Is evolution Compatible with the Bible?

[Buckeye]

I resuscitating this thread to point out this recent statement in the October 2016 Ensign:

Quote

The Church has no official position on the theory of evolution. Organic evolution, or changes to species’ inherited traits over time, is a matter for scientific study. Nothing has been revealed concerning evolution. Though the details of what happened on earth before Adam and Eve, including how their bodies were created, have not been revealed, our teachings regarding man’s origin are clear and come from revelation.

https://www.lds.org/new-era/2016/10/to-the-point?lang=eng

 

Edited September 29, 2016 by Buckeye

[mfbukowski]

2 hours ago, Buckeye said:

I resuscitating this thread to point out this recent statement in the October 2016 Ensign:

 

That short and highly nuanced statement is important I think. First it reiterates that scientific knowledge is not spiritual knowledge.

The admission that the details of what happened on Earth before Adam and Eve have not been revealed could be seen as throwing out a literal interpretation of Genesis and other scriptures. The admission that nothing has been revealed about how how Adam and Eve were created is huge in my opinion.

For me this statement makes the difference between Revelation and scientific truth very explicit.

The article also quotes Elder Holland's earlier statement that there was no human death before the fall. Notice the distinction the human death is mentioned explicitly implying that death of nonhumans before the fall is a possibility.

This leaves open the idea that Adam and Eve were a special creation that started Humanity as we know it

It could be possible that literally the descendants of Adam and Eve are the only surviving line of humanity on the Earth today.

Edited September 29, 2016 by mfbukowski

[thesometimesaint]

Neither Science nor God is a problem for me. 

[bcuzbcuz]

26 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

The admission that the details of what happened on Earth before Adam and Eve have not been revealed could be seen as throwing out a literal interpretation of Genesis and other scriptures. The admission that nothing has been revealed about how how Adam and Eve were created is huge in my opinion.

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

The article also quotes Elder Holland's earlier statement that there was no human death before the fall. Notice the distinction the human death is mentioned explicitly implying that death of nonhumans before the fall is a possibility.

This leaves open the idea that Adam and Eve were a special creation that started Humanity as we know it

It could be possible that literally the descendants of Adam and Eve are the only surviving line of humanity on the Earth today.

So we´re back to whether Adam and Eve had belly buttons.

Your interpretation also throws out DNA, as merely unnecessary information. 

[JLHPROF]

1 minute ago, bcuzbcuz said:

So we´re back to whether Adam and Eve had belly buttons.

Of course they did.  Before they came to earth.

[bcuzbcuz]

1 hour ago, JLHPROF said:

Of course they did.  Before they came to earth.

So you´re saying they were physically composed before coming to earth? 

[JLHPROF]

56 minutes ago, bcuzbcuz said:

So you´re saying they were physically composed before coming to earth? 

Yup.

[mfbukowski]

3 hours ago, bcuzbcuz said:

So we´re back to whether Adam and Eve had belly buttons.

Your interpretation also throws out DNA, as merely unnecessary information. 

Absurd.

Adoption into Christ's family through baptism would be sufficient. Learn to read what is said, not what you imagine.

[mfbukowski]

3 hours ago, JLHPROF said:

Of course they did.  Before they came to earth.

That works too.

Take your pick. Nothing is revealed about that, as is explicitly stated.

[mfbukowski]

God can do all things but make a bellybutton? 

[Gray]

11 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

God can do all things but make a bellybutton? 

In the millennium, belly buttons will collect no lint. 

[bcuzbcuz]

2 hours ago, JLHPROF said:

Yup.

Genesis 2:7 talks about mist and dust. Are those characteristics of the pre-existence? And were belly buttons necessary for spiritual creation?

[JLHPROF]

21 minutes ago, bcuzbcuz said:

Genesis 2:7 talks about mist and dust. Are those characteristics of the pre-existence? And were belly buttons necessary for spiritual creation?

Brigham Young -
When our father Adam came into the garden of Eden, he came into it with a celestial body, and brought Eve, one of his wives, with him. He helped to make and organize this world.
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.

So yes, bellybuttons.

[bcuzbcuz]

1 hour ago, mfbukowski said:

God can do all things but make a bellybutton? 

Hardly the point. He can make belly buttons, but would he need to invent one, for a one time purpose?

The belly button serves a purpose, or at least it is the marker for the purpose related to it. But the first man made full grown, from dust, would have no purpose for a belly button. But if Adam had a belly button, then he had a parent and was born attached to an umbilical cord, like EVERY other human born on the earth. 

I want to believe Adam had a belly button. Not because I was there to see it, but that every other primate does have one. I feel more comfortable with a birth process that continues on through an established process that is unchangeing though many thousands of years. The umbilicaal cord is a well working process.

I dislike magic to explain factors.

 

[JLHPROF]

2 minutes ago, bcuzbcuz said:

I want to believe Adam had a belly button. Not because I was there to see it, but that every other primate does have one. I feel more comfortable with a birth process that continues on through an established process that is unchangeing though many thousands of years. The umbilicaal cord is a well working process.

Well, even in evolution, something had to be the first creature with an umbilical cord, and therefore the first belly button?
Somewhere between primordial soup and primate a first belly button appeared.

[mfbukowski]

7 hours ago, bcuzbcuz said:

Hardly the point. He can make belly buttons, but would he need to invent one, for a one time purpose?

The belly button serves a purpose, or at least it is the marker for the purpose related to it. But the first man made full grown, from dust, would have no purpose for a belly button. But if Adam had a belly button, then he had a parent and was born attached to an umbilical cord, like EVERY other human born on the earth. 

I want to believe Adam had a belly button. Not because I was there to see it, but that every other primate does have one. I feel more comfortable with a birth process that continues on through an established process that is unchangeing though many thousands of years. The umbilicaal cord is a well working process.

I dislike magic to explain factors.

 

Read my post again

No magic.  Adoption of a belly button into the family of Christ= Adam.  too lazy to write full sentences on this ridiculousness

Pretend a guy like Charlemagne got religion and became "Adam".  kinda like that and now we are all in Charlemagnes religion    https://www.theguardian.com/science/commentisfree/2015/may/24/business-genetic-ancestry-charlemagne-adam-rutherford

Edited September 30, 2016 by mfbukowski

[mfbukowski]

7 hours ago, JLHPROF said:

Well, even in evolution, something had to be the first creature with an umbilical cord, and therefore the first belly button?
Somewhere between primordial soup and primate a first belly button appeared.

as long as soup didnt end up in the belly button I am for it.  I hate it when that happens

Edited September 30, 2016 by mfbukowski

[thesometimesaint]

18 hours ago, JLHPROF said:

Brigham Young -
When our father Adam came into the garden of Eden, he came into it with a celestial body, and brought Eve, one of his wives, with him. He helped to make and organize this world.
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.

So yes, bellybuttons.
 

loser to ancient sea water. BY was wrong.

[thesometimesaint]

The human bellybutton evolved from an egg.

SEE https://www.google.com/imgres?imgurl=https://extension.illinois.edu/eggs/images/eggdiagram.gif&imgrefurl=https://extension.illinois.edu/eggs/res16-egg.html&h=370&w=380&tbnid=2Baxy0ou6K3KXM:&tbnh=160&tbnw=164&docid=uygpEN363HuSuM&usg=__2FaaP_WkJ2cpU3pAaooy9XVfo00=&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwim0dOxwLfPAhUXzGMKHT_mBUkQ9QEIIjAA

Edited September 30, 2016 by thesometimesaint

[bcuzbcuz]

On 29 September 2016 at 11:43 PM, JLHPROF said:

Brigham Young -
When our father Adam came into the garden of Eden, he came into it with a celestial body, and brought Eve, one of his wives, with him. He helped to make and organize this world.
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.

So yes, bellybuttons.
 

So Adam had multipule wives? Can you give a scriptural source?

[JLHPROF]

5 hours ago, bcuzbcuz said:

So Adam had multipule wives? Can you give a scriptural source?

If he only brought one to this earth where the scriptural record of Adam began why would there be a scriptural source?  But there is the ancient Jewish tradition of Lilith.  Who knows if that had any basis in fact?

[bcuzbcuz]

5 hours ago, JLHPROF said:

If he only brought one to this earth where the scriptural record of Adam began why would there be a scriptural source?  But there is the ancient Jewish tradition of Lilith.  Who knows if that had any basis in fact?

You keep doing this. You make statements that imply your belief in early scriptures, the Old Testament´s five Books of Moses, then you throw in such things as "he (Adam) only brought one (wife) to this earth" 

That, my friend, is totally unfounded in scripture.  Check out Genesis 2: 21-23 I don´t read any "brought" anywhere.

Then you jump to the myth of Lilith, which is a great touring music festival, but again, nothing to do with scripture.

[california boy]

On 9/29/2016 at 8:30 AM, mfbukowski said:

That short and highly nuanced statement is important I think. First it reiterates that scientific knowledge is not spiritual knowledge.

The admission that the details of what happened on Earth before Adam and Eve have not been revealed could be seen as throwing out a literal interpretation of Genesis and other scriptures. The admission that nothing has been revealed about how how Adam and Eve were created is huge in my opinion.

For me this statement makes the difference between Revelation and scientific truth very explicit.

The article also quotes Elder Holland's earlier statement that there was no human death before the fall. Notice the distinction the human death is mentioned explicitly implying that death of nonhumans before the fall is a possibility.

This leaves open the idea that Adam and Eve were a special creation that started Humanity as we know it

It could be possible that literally the descendants of Adam and Eve are the only surviving line of humanity on the Earth today.

 If this is true, can you admit that church leaders misled members on how Adam was created for the past 150 years?  

This is why so many people are not willing to just believe church leaders when they tell us they always teach truth and their inturpetition of scriptures is right.

[mfbukowski]

7 hours ago, california boy said:

 If this is true, can you admit that church leaders misled members on how Adam was created for the past 150 years?  

This is why so many people are not willing to just believe church leaders when they tell us they always teach truth and their inturpetition of scriptures is right.

 

Prophets are not infallible.  Several threads are now running on this topic- I suggest you read them

Edited October 1, 2016 by mfbukowski

[mfbukowski]

7 hours ago, california boy said:

 If this is true, can you admit that church leaders misled members on how Adam was created for the past 150 years?  

This is why so many people are not willing to just believe church leaders when they tell us they always teach truth and their inturpetition of scriptures is right.

You know, I have been moved by this conference to say this to you.

I want to publicly and conspicuously and genuinely apologize for any comments which I have made which have offended you in any way- and I know I have made a considerable number of them.

I am truly sorry.   I know you find these to be "homophobic" and therefore highly offensive.  On the other hand I must say I admire your tolerance with me, in not responding in kind.

Yes you are a critic of the church, but I have made this personal, which is totally inappropriate, and does not represent the behavior of a disciple of Jesus Christ.

I promise I will not do this again.  I will continue to repent of this behavior especially to those who are proponents of same sex marriage.