Evidentially I'm descended from Adam

[BCSpace]

23 hours ago, waveslider said:

How is it pro Evolution? I thought that to believe the evolutionary process you had to believe that species came to be by chance, and that it couldn't have possibly been controlled in any type of way to have us created in God's image. Am I wrong in this thinking? Or is that Evolution would always end up with the same result of having human beings evolve the same way by chance, each and every time? I always thought that LDS doctrine, as far as I have ever learned as a life long member, teaches that God is both omniscient and omnipotent, meaning nothing can happen by chance. If random chance happened then that would mean that God could be caught by surprise, therefore He couldn't be omniscient if he couldn't know the outcome before hand.

Evolution doesn't preclude the existence of God, or that He may have used it to create us.  So yes, I believe you are wrong in this thinking.  Why would you say that Evolution can't be controlled or that it's chance only?  Man uses it's principles all the time and there is no such thing as 'chance' in science.  Even randomness is governed by rules.

Assuming God is omniscient and omnipotent as you say, then He knows how a super nova millions of light years away affects natural selection on this earth down the road.  Illustrative of how no scientist will ever be able to leave God out of the equation. The concern you expressed is actually an Atheist conclusion about science, not science itself.

As for the doctrine, we know that the state of no death is applied to the time period AFTER the creation was finished (2 Nephi 2:22).  We know that LDS doctrine is that there is no doctrine on the age of the earth.  We know from the 1931 FP statement that the notion pre-Adamite races of man can co-exist with the doctrine.  Etc. Etc.

Edited July 20, 2016 by BCSpace
Update

[Darren10]

On July 18, 2016 at 11:09 PM, Johnnie Cake said:

Yeah I know in another post I said good bye but I have no where else to share this. 

Today my daughter stopped by to share some amazing news. She has evidently traced my ancestry back to the very first human beings, Adam & Eve 6,000 years ago. 

She was effervescent when she told my wife and I the great news. 

Knowing that nearing 3% of my DNA is descended from my Neanderthal ancestors I asked her if she was going to continue her research so that our 40,000 year old Neanderthal ancestors might also receive their blessings?  She looked at me like I had two heads and said there weren't any humans before Adam and Eve. I feel that I've failed as a father. Why are so many so afraid of knowing the truth

Good question. So, why do you reject the fact that you are a descendent of Adam and Eve? 

[Darren10]

10 hours ago, Johnnie Cake said:

 ...evolution is settled science...

Oh, dear!

[VideoGameJunkie]

I'd rather have the comfort of knowing I'm descended from Adam and a seed of Abraham.

[waveslider]

2 hours ago, BCSpace said:

Evolution doesn't preclude the existence of God, or that He may have used it to create us.  So yes, I believe you are wrong in this thinking.  Why would you say that Evolution can't be controlled or that it's chance only?  Man uses it's principles all the time and there is no such thing as 'chance' in science.  Even randomness is governed by rules.

Assuming God is omniscient and omnipotent as you say, then He knows how a super nova millions of light years away affects natural selection on this earth down the road.  Illustrative of how no scientist will ever be able to leave God out of the equation. The concern you expressed is actually an Atheist conclusion about science, not science itself.

As for the doctrine, we know that the state of no death is applied to the time period AFTER the creation was finished (2 Nephi 2:22).  We know that LDS doctrine is that there is no doctrine on the age of the earth.  We know from the 1931 FP statement that the notion pre-Adamite races of man can co-exist with the doctrine.  Etc. Etc.

Thank you for this. I always thought that ID went against Evolution. That is why I disliked Evolution. Taken the way you just described I have no problem with evolution, except for when people tell me it's settled science. I don't think it's settled by any means, but I also don't see how it goes against the knowledge I have that God did create everything through Jesus.

I have no problems with how long a, "day," meant in the creation story because that word can mean a period of time, just as easily as a literal Earth day. for example saying something like, "Back in my day, no body had a cell phone." It doesn't mean any specific Earth day, but rather a time period describing when I was young. So it really doesn't matter how long of a time period is meant by the words, "first day," "second day," etc..

This all brings a new question for me though: How does the theory of Evolution fit with the narrative that Eve was created from Adam's bone, in what sounds kind of like a surgery? "21  And the Lord God caused a deep sleep to fall upon Adam, and he slept: and he took one of his ribs, and closed up the flesh instead thereof;
22  And the rib, which the Lord God had taken from man, made he a woman, and brought her unto the man." Genesis 2:21-22

[Meadowchik]

Seriously this never came up in her childhood?

I also love prehistory. Btw, we recently discovered that our backyard used to be the Rhein River back during the Pliocine before the Alps appeared and changed it's course.

 

Edited July 20, 2016 by Meadowchik

[Kevin Christensen]

3 hours ago, waveslider said:

Thank you for this. I always thought that ID went against Evolution. That is why I disliked Evolution. Taken the way you just described I have no problem with evolution, except for when people tell me it's settled science. I don't think it's settled by any means, but I also don't see how it goes against the knowledge I have that God did create everything through Jesus.

I have no problems with how long a, "day," meant in the creation story because that word can mean a period of time, just as easily as a literal Earth day. for example saying something like, "Back in my day, no body had a cell phone." It doesn't mean any specific Earth day, but rather a time period describing when I was young. So it really doesn't matter how long of a time period is meant by the words, "first day," "second day," etc..

This all brings a new question for me though: How does the theory of Evolution fit with the narrative that Eve was created from Adam's bone, in what sounds kind of like a surgery? "21  And the Lord God caused a deep sleep to fall upon Adam, and he slept: and he took one of his ribs, and closed up the flesh instead thereof;
22  And the rib, which the Lord God had taken from man, made he a woman, and brought her unto the man." Genesis 2:21-22

The endowment explicitly refers to the the story of the rib as figurative, the point of the figure Nibley explains in Patriarchy and Matriarchy:

Quote

My story begins with Adam and Eve, the archetypal man and woman, in whom each of us is represented. From the most ancient times their thrilling confrontation has been dramatized in rites and ceremonies throughout the world, as part of a great creation-drama rehearsed at the new year to celebrate the establishment of divine authority on earth in the person of the king and his companion. There is a perfect unity between these two mortals; they are “one flesh.” The word rib expresses the ultimate in proximity, intimacy, and identity. When Jeremiah speaks of “keepers of my tsela (rib)” (Jeremiah 20:10), he means bosom friends, inseparable companions. Such things are to be taken figuratively, as in Moses 3:22 and Genesis 2:22, when we are told not that the woman was made out of the rib or from the rib, but that she was the rib, a powerful metaphor. So likewise “bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh” (Genesis 2:23), “and they shall cleave together as one flesh”—the condition is that of total identity. “Woman, because she was taken out of man” (Moses 3:23; italics added) is interesting because the word woman is here mysteriously an extension of man, a form peculiar to English; what the element wo– or wif– means or where it came from remains a mystery, according to the Oxford English Dictionary. Equally mysterious is the idea of the man and woman as the apple of each other’s eye. Philological dictionaries tell us that it is a moot question whether the word apple began with the eye or the fruit. The Greek word is kora or korasion, meaning a little girl or little woman you see in the eye of the beloved; the Latin equivalent is pupilla, from pupa or little doll, from which we get our word pupil. What has diverted me to this is the high degree to which this concept developed in Egypt in the earliest times. The Eye of Re is his daughter, sister, and wife—he sees himself when he looks into her eye, and the other way around. It is the image in the eye that is the ideal, the wdjat, that which is whole and perfect. For “it is not good that man should be alone”; he is incomplete by himself—the man is not without the woman in the Lord. (See 1 Corinthians 11:11.)

http://publications.mi.byu.edu/fullscreen/?pub=1101&index=8

One of the last things Nibley did was "Abraham's Temple Drama", the point of which was to point out that the creation stories are dramas, not histories.

http://publications.mi.byu.edu/fullscreen/?pub=995

FWIW

Kevin Christensen

Bethel Park, PA

[Robert F. Smith]

8 hours ago, thesometimesaint said:

The evidence doesn't change. Our understanding of it does.

...........................................................................................

I don't put any faith in  science.  Science isn't based on faith. Only what can be demonstrated to people intent on disproving you.  

Science is the search for a specific type of knowledge(Knowledge of the Natural world). What can be demonstrated to people intent on disproving you. The Supernatural can play no part in science.

That is the best we can do so far. Personally I'd rather live in the 21st Century than some Bronze Age horror story.                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                       

d'accord.  However, what do we do with the horrors of the 21st century -- as viewed sub specie aeternitatis, or from the 23rd century?  Are we blind to our own shortcomings, as well as to the fact that the 20th century was the most horrible of any century in history?  What sort of perspective do we bring to bear?

[CV75]

23 hours ago, Kevin Christensen said:

It's easy enough to point out the possibilities in our own scriptures:

I was just reading today in Ether 11, where the "the prophets mourned and withdrew from among the people," reminding me of what Lehi, Nephi, and Mosiah had also done to escape the physical and spiritual destruction of the inhabitants of their lands. Adam might well have had to do the same thing at some point to escape such a fate, whether one wishes to identify that point as his time in the Garden of Eden, somewhere east of that, or "on the plains of Olaha Shinehah."

[Robert F. Smith]

14 hours ago, Johnnie Cake said:

.......................................................

..................My daughter was and is afraid of the truth regarding humans mating with Neanderthals...she told me its not true...she told me its just one of my apostate beliefs...I asked her if she'd be willing to read anything on the subject to perhaps give her some additional information to help her understand why I believe it to be true...she said NO she has the truth.  I don't believe that her dismissal of humans intersecting with Neanderthals is an isolated event within the LDS faith.  To some it undermines faith and so it is dismissed out of hand without ever examining's the overwhelming evidence to support why this is a true part of human history. ....................................................................

You and your daughter are operating on a false assumption -- that Neanderthals, Denisovans, et al., are not human.  The clue that ought to suggest otherwise is that they can interbreed with Cro-Magnon.  The same polytypism we find among dogs and other canines can be found among humans.  They all interbreed.  Moreover, Neanderthals exhibit the full range of human qualities.  They have the same large brain-case as Cro-Magnons.  They bury their dead with flowers.  They make sophisticated tools and are extraordinary hunters.  An article in Smithsonian once made the point that, if you took a Neanderthal, gave him a shave and haircut (and a bath), put him in a nice suit, and then placed him on a bus, you would take him for an ordinary human.  You might not think him suave and debonair or ready for Hollywood, and you might think him to be a Russian weight-lifter, but you'd still think him fully human.

[Robert F. Smith]

5 hours ago, waveslider said:

....................................................................
This all brings a new question for me though: How does the theory of Evolution fit with the narrative that Eve was created from Adam's bone, in what sounds kind of like a surgery? "21  And the Lord God caused a deep sleep to fall upon Adam, and he slept: and he took one of his ribs, and closed up the flesh instead thereof;
22  And the rib, which the Lord God had taken from man, made he a woman, and brought her unto the man." Genesis 2:21-22

Spencer W. Kimball, “The Blessings and Responsibilities of Womanhood,” Ensign, 6/3 (Mar 1976), 7, https://www.lds.org/ensign/1976/03/the-blessings-and-responsibilities-of-womanhood?lang=eng ,

Quote

“And I, God, created man in mine own image, in the image of mine Only Begotten created I him; male and female created I them. [The story of the rib, of course, is figurative.]”

Bruce R. McConkie,   

Quote

For those whose limited spiritual understanding precludes a recitation of all the facts, the revealed account, in figurative language, speaks of Eve being created from Adam's rib. (Moses 3:21-25.) A more express scripture, however, speaks of "Adam, who was the son of God, with whom God, himself, conversed." (Moses 6:22. Italics added.) In a formal doctrinal pronouncement, the First Presidency of the Church (Joseph F. Smith, John R. Winder, and Anthon H. Lund) said that "all who have inhabited the earth since Adam have taken bodies and become souls in like manner," and that the first of our race began life as the human germ or embryo that becomes a man. (See Improvement Era, November 1909, p. 80.)    (From "Eve and the Fall," in Woman [1988] p. 60)

Scant knowledge is available to us of Eve (the wife of Adam) and her achievements in pre-existence and in mortality. Without question she was like unto her mighty husband Adam in intelligence and in devotion to righteousness during both her first and second estates of existence. She was placed on earth in the same manner as was Adam, the Mosaic account of the Lord creating her from Adam's rib being merely figurative. (Moses 3:20-25.)  [From Mormon Doctrine 2nd ed. [1966], p. 242]

 

Edited July 20, 2016 by Robert F. Smith

[Robert F. Smith]

9 hours ago, TheSkepticChristian said:

I though you were an expert in LDS doctrine. The LDS church has no official position on abiogenesis, the scriptures don't say anything about the first life (cell, bacteria, whatever) on Earth. 

Everything that is possible happens in an infinite universe, even worlds with life created by chance. 

Here then is Brigham Young's perspective:

Quote

“Though we have it in history that our Father Adam was made of the dust of this earth and that he knew nothing about his God previous to being made here, yet it is not so; and when we learn the truth we shall see and understand that he helped to make this world and was the chief manager in that operation.
    “He was the person who brought the animals and the seeds from other planets to this world and brought a wife with him and stayed here. You may read and believe what you please as to what is found written in the Bible. Adam was made from the dust of an earth, but not from the dust of this earth. He was made as you and I are made, and no person was ever made upon any other principle.”      Journal of Discourses, 3:319.

Indeed, the LDS First Presidency (Joseph F. Smith, John R. Winder, and Anthon H. Lund) once said that "all who have inhabited the earth since Adam have taken bodies and become souls in like manner," and that the first of our race began life as the human germ or embryo that becomes a man. (Improvement Era, November 1909, p. 80.) 

[ERayR]

On 7/19/2016 at 7:25 AM, Atheist Mormon said:

A life, which depends on "maybe's", "perhaps" or "personal revelations", would be nothing short of HELL for me, when I know I can get the most basic answers withing half mile walk into Museum of Natural Science.

Then a paradigm based solely on scientific theories must be excruciating.

[JLHPROF]

1 hour ago, Robert F. Smith said:

Here then is Brigham Young's perspective:

Quote

“Though we have it in history that our Father Adam was made of the dust of this earth and that he knew nothing about his God previous to being made here, yet it is not so; and when we learn the truth we shall see and understand that he helped to make this world and was the chief manager in that operation.
    “He was the person who brought the animals and the seeds from other planets to this world and brought a wife with him and stayed here. You may read and believe what you please as to what is found written in the Bible. Adam was made from the dust of an earth, but not from the dust of this earth. He was made as you and I are made, and no person was ever made upon any other principle.”      Journal of Discourses, 3:319.

Indeed, the LDS First Presidency (Joseph F. Smith, John R. Winder, and Anthon H. Lund) once said that "all who have inhabited the earth since Adam have taken bodies and become souls in like manner," and that the first of our race began life as the human germ or embryo that becomes a man. (Improvement Era, November 1909, p. 80.)

 

Works for me.

[JLHPROF]

9 hours ago, BCSpace said:

Evolution doesn't preclude the existence of God, or that He may have used it to create us.

Perhaps not, but it does raise all kinds of theological issues and concerns.
Concerns that if carried through to logical conclusions may actually make the gospel pretty pointless.

[thesometimesaint]

6 hours ago, waveslider said:

Thank you for this. I always thought that ID went against Evolution. That is why I disliked Evolution. Taken the way you just described I have no problem with evolution, except for when people tell me it's settled science. I don't think it's settled by any means, but I also don't see how it goes against the knowledge I have that God did create everything through Jesus.

I have no problems with how long a, "day," meant in the creation story because that word can mean a period of time, just as easily as a literal Earth day. for example saying something like, "Back in my day, no body had a cell phone." It doesn't mean any specific Earth day, but rather a time period describing when I was young. So it really doesn't matter how long of a time period is meant by the words, "first day," "second day," etc..

This all brings a new question for me though: How does the theory of Evolution fit with the narrative that Eve was created from Adam's bone, in what sounds kind of like a surgery? "21  And the Lord God caused a deep sleep to fall upon Adam, and he slept: and he took one of his ribs, and closed up the flesh instead thereof;
22  And the rib, which the Lord God had taken from man, made he a woman, and brought her unto the man." Genesis 2:21-22

If you have to posit any God or Godlike force onto science to make it work. It is no longer science, but it is religion.

[Gray]

18 hours ago, snowflake said:

Agreed Johnnie Cake....great place to bounce ideas off each other.  I was raised LDS,....then went to college as a biology major and was completely submerged in biology and chemistry. There is no place for any other explanation of humans at the university except evolution.  I Absolutely knew that evolution was "truth" and would laugh at Christians and thought they were bat SH** crazy to believe that a man rose from the grave, the flood, Noah's ark etc.   I was an atheist for probably 10 years because I knew evolution explained everything.  It wasn't until I realized that evolution is completely based on "belief" as well. The explanation of the origin of life,  as a biology major was a huge problem with naturalism, it is still is unanswered today, the Urey Miller experiment that won those gentlemen the Nobel prize and supposedly proved the origin of life turns out to be a dead end.  There was not getting around the racemic mixture problem, (and many other problems as well).  The origin of life is just one of many problems involved with the "naturalism" worldview. What I am getting at is that many assumptions in the naturalistic worldview theory is that they are based on lies and just blind belief (just like many other religions). Once I finally realized that naturalism was a religion (based on a ton of faith with not a lot of evidence to back up the claims). Now you can believe that Neanderthals and Humans mated, how can you prove that by experiments and observation?  Way to many assumptions to truly call that science.

Webster's definition of science:

Simple Definition of science

• : knowledge about or study of the natural world based on facts learned through experiments and observation

• : a particular area of scientific study (such as biology, physics, or chemistry) : a particular branch of science

• : a subject that is formally studied in a college, university, etc.

 

How could you prove that dinosaurs ever lived by experiment or observation? No one has seen a living one. All we have seen is fossils. It's "just a belief" that these fossils were once living animals. 

Of course, Mormonism is an entirely naturalistic religion. Supernaturalism has no place in Mormon theology. 

[thesometimesaint]

6 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

Perhaps not, but it does raise all kinds of theological issues and concerns.
Concerns that if carried through to logical conclusions may actually make the gospel pretty pointless.

Science is Agnostic.

SEE

 

[thesometimesaint]

11 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

Works for me.

 

So God is a magician using a Golem spell.

SEE https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Golem

[Robert F. Smith]

27 minutes ago, thesometimesaint said:

If you have to posit any God or Godlike force onto science to make it work. It is no longer science, but it is religion.

So you reject the notion of scientists like Carl Sagan and Richard Dawkins that "It's highly plausible that in the universe there are Godlike creatures," referring of course the great likelihood of extraterrestrial intelligences (ET).

See Marc Kaufman, First Contact: Scientific Breakthroughs in the Hunt for Life Beyond Earth (Simon & Schuster, 2011).

Steven Spielberg, Taken, TV series, episode 8, “Dropping the Dishes,” at 1:07,

“They’re not gods, Charlie.”
“No, but they’ve got us outclassed enough so they can act like gods.”

[TheSkepticChristian]

1 hour ago, Robert F. Smith said:

Here then is Brigham Young's perspective: Journal of Discourses, 3:319.

Indeed, the LDS First Presidency (Joseph F. Smith, John R. Winder, and Anthon H. Lund) once said that "all who have inhabited the earth since Adam have taken bodies and become souls in like manner," and that the first of our race began life as the human germ or embryo that becomes a man. (Improvement Era, November 1909, p. 80.) 

I though the Journal of Discourses was not a publication of the church, let alone official doctrine. Apologists use the JofD only when it is convenient, please be consistent. As for Joseph F Smith he said "since Adam" he said nothing about bacteria or primitive life. 

36 minutes ago, thesometimesaint said:

Science is Agnostic.

Science is Agnostic because so far there is no verifiable evidence for God. If scientists find evidence in the future that day science will no longer be agnostic. In fact some scientists are looking for God, there are some methods 

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/alien-supercivilizations-absent-from-100-000-nearby-galaxies/

Edited July 20, 2016 by TheSkepticChristian

[Robert F. Smith]

5 minutes ago, TheSkepticChristian said:

I though the Journal of Discourses was not a publication of the church, let alone official doctrine. Apologists use the JofD only when it is convenient, please be consistent. As for Joseph F Smith he said "since Adam" he said nothing about bacteria or primitive life. 

I was not referring to baceria or primitive life, but only to the method by which Adam and Eve came into existence.  Since both Brigham and the First Presidency under Joseph F. Smith agree that it is by regular reproduction, your comment on the JD is irrelevant.

Science is Agnostic because so far there is no verifiable evidence for God. If scientists find evidence in the future that day science will no longer be agnostic. In fact some scientists are looking for God, there are some methods 

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/alien-supercivilizations-absent-from-100-000-nearby-galaxies/     

You probably ought to  note that the article suggests that "some of our preconceptions about the behaviors of alien civilizations are deeply flawed."

That is, the assumptions which are made (for Dyson Spheres, for example) may not actually apply to highly advanced ETs.  We may be looking for the wrong things.  Also, your understanding of science is deeply flawed.  Scientists don't get up in the morning thinking that they are agnostic, nor that their chosen field is agnostic.  That is just silly.

 

[Teancum]

15 hours ago, Storm Rider said:

 

It may be that your daughter is not interested in falling into the same traps that have destroyed your testimony.  Some would think that was a heroic act of humility.  The easiest thing in the world is to forfeit one's faith.  It is not demanding and requires little effort.  I wonder what it is like for a loved one to observe your life and determine they are fearful of following you down your well-trodden path?  I suspect that I can relate in some ways because my children know their father has feet of clay and is more than a weak vessel.  Thankfully, our daughter still thinks I am special, but in my son I have noticed the look of sadness and disappointment because he as learned I am among the weakest of men.  It can be painful to have children grow into responsible, independent adults.  

I would like to comment on the items bolded above:

1:  Speaking in terms of traps and destroying one's testimony is really in my opinion not the proper perspective. Anyone who really wants to find truth should examine and question their beliefs whether in religion, science, politics or what have you.  It is not a "trap" to be willing to put one's testimony of anything through the wringer so to speak.  If as a result beliefs are changed and modified or even abandoned it is not destruction.  I view it more as enlightened and I do not mean that in an arrogant way.   Others may go through a similar process that I have as many others have and conclude differently. 

2:  No it is not the easiest thing in the works to abandoned one's faith.  In fact for me personally it has been one of the most painful experiences of my life.  My whole world revolved around the LDS Church and its truth claims. To conclude after many years of study and prayer and pondering that these claims are likely not true has been devastating for me.  At times I wished I had died before I ended up where I am now.  And even now I still participate fully in the LDS Church. That may not always be the case but it is now.  Maybe I might even end up back where I started before its all done.  Honesty I find it incredibly insulting to say such.  Anyone I know who has gone through this process will say it has not been easy and it has been very hard. They have much to lose.  In my opinion it takes great courage to challenge dearly held beliefs.  Not many people want to nor are willing to do so. I don't think that makes them bad or weak. Everyone has to forge their own path.

[JLHPROF]

1 hour ago, thesometimesaint said:

Science is Agnostic.

 

36 minutes ago, TheSkepticChristian said:

Science is Agnostic because so far there is no verifiable evidence for God. If scientists find evidence in the future that day science will no longer be agnostic.

Science may be agnostic.
But for current scientific theories to be correct there are unavoidable repercussions to the beliefs and doctrines that we claim to follow.
In fact, much of scripture and doctrine would have to be jettisoned to make scientific theories fit, and frankly, the entire gospel and atonement becomes unnecessary.

So we can spend our time trying to mesh the two, or become like our resident Atheist friend.

[snowflake]

1 hour ago, Gray said:

 

How could you prove that dinosaurs ever lived by experiment or observation? No one has seen a living one. All we have seen is fossils. It's "just a belief" that these fossils were once living animals. 

Of course, Mormonism is an entirely naturalistic religion. Supernaturalism has no place in Mormon theology. 

Of course we know dinosaurs existed, we have the bones to observe. Now your claim that no one has seen a living dinosaur, how would you prove that? There are many ancient writings and pieces of art depicting "dragons" (The word dinosaur wasn't coined until the 1800's).  You hear scientists all the time say that crocodiles, the coelacanth and other animals are dinosaurs.