Evolving Mormon Doctrine

[mfbukowski]

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.

More parsimonious still is that the human concept/word for "death" could not exist until there were humans capable of inventing the concept.

That's the way I see it.

[CV75]

More parsimonious still is that the human concept/word for "death" could not exist until there were humans capable of inventing the concept.

You mean Adam and Eve? Or whoever told them they would surely die? LOL

 

Have a great Thanksgiving!

[mfbukowski]

You mean Adam and Eve? Or whoever told them they would surely die? LOL

 

Have a great Thanksgiving!

Same to you-- but I have no problem putting it pretty much any way you like.  Non-falsifiable is non-falsifiable. I wasn't there.

 

God created all through "The Word" - to me that is a story that says that when God "called" day and night the "first day" by the power of the Word, that is just what he did.  By giving us a definition for the phenomenon. he organized it for us from matter unorganized.

 

We seem to not have any problem with the view that humans were the cause of the concept of a "fall from innocence" but a big problem with the view that we also caused the concept of "death" as we know it.

 

Suppose we said that before we defined that idea of "death" the earth was just "recycling" itself?

 

All of these are equally non-falsifiable- which theory works best?

[mfbukowski]

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).

Works for me.

 

That's as good a story as mine!

[Zakuska]

My goodness... they ARE evolving!

 

http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2011/01/27/article-0-0CEC24F5000005DC-770_224x423.jpg

https://encrypted-tbn1.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcSqBcWlY2XADDmFyN05XjlyFnGgtPLw6Fn_wrHVOdYjKW1EFQ7X

 

[Analytics]

Hi Darren10,

 

In response to my claim that the evidence is overwhelming that humans are related to all life on earth, you said:

 

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.

 

An incredible number of incredibly smart people have spent decades looking at the details of this question, and they think the evidence is conclusive: all life--including humans--are related.  The theory is called "common descent."  The Wikipedia article Evidence of Common Descent lays out a very brief summary of the key evidences that support this theory.  Have you really studied this all out in enough detail to credibly claim that these folks are all wrong and are "nowhere near" compiling a credible case for common descent?  For your reference, I copied the table of contents to the very brief summary of the evidence for common descent below. 

 

1 Evidence from comparative physiology and biochemistry

• 1.1 Genetics
  • 1.1.1 Universal biochemical organisation and molecular variance patterns
  • 1.1.2 DNA sequencing
  • 1.1.3 Endogenous retroviruses
  • 1.1.4 Proteins
  • 1.1.5 Pseudogenes
  • 1.1.6 Other mechanisms
• 1.2 Specific examples
  • 1.2.1 Chromosome 2 in humans
  • 1.2.2 Cytochrome c and b
  • 1.2.3 Recent African origin of modern humans

• 2 Evidence from comparative anatomy
  • 2.1 Atavisms
  • 2.2 Evolutionary developmental biology and embryonic development
  • 2.3 Homologous structures and divergent (adaptive) evolution
  • 2.4 Nested hierarchies and classification
    • 2.4.1 Evolutionary trees
  • 2.5 Vestigial structures
  • 2.6 Specific examples
    • 2.6.1 Hind structures in whales
    • 2.6.2 Insect mouthparts and appendages
    • 2.6.3 Pelvic structure of dinosaurs
    • 2.6.4 Pentadactyl limb
    • 2.6.5 Recurrent laryngeal nerve in giraffes
    • 2.6.6 Route of the vas deferens
• 3 Evidence from paleontology
  • 3.1 Fossil record
    • 3.1.1 Extent of the fossil record
  • 3.2 Limitations
  • 3.3 Specific examples
    • 3.3.1 Evolution of the horse
    • 3.3.2 Transition from fish to amphibians
• 4 Evidence from geographical distribution
  • 4.1 Continental distribution
  • 4.2 Island biogeography
    • 4.2.1 Types of species found on islands
    • 4.2.2 Endemism
    • 4.2.3 Adaptive radiations
  • 4.3 Ring species
  • 4.4 Specific examples
    • 4.4.1 Distribution of Glossopteris
    • 4.4.2 Distribution of marsupials
    • 4.4.3 Migration, isolation, and distribution of the camel
• 5 Evidence from selection
  • 5.1 Specific examples of natural selection in the lab and in the field
    • 5.1.1 Antibiotic and pesticide resistance
    • 5.1.2 Artificial selection
    • 5.1.3 Experimental evolution
    • 5.1.4 Guppies
    • 5.1.5 Humans
    • 5.1.6 Human-caused selection pressures in studied organisms
    • 5.1.7 Italian wall lizards
• 6 Evidence from speciation
  • 6.1 Specific examples
    • 6.1.1 Blackcap
    • 6.1.2 Drosophila melanogaster
    • 6.1.3 Gall wasps
    • 6.1.4 Hawthorn fly
    • 6.1.5 London Underground mosquito
    • 6.1.6 Mollies
    • 6.1.7 Polar bear
    • 6.1.8 Thale cress
    • 6.1.9 Turborotalia
  • 6.2 Interspecies fertility or hybridization
    • 6.2.1 Mimulus peregrinus
    • 6.2.2 Raphanobrassica
    • 6.2.3 Senecio (groundsel)
    • 6.2.4 Tragopogon (salsify)
• 7 Evidence from computation and mathematical iteration
  • 7.1 Specific examples
    • 7.1.1 Avida simulation

[PeterPear]

Evidence from the Constructal Law

https://publishing.aip.org/publishing/journal-highlights/evolution-airplanes

Notice how rapid the evolution of the species occurred over a mere 1000 years.

Of course, the only difference from Organic Evolution which happened by mere chance, is the evolution of this species was done for money.

[CV75]

Works for me.

 

That's as good a story as mine!

Three cheers for brainstorming!

[mfbukowski]

Evidence from the Constructal Law

https://publishing.aip.org/publishing/journal-highlights/evolution-airplanes

Notice how rapid the evolution of the species occurred over a mere 1000 years.

Of course, the only difference from Organic Evolution which happened by mere chance, is the evolution of this species was done for money.

I have been saying this for years. Evolution is undeniable. To deny it is to say that every humanly created technology doesn't exist.

What works,works. It's that simple

[oremites]

... Organic Evolution which happened by mere chance ...

 

How do you know it happened by mere chance?

 

... the evolution of this species was done for money.

 

While that's undeniably a part of it, there's much more to it than money.  Attributing humankind's accomplishments to simple "greed" misses out on a lot of what makes this world and its people so wonderful.  It's about as big a mistake as attributing Organic Evolution to "mere chance."

[CV75]

Evidence from the Constructal Law

https://publishing.aip.org/publishing/journal-highlights/evolution-airplanes

Notice how rapid the evolution of the species occurred over a mere 1000 years.

Of course, the only difference from Organic Evolution which happened by mere chance, is the evolution of this species was done for money.

Speaking of our human-human invention hybrids:

http://www.forbes.com/sites/parmyolson/2013/06/07/how-the-human-face-might-look-in-100000-years/

 

"...thanks to zygotic genome engineering technology, our future selves would have the ability to control human biology and human evolution in much the same way we control electrons to power our world today."

[SamIam]

What is your thoughts on "The Three Pillars of Eternity" as taught by Bruce R. McConkie?  True doctrine?  False doctrine?  Opinion?  Speculation? 

 

The doctrine of the Fall, as understood by Elder McConkie, is clearly incompatible with the scientific theory of Organic Evolution. 

 

If the doctrine of the Fall can be reworked to make it compatible with evolution, it would be even easier to rework the doctrine of exaltation to make it compatible with same-sex marriage.

 

It has been a few years since I posted here but I found this thread interesting.  I have read through the first 5 pages and hope that I'm not duplicating too much but I'll attempt to address your post - but in reverse order of the questions.

 

First in your final question you connect two theologically very different ideas but I do not disagree that they are similar in the degree of cognitive dissonance required to sustain either.

Each one, to be acceptable, demands that one step over perceived self-existent fundamentals. 

 

First I see not so much the doctrine of the fall as the issue but the doctrine of creation as the appropriate comparison to evolution. The fall might be classed as the fulfillment of an evolutionary process.  For evolution to be compatible with creation it seems to me that Adam:

 

1.) Cannot be first flesh

2.) He cannot be the initiator of physical death

3.) Cannot have been an eternal being in his creation.

 

To accept evolution as we now understand the theory would mean that these conditions were correct when they are oppositional to widely accepted doctrinal tenants as generally believed.  

 

For Same-sex marriage to become compatible with exaltation.

 

1.) Exaltation cannot be a state where offspring are produced by the union of male and female ie. "continuation of the seeds".

     Two Adam's alone or Two Eve's alone could be the originators of a successful procreative process.

2.) Unrepentant Immoral behavior cannot be classed as an unacceptable behavior.

3.) Obvious distinctions in male and female functionality and behavior are not relevant.  ie. notwithstanding there are exceptions, the general nature of men to naturally preside, provide,      and protect etc. against the natural inclinations of the woman to bear / nurture children, order the home, and look to her husband etc.

 

Justifying SSM as a potential state accepted in an exalted sphere seems even more difficult to justify than evolution.

 

Your second statement above: Yes I agree completely that Elder McConkie's understanding of creation is completely incompatible with Organic evolution.

In support I cite this comment:

 

This same knowledge is contained in the sealed portion of the Book of Mormon. For aught we know the two sealed books are one and the same. Of this much we are quite certain: When, during the Millennium, the sealed portion of the Book of Mormon is translated, it will give an account of life in the premortal existence; of the creation of all things; of the Fall and the Atonement and the Second Coming; of temple ordinances, in their fulness; of the ministry and mission of translated beings; of life in the spirit world, in both paradise and hell; of the kingdoms of glory to be inhabited by resurrected beings; and many such like things.

 

As of now, the world is not ready to receive these truths. For one thing, these added doctrines will completely destroy the whole theory of organic evolution as it is now almost universally taught in the halls of academia. For another, they will set forth an entirely different concept and time frame of the creation, both of this earth and all forms of life and of the sidereal heavens themselves, than is postulated in all the theories of men. And sadly, there are those who, if forced to make a choice at this time, would select Darwin over Deity. ( The Bible, a Sealed Book Teaching Seminary Preservice Readings Religion 370, 471, and 475, (2004), 123–32)  Complete text to be found at http://emp.byui.edu/marrottr/genlauthorities/bible-sealedbook.pdf)

 

For your first statement, I agree completely with Elder McConkies instruction as recorded in the Three Pillars of eternity.  It is not possible to accept evolution without ignoring the problems that creates for several basic tenants of the gospel.  I recognize that Elder Talmage and Brother Eyring (father), B.H. Roberts and others seemed supportive of evolution in a general way but the specifics of what they believed is distinguished from the theories of evolution as taught in academia sufficient to actually be unacceptable to purists of the theory in one or more areas.  In several instances, it is obvious even those touted in the church as supporters of evolutionary theory found some key elements completely incompatible with theological requirements.

 

As stated by Elder Talmage 

 

I do not regard Adam as related to—certainly not as descended from—the Neanderthal, the Cro-Magnon, the Peking or the Piltdown man. Adam came as divinely created, created and empowered, and stands as the patriarchal head of his posterity .... Were it true that man is a product of evolution from lower forms, it is but reasonable to believe that he will yet develop into something higher. While it is a fact that eternal progression is a characteristic of man's Divine birthright, as yet we have learned nothing to indicate that man shall develop physically into any other form than that in which he now appears...Believe not those who would make man but little above the brutes, when in truth he is but little below the angels, and if faithful shall pass by the angels and take his place among the exalted sons of God. ...

 

Evolution is true so far as it means development, and progress, and advancement in all the works of God .... At best the conception of the development of man's body from the lower forms through evolutionary processes has been but a theory, an unproved hypothesis. Theories may be regarded as the scaffolding upon which the builder stands while placing the blocks of truth in position. It is a grave error to mistake the scaffolding for the wall, the flimsy and temporary structure for the stable and permanent. The scaffolding serves but a passing purpose, important though it be, and is removed as soon as the walls of that part of the edifice of knowledge have been constructed. Theories have their purpose, and are indispensable, but they must never be mistaken for demonstrated facts. The Holy Scriptures should not be discredited by theories of men; they cannot be discredited by fact and truth. (THE LATTER DAY SAINTS MILLENNIAL STAR No. 53, Vol. 93 Thursday, December 31, 1931) 

 

 

 

My own personal speculation which is always so fun to put out there as this is where it stirs the pot a bit is that the law of opposition in all things is a real and required condition of man’s existence.  I have often wondered if the counter of the glorious doctrines put forth by Joseph Smith which would lead man to exaltation had to be something as potentially equally compelling but that would be a equally effective in denying his exaltation if embraced - I see the theories of evolution as potentially that oppositional concept.  I can accept both Elder McConkie's perspectives and Elder Tallmadge’s for the most part as Elder Talmage acknowledges the inherent difficulties that he needs to acknowledge to address the theological conflicts. ( In most instances)

 

In the world, the theory of evolution is at least a partial contributor to the decline of religion and has completely displaced the reality of God for the majority of the educated . I see the theory as taught in our institutions of higher education as part truth and part lie and as such should be of only qualified acceptance by anyone who is first a Latter Day Saint. Frequently I think that is the case with many Latter-day Saints. They see the flaws but identify with the terminologies unique to the theory and the conditions which are established by the fossil record which only have a tenuous connection to the scriptural record. Thus while they may say the are in support of the theory of evolution they will depart on the key points of man descending from apes, or Adam and Eve as figurative only, etc. etc. etc.

 

For this reason I never state that I accept evolution as a possibility.  Not because I do not see certain potentials in the theory but because fundamentally it is but a stepping stone to move individuals away from a theological center of a Christ based creation. A small step for some, a bigger step for others.  It's dominate what-if scenarios are, to me, wedges designed to undermine the faith of intelligent people who are not as intelligent as they need to be.

 

However, the funny thing about this whole comparison is that while LDS doctrine cannot support Same Sex Marriage neither can the common theories of evolution justify it - I guess it is out on both counts.

Edited November 28, 2015 by SamIam

[sunstoned]

An incredible number of incredibly smart people have spent decades looking at the details of this question, and they think the evidence is conclusive: all life--including humans--are related.  The theory is called "common descent."  The Wikipedia article Evidence of Common Descent lays out a very brief summary of the key evidences that support this theory.  Have you really studied this all out in enough detail to credibly claim that these folks are all wrong and are "nowhere near" compiling a credible case for common descent?  For your reference, I copied the table of contents to the very brief summary of the evidence for common descent below. 

 

Thanks for posting this Analytics.  It is a good reminder of the amount of research and work of countless scientist spanning many decades in efforts like this that give all of us a better and more clear understanding of our past and how we as a species are a part of our environment.

[CV75]

My own personal speculation which is always so fun to put out there as this is where it stirs the pot a bit is that the law of opposition in all things is a real and required condition of man’s existence.

In the spirit of speculation, I think one reason the Church doesn’t debate much about organic evolution, yet teaches it at BYU, is because it can be taken in a context that takes nothing away from Creation, the Fall, and the 7,000 years of earth’s temporal existence (according to Adam’s reckoning, which began at that time).

 

For the sake of discussion, we can still have organic evolution play out exactly as proponents say it did and does, except it begins after the Fall of Adam. The progression of life on Earth is dependent upon an actual Creation, an actual Eden, man Adam and the Fall; such physical laws came into play after the Fall, when paradise became physically and spiritually separated from God.

 

This is how the law of opposition is manifest: a lengthy, trial-and-error, chance-affected, 4+ billion year physical process as opposed to a more immediate process that might have taken place had Adam exercised his agency to partake of the forbidden fruit with more preparation and tutoring from above rather than the premature coaxing of the adversary. Or more simply, as others prefer to use as a criterion of truth, trial and error and chance are in opposition to the exercise of  divine intent, just as chaos is in opposition to exaltation.

 

Adam did not have to enter mortality at that moment billions of years ago, but he could have transitioned from a terrestrial body into a mortal body only after the process of organic evolution produced human beings. All mortal life is still dependent on Adam as the chief steward and catalyst of the mortal estate, and all human life must still be linked to him for exaltation. Just as Jesus is the father of our spiritual rebirth (whether we lived before or after Him), Adam is the father of our mortal birth (also whether we lived before or after Him).

 

A point of discussion then might get to how Adam became mortal through the evolutionary process and appeared on the scene some 6,000 years ago to prophesy the 7,000 year temporal existence of the earth. I think we can look at the replacement of his terrestrial body with a mortal genetic duplicate in three ways: not having parentage through the evolutionary process; having parentage through the evolutionary process; and, having surrogate parentage through the evolutionary process, as follows:

 

No parentage through the evolutionary process: he was the last to leave Eden, coming into the world as a fully developed man; or, he was held in abeyance in another terrestrial sphere until he came to this world as an adult. He became mortal through a fundamental change in his physiology according to what he ate, or by ordinance. Once he got here, he picked things up at Moses 4:31.

 

Parentage through the evolutionary process: when a genetic match finally appeared at the right time for the 7,000-year plan to commence according to teh reckoning given him, Adam's spirit was removed from his terrestrial form (wherever that had been residing or suspended for the previous 4 billion years) and placed into his mortal body. This is not quite reincarnation because the body is the same body (genetically speaking) as the terrestrial; it is more like placing Lazarus’s disembodied spirit into a new-and-improved, healthier, un-decomposed body after it had been removed through ill health three days earlier. These parents raised him and as he advanced through life with the advanced spirit he came here with, he picks things up at Moses 5:1.

 

Surrogate parentage through the evolutionary process: cloned cells from Adam’s cursed terrestrial body were preserved and implanted in zygote form into a mortal mother; or cloned gametes from Adam’s pre-Eden parents were implanted to mortal parents. Adam came out of his “coma” sometime at or after conception. His parents raised him, a spiritually precocious child, and he picked up where he left off at Moses 5:1.

 

Thus the spirit body serves as the physical template for the paradisiacal body, and the paradisiacal body serves as the physical and spiritual template for the telestial soul, and the telestial soul serves as the spiritual template for the immortal soul (Alma 41:4). There are laws to be followed in exaltation for the bringing forth of spirit beings and laws to associate them with bodies; other laws for bringing forth paradisiacal beings; and yet other laws to bring forth mortal beings.

 

For example, see D&C 88: 42-61: “And again, verily I say unto you, he hath given a law unto all things, by which they move in their times and their seasons; And their courses are fixed, even the courses of the heavens and the earth, which comprehend the earth and all the planets. And they give light to each other in their times and in their seasons, in their minutes, in their hours, in their days, in their weeks, in their months, in their years—all these are one year with God, but not with man. …Unto what shall I liken these kingdoms, that ye may understand? …I will liken these kingdoms unto a man having a field, and he sent forth his servants into the field to dig in the field. …Therefore, unto this parable I will liken all these kingdoms, and the inhabitants thereof—every kingdom in its hour, and in its time, and in its season, even according to the decree which God hath made.”

[mfbukowski]

It has been a few years since I posted here but I found this thread interesting.  I have read through the first 5 pages and hope that I'm not duplicating too much but I'll attempt to address your post - but in reverse order of the questions.

 

First in your final question you connect two theologically very different ideas but I do not disagree that they are similar in the degree of cognitive dissonance required to sustain either.

Each one, to be acceptable, demands that one step over perceived self-existent fundamentals. 

 

First I see not so much the doctrine of the fall as the issue but the doctrine of creation as the appropriate comparison to evolution. The fall might be classed as the fulfillment of an evolutionary process.  For evolution to be compatible with creation it seems to me that Adam:

 

1.) Cannot be first flesh

2.) He cannot be the initiator of physical death

3.) Cannot have been an eternal being in his creation.

 

To accept evolution as we now understand the theory would mean that these conditions were correct when they are oppositional to widely accepted doctrinal tenants as generally believed.  

 

For Same-sex marriage to become compatible with exaltation.

 

1.) Exaltation cannot be a state where offspring are produced by the union of male and female ie. "continuation of the seeds".

     Two Adam's alone or Two Eve's alone could be the originators of a successful procreative process.

2.) Unrepentant Immoral behavior cannot be classed as an unacceptable behavior.

3.) Obvious distinctions in male and female functionality and behavior are not relevant.  ie. notwithstanding there are exceptions, the general nature of men to naturally preside, provide,      and protect etc. against the natural inclinations of the woman to bear / nurture children, order the home, and look to her husband etc.

 

Justifying SSM as a potential state accepted in an exalted sphere seems even more difficult to justify than evolution.

 

Your second statement above: Yes I agree completely that Elder McConkie's understanding of creation is completely incompatible with Organic evolution.

In support I cite this comment:

 

 

For your first statement, I agree completely with Elder McConkies instruction as recorded in the Three Pillars of eternity.  It is not possible to accept evolution without ignoring the problems that creates for several basic tenants of the gospel.  I recognize that Elder Talmage and Brother Eyring (father), B.H. Roberts and others seemed supportive of evolution in a general way but the specifics of what they believed is distinguished from the theories of evolution as taught in academia sufficient to actually be unacceptable to purists of the theory in one or more areas.  In several instances, it is obvious even those touted in the church as supporters of evolutionary theory found some key elements completely incompatible with theological requirements.

 

As stated by Elder Talmage 

 

 

 

My own personal speculation which is always so fun to put out there as this is where it stirs the pot a bit is that the law of opposition in all things is a real and required condition of man’s existence.  I have often wondered if the counter of the glorious doctrines put forth by Joseph Smith which would lead man to exaltation had to be something as potentially equally compelling but that would be a equally effective in denying his exaltation if embraced - I see the theories of evolution as potentially that oppositional concept.  I can accept both Elder McConkie's perspectives and Elder Tallmadge’s for the most part as Elder Talmage acknowledges the inherent difficulties that he needs to acknowledge to address the theological conflicts. ( In most instances)

 

In the world, the theory of evolution is at least a partial contributor to the decline of religion and has completely displaced the reality of God for the majority of the educated . I see the theory as taught in our institutions of higher education as part truth and part lie and as such should be of only qualified acceptance by anyone who is first a Latter Day Saint. Frequently I think that is the case with many Latter-day Saints. They see the flaws but identify with the terminologies unique to the theory and the conditions which are established by the fossil record which only have a tenuous connection to the scriptural record. Thus while they may say the are in support of the theory of evolution they will depart on the key points of man descending from apes, or Adam and Eve as figurative only, etc. etc. etc.

 

For this reason I never state that I accept evolution as a possibility.  Not because I do not see certain potentials in the theory but because fundamentally it is but a stepping stone to move individuals away from a theological center of a Christ based creation. A small step for some, a bigger step for others.  It's dominate what-if scenarios are, to me, wedges designed to undermine the faith of intelligent people who are not as intelligent as they need to be.

 

However, the funny thing about this whole comparison is that while LDS doctrine cannot support Same Sex Marriage neither can the common theories of evolution justify it - I guess it is out on both counts.

Good to see you.

I agree that same sex marriage is the 800 pound gorilla in the room. I also agree that belief in it may be the dividing point for exaltation or non exaltation.

[SamIam]

Good to see you.

I agree that same sex marriage is the 800 pound gorilla in the room. I also agree that belief in it may be the dividing point for exaltation or non exaltation.

 

Mark - good to see you are still around as well.

[CV75]

However, the funny thing about this whole comparison is that while LDS doctrine cannot support Same Sex Marriage neither can the common theories of evolution justify it - I guess it is out on both counts.

I agree that same sex marriage is the 800 pound gorilla in the room. I also agree that belief in it may be the dividing point for exaltation or non exaltation.

I agree. Belief in making room for same-sex families may be tolerated; but apostasy in that regard is not;  same-gender marriage is incompatible and irreconcilable with the three pillars most immediately because of the apostasy aspect, and projecting from the past into the future, it was never part of the Creation and Eden templates.

 

Belief in evolution as the origin of Adam, and the metaphors may be tolerated; but apostasy concerning any of these ideas would not be. It is harder to generate a condition of apostasy over evolution than it is same-sex marriage, and I'm wondering what apostasy over the principle of evolution would look like.

[katherine the great]

 

However, the funny thing about this whole comparison is that while LDS doctrine cannot support Same Sex Marriage neither can the common theories of evolution justify it - I guess it is out on both counts.

That is actually not the case.  Inclusive fitness and alloparenting would be perfectly compatible with same sex marriage and the evolution of low frequencies of homosexuality in populations.  Evolutionary fitness does not require direct reproduction.  Some ants and bees are good examples of inclusive fitness.

[katherine the great]

 and I'm wondering what apostasy over the principle of evolution would look like.

It would look like me becoming unemployed.  

[CV75]

It would look like me becoming unemployed.  

LOL we wouldn't want that... I meant apostasy from the Church. I'm thinking one would be hard-pressed to show someone repeatedly acting in clear, open, and deliberate public opposition to the Church or its leaders on the point, such as presenting scientific information as church doctrine or denouncing Church doctrine based on the science of it, etc.

[CV75]

That is actually not the case.  Inclusive fitness and alloparenting would be perfectly compatible with same sex marriage and the evolution of low frequencies of homosexuality in populations.  Evolutionary fitness does not require direct reproduction.  Some ants and bees are good examples of inclusive fitness.

This might be an example of the Atonement serving as a metaphor for an intentional, conscious human evolution that constantly improves the survival of human and human-chosen life forms, where human beings play a (metaphorically) god-like role. Same-sex marriage, as a human construct, would accommodate such human inventions and technologies. In this case, an accepted social behavior is used to drive invention of the genetic technology and eventually the genetics and sociogenetics themselves.

[katherine the great]

LOL we wouldn't want that... I meant apostasy from the Church. 

That's what I meant too.  Seriously, if it came to choosing between my membership in the church and my job, I would choose the church.  Fortunately, that will never happen!  

[mfbukowski]

That is actually not the case. Inclusive fitness and alloparenting would be perfectly compatible with same sex marriage and the evolution of low frequencies of homosexuality in populations. Evolutionary fitness does not require direct reproduction. Some ants and bees are good examples of inclusive fitness.

For me this is not about biology. It is about opposition in all things and complimentaries and becoming one with someone who is not like myself, and the other half of humanity.

It's about becoming One with an Other, not with a mirror image of oneself.

[katherine the great]

For me this is not about biology. It is about opposition in all things and complimentaries and becoming one with someone who is not like myself, and the other half of humanity.

It's about becoming One with an Other, not with a mirror image of oneself.

I understand.  I was not stating my opinion on gay marriage, just replying to this comment, "However, the funny thing about this whole comparison is that while LDS doctrine cannot support Same Sex Marriage neither can the common theories of evolution justify it - I guess it is out on both counts."   The fact is that gay marriage is not incompatible with evolutionary theory.

[JLHPROF]

 The fact is that gay marriage is not incompatible with evolutionary theory.

 

Hmmm....*raises hand*...I see a problem with homosexuality and the continuation of the human race, and I see a connection to natural selection too.