whether homo sapiens evolved from other species that already existed on earth, or whether we are decedents of "aliens". The detailed evidence is overwhelming--we are earthlings, and if we were somehow cousins with life elsewhere, we are closer cousins to every other species of life on earth.

The idea that human-like creatures exist on other planets reminds me of this quote from Carl Sagan:

Star Trek, despite its strong international and interspecies perspective, often ignores the most elementary scientific facts. The idea that Mr Spock could be a cross between a human being and a life form independently evolved on the planet Vulcan is genetically far less probable than a successful cross of a man and an artichoke.

Science is nowhere near making any such solid conclusion, sir. And that's the primary reason I do not believe incross species evolution. Science continually finds new species every year yet no "missing link". Id humans have evolved from other species, why not find these links? Where are they? No doubt there are similarities between species but that only points to a common creator if anything. Evolution is a scientific conclusion not based on any solid evidence but on hypothesis.

Edited November 25, 2015 by Darren10

[Darren10]

On that point, I'm doing nothing more nor less than agreeing with Joseph Fielding McConkie when he said, 

 

Is the theory of evolution compatible with the doctrine of the Fall?  No.  We can tug, twist, contort, and sell our birthright, but we cannot overcome the irreconcilable differences between the theory of organic evolution and the doctrine of the Fall.

 

Do you think Joseph Fielding McConkie was acting anti-scientific and unethical when he said that?

I only know what you posted and if JFM made that statement in order to cut off further debate or discussion, which I highly doubt he did, then yes, he would be anti scientific. If he did it in the middle of a dialogue for the same intentional end, which, again, I highly doubt he did, then yes, he would be ethical.