I don't believe in Evolution because No Death before the Fall is in the scriptures

[Robert F. Smith]

7 hours ago, Freedom said:

Evolution, like electricity, is not something you can believe in or not, it is scientific fact. It will continue to be true no matter how much quote mining you do or how many verses you take out of context. 

Evolution makes good logical sense, but it cannot be observed in the laboratory, and cannot be replicated.  Geologic time has lain down strata in which it appears that there is a developmental sequence, from which we extrapolate the basic evolutionary explanation.  The best explanation is that adaptation of living things to new environs creates new species, even though we are unable to find the requisite transitional forms.  Thus, even though we can see natural selection actually operating throughout nature, we cannot actually find the transition from one species to another.  All natural selection is within species, as we can seen in humans, canines, and other mammals.  It is certainly possible that evolution takes place over time (even though we cannot find fossil evidence for it), or that fast transitions take place (punctuated equilibria), and that we will eventually be able to prove that.

Evolutionary biology remains dominant simply because it appears to be the best and most reasonable explanation of natural phenomena, not because it is a fact.  Molecular biology is most likely to provide whatever proof might yet be found.  Meantime, genetic engineering is becoming normative -- as though God uses CRISPR to handle nature.

[Robert F. Smith]

6 hours ago, SamuelTheLamanite said:

I understand, most of it is probably reliable, but it is possible that some parts were changed by Satan. The scriptures teach that Satan does have power, see Exodus 7:10 for example.  I don't think the changes mentioned in D&C 10:10-13 were obvious, they had to look real. 

 I believe what Elder Hales told us about modern general conference talks. In the mouth of two or three witnesses shall every word be established. The teaching of No Death before the Fall is found in at least two modern General Conference talks, I find it hard to believe it was not inspired.   

I understand, Elder Christofferson taught, "At the same time it should be remembered that not every statement made by a Church leader, past or present, necessarily constitutes doctrine. It is commonly understood in the Church that a statement made by one leader on a single occasion often represents a personal, though well-considered, opinion, not meant to be official or binding for the whole Church. The Prophet Joseph Smith taught that “a prophet [is] a prophet only when he [is] acting as such.”" 

The Evolution views of Elder Widtsoe and Talmage were never taught in General Conference or church manuals.   The No death before the Fall doctrine was not taught just on a single occasion.   

You are equivocating the same way evangelical fundamentalists do through special pleading, as though to say that God allows nature to lie to us.  Why would He do that?  You are also suggesting that this or that general authority is better that some other general authority, thus taking sides in internal disputes among them -- instead of wisely allowing unsettled disputes to remain unsettled.  The LDS Church has taken no stand on evolution, even though you falsely claim that it has.

[Robert F. Smith]

6 hours ago, SamuelTheLamanite said:

BYU is a university, not a church. Is the No Death before the Fall teaching false doctrine? The First Presidency allows No Death before the Fall doctrine to be taught in General Conference, church manuals, and even the Bible dictionary.  

BYU is wholly owned by the LDS Church, and the Board of Trustees governing it is composed of LDS general authorities.  Biological evolution is taught at BYU because the LDS Church (unlike you) does not take any position on that theory.  That fact does not oppose the teaching of no death before the Fall, as Kevin Christensen points out to us.

Edited August 27, 2017 by Robert F. Smith

[Bob Crockett]

3 hours ago, Kevin Christensen said:

No death before the fall refers to the garden.  And I can see no reason to suppose that a garden for two people filled the entire planet.  "Tend and keep this set of continents and oceans and polar chaps, and islands?"  Nor do the scriptures spent any much time on what went on before the garden or outside the garden or what was happening on the worlds without number that had been created and destroyed previous to an account of happenings on this earth.  It ought to be clear that different conditions existed outside the garden than inside which is why leaving involved such a notable change.  Nor is it necessary or wise to confuse a ritual drama with a science text.  Nor is it wise to suppose that one can read an ancient text in translation with modern presuppositions and understand it as the ancients did.  Nor is it wise to suppose that the express limitations on "the authority of my servants" bluntly spelled out in D&C 1:24-28 don't exist and have no application in trying to shore up one's pet theories and authorities.

FWIW

Kevin Christensen

Bethel Park, PA

I don't believe this is an accurate analysis -- ""No death before the fall refers to the garden."  I base my conclusion on Jack Welch's analysis of B.H. Roberts' TWL manuscript.    I think it has been widely held by LDS general authorities that the phrase "no death before the fall" meant death on this planet, and not some limited geographic area, at least widely held at the time of the Talmage - Smith debates.   Basically silence since then from the Church.  

I was an advocate of biological evolution.  It is taught enthusiastically in BYU courses.   Then, a noted LDS apologist and fellow graduate of my law school asked me to read a book by a microbiologist.  This microbiologist was not LDS, nor writing on Biblical grounds, but pointed out many of the flaws of evolutionary biology and how it ran contrary to standard methodological proofs.   Now I don't know what to think.   It doesn't really concern one way or the other.

However, to say that the phrase "no death before the fall" refers only to the Garden is, indeed, a matter of private interpretation.

Edited August 27, 2017 by Bob Crockett

[katherine the great]

49 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said:

Evolution makes good logical sense, but it cannot be observed in the laboratory, and cannot be replicated.  

Um. That's not true. Remember when Sarah Palin made that off the cuff remark about how stupid fruit fly research is? That was a wake up call to me about how incredibly ignorant many of the leaders of my own political party were regarding science. Fruit flies have a very short life cycle which make them ideal for doing exactly what you just stated cannot be done. They not only have modeled evolution for us in real time (observing the change in allele frequencies over time) but there have actually been speciation events observed.

[SamuelTheLamanite]

4 hours ago, Kevin Christensen said:

No death before the fall refers to the garden.  And I can see no reason to suppose that a garden for two people filled the entire planet. 

Our scriptures and prophets don't teach "no death" only in the garden.  I think Elder Nelson and Elder McConkie make it clear. Same for Romans 5:12 "Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men" 2 Ne 2:22 talks about "all things", all things include Adam and Eve. We know Adam and Eve were in a state of immortality.  

[SamuelTheLamanite]

7 hours ago, Calm said:

No death before the Fall is not false doctrine in my opinion, I don't think one has to choose because I don't understand it in the same way you do.

 You apparently see evolution as false doctrine/teaching, correct?

And the Prophet and Apostles allow physical death before the fall to be taught and evolution in the Church's schools.

How can that be moral if they know evolution is false?

A scientific theory is not a religious doctrine, it is an observation that can change.    

The brethren disagree with a lot of things Universities teach, but it doesn't mean they condemn them as heresy.

10 hours ago, Calm said:

Evolution, if the source of the variety of life on Earth, is God's tool, not independent of him.

Evolution is a blind watchmaker, I don't see how the theory of Evolution is God's tool. You believe both in animal and human evolution for millions of years?  

Universities also teach the motion of the planets has a natural explanation, but the Book of Mormon teaches "The scriptures are laid before thee, yea, and all things denote there is a God; yea, even the earth, and all things that are upon the face of it, yea, and its motion, yea, and also all the planets which move in their regular form do witness that there is a Supreme Creator."  

Edited August 27, 2017 by SamuelTheLamanite

[Robert F. Smith]

5 hours ago, katherine the great said:

Um. That's not true. Remember when Sarah Palin made that off the cuff remark about how stupid fruit fly research is? That was a wake up call to me about how incredibly ignorant many of the leaders of my own political party were regarding science. Fruit flies have a very short life cycle which make them ideal for doing exactly what you just stated cannot be done. They not only have modeled evolution for us in real time (observing the change in allele frequencies over time) but there have actually been speciation events observed.

So often one hears of such claims, but it is usually not actual speciation, but simply in-species adaptation.  Natural selection is proven and certainly takes place within species.  Making the jump to a completely new species is another matter.  Normally what we really end up with is greater diversity among members of the same species who can interbreed -- just as we do with canines.    However, I'd love to be shown that I am wrong, since it does make perfectly good sense to me logically.

Edited August 27, 2017 by Robert F. Smith

[SamuelTheLamanite]

2 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

BYU is wholly owned by the LDS Church, and the Board of Trustees governing it is composed of LDS general authorities.  Biological evolution is taught at BYU because the LDS Church (unlike you) does not take any position on that theory.  That fact does not oppose the teaching of no death before the Fall, as Kevin Christensen points out to us.

Manuals, General Conference, scriptures teach there was no death before the Fall, I don't see how Evolution works without it. 

Yes the church has no official position on Evolution and many others things. I am open to the idea of Fast Evolution happening after the Fall. , but it is not science.  It is called Baraminology. 

2 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

You are equivocating the same way evangelical fundamentalists do through special pleading, as though to say that God allows nature to lie to us.  Why would He do that?  You are also suggesting that this or that general authority is better that some other general authority, thus taking sides in internal disputes among them -

Notice I am only quoting General Authorities teachings from modern General Conference, not their private journals or books. I do believe modern General Conference and church manuals are inspired.  

Why would God do that? Faith, the same reason why God told Abraham to sacrifice his Son, in the end we know it was just a test. 

Edited August 27, 2017 by SamuelTheLamanite

[thesometimesaint]

21 hours ago, SamuelTheLamanite said:

2 Ne 2:22: "And now, behold, if Adam had not transgressed he would not have fallen, but he would have remained in the garden of Eden. And all things which were created must have remained in the same state in which they were after they were created; and they must have remained forever, and had no end."  

Thank goodness we have modern prophets that interpret our scriptures. We all know D&C 89:9 needed interpretation, we also have interpretation for 2 Ne 2:22.  In General Conference Elder Nelson taught, "The creation of a paradisiacal planet came from God. Mortality and death came into the world through the Fall of Adam" and again in General Conference Elder McConkie taught, "True believers know that this earth and man and all forms of life were created in an Edenic, or paradisiacal, state in which there was no mortality, no procreation, no death"   

I don't believe God is a God of confusion, I do believe General Authorities act as prophets during General Conference, a time when millions of faithful latter day saints are listening. Nothing taught by other General Authorities in General Conference contradicts the teaching that there was no death before the Fall.  Elder Hales taught, "These conferences are always under the direction of the Lord, guided by His Spirit. We are not assigned specific topics. Over weeks and months, often through sleepless nights, we wait upon the Lord. Through fasting, praying, studying, and pondering, we learn the message that He wants us to give" 

Lastly, I know our world appears to be old and the fossil record tells a story of millions of years of Evolution, but Elder Eyring taught, "The truth that matters most is verified only by revelation from God. Our human reason and the use of our physical senses will not be enough...The Lord taught His Apostle Thomas, who wanted physical evidence of the Savior’s Resurrection by touching His wounds, that revelation is safer evidence"      

Science doesn't care about what you or Bruce R. McConkie believes.

SEE

 

[CV75]

22 hours ago, SamuelTheLamanite said:

2 Ne 2:22: "And now, behold, if Adam had not transgressed he would not have fallen, but he would have remained in the garden of Eden. And all things which were created must have remained in the same state in which they were after they were created; and they must have remained forever, and had no end."  

Thank goodness we have modern prophets that interpret our scriptures. We all know D&C 89:9 needed interpretation, we also have interpretation for 2 Ne 2:22.  In General Conference Elder Nelson taught, "The creation of a paradisiacal planet came from God. Mortality and death came into the world through the Fall of Adam" and again in General Conference Elder McConkie taught, "True believers know that this earth and man and all forms of life were created in an Edenic, or paradisiacal, state in which there was no mortality, no procreation, no death"   

I don't believe God is a God of confusion, I do believe General Authorities act as prophets during General Conference, a time when millions of faithful latter day saints are listening. Nothing taught by other General Authorities in General Conference contradicts the teaching that there was no death before the Fall.  Elder Hales taught, "These conferences are always under the direction of the Lord, guided by His Spirit. We are not assigned specific topics. Over weeks and months, often through sleepless nights, we wait upon the Lord. Through fasting, praying, studying, and pondering, we learn the message that He wants us to give" 

Lastly, I know our world appears to be old and the fossil record tells a story of millions of years of Evolution, but Elder Eyring taught, "The truth that matters most is verified only by revelation from God. Our human reason and the use of our physical senses will not be enough...The Lord taught His Apostle Thomas, who wanted physical evidence of the Savior’s Resurrection by touching His wounds, that revelation is safer evidence"      

Of course there was no death before the Fall.

But let's say with the Fall (the abandonment of a terrestrial law), Adam’s dominion had to be transitioned into, or re-created, according to a telestial law. Just as the pre-mortal spirit realm served as a template for Eden, Eden served as a template for the rest to come, including Earth which is a template for things to come.

Let’s say the transition wasn’t accomplished by evolution as we understand it scientifically. But once things were ready after some 14 billion years (or 4.5 billion years, however you want to look at it) Adam was given his reckoning according to his now-telesial dominion, in other words the 7,000 years of this telestial world’s continuance or temporal existence. The Lord gave him this in the first dispensation some 6,000 years ago, as the scriptures attest. Nature took her time up to that point, as the cosmic and geological records attest.

[SamuelTheLamanite]

1 hour ago, thesometimesaint said:

Science doesn't care about what you or Bruce R. McConkie believes.

True. Do you believe General Conference talks are inspired by God? Let me quote Elder Hales one more time, "These conferences are always under the direction of the Lord, guided by His Spirit. We are not assigned specific topics. Over weeks and months, often through sleepless nights, we wait upon the Lord. Through fasting, praying, studying, and pondering, we learn the message that He wants us to give"

The apostles are very careful not to teach false doctrine. In at least two occasions No Death before the Fall is taught in General Conference, if not more. You have at least  two witnesses, plus church manuals. Can't the apostles tell the difference between revelation and their personal opinion? 

3 hours ago, Bob Crockett said:

I don't believe this is an accurate analysis -- ""No death before the fall refers to the garden."  I base my conclusion on Jack Welch's analysis of B.H. Roberts' TWL manuscript.    I think it has been widely held by LDS general authorities that the phrase "no death before the fall" meant death on this planet, and not some limited geographic area, at least widely held at the time of the Talmage - Smith debates.   Basically silence since then from the Church. 

Thank You! 

3 hours ago, Bob Crockett said:

I was an advocate of biological evolution.  It is taught enthusiastically in BYU courses.   Then, a noted LDS apologist and fellow graduate of my law school asked me to read a book by a microbiologist.  This microbiologist was not LDS, nor writing on Biblical grounds, but pointed out many of the flaws of evolutionary biology and how it ran contrary to standard methodological proofs.   Now I don't know what to think.   It doesn't really concern one way or the other.

I don't think Evolution has significant flaws, God simply made it appear to be true.    

[SamuelTheLamanite]

4 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

  You are also suggesting that this or that general authority is better that some other general authority, thus taking sides in internal disputes among them 

Do you believe the church is very careful in General Conference? do you believe General Authorities seek inspiration and revelation during General Conference?  Do you believe what Elder Hales told us? Do you believe church manuals are inspired? 

9 minutes ago, CV75 said:

Nature took her time up to that point, as the cosmic and geological records attest.

Book of Mormon teaches, "The scriptures are laid before thee, yea, and all things denote there is a God; yea, even the earth, and all things that are upon the face of it, yea, and its motion, yea, and also all the planets which move in their regular form do witness that there is a Supreme Creator."  

Scientists have a naturalistic explanation for the motion of the planets, an explanation that doesn't need God.  I believe what Elder Eyring taught, "revelation is safer evidence" 

[CV75]

18 minutes ago, SamuelTheLamanite said:

Book of Mormon teaches, "The scriptures are laid before thee, yea, and all things denote there is a God; yea, even the earth, and all things that are upon the face of it, yea, and its motion, yea, and also all the planets which move in their regular form do witness that there is a Supreme Creator."  

Scientists have a naturalistic explanation for the motion of the planets, an explanation that doesn't need God.  I believe what Elder Eyring taught, "revelation is safer evidence" 

I don't see how this addresses anything I posted. This scripture is about God's conspicuousness, not His laws of planetary motion (neither of which I brought up). But naturalistic (fallen) explanations are to be expected for naturalistic (fallen) processes, are they not? "Natural" is not always uninspired, erroneous or evil (Moses 3:9, 2 Timothy 3:3, Jacob 5, 1 Nephi 19:12).

Edited August 27, 2017 by CV75

[SamuelTheLamanite]

never mind 

Edited August 27, 2017 by SamuelTheLamanite

[thesometimesaint]

Yes I believe Conference talks are inspired by  God. But not every thing said in them is inspired by God correct. IE; Joseph F. Smith believed men would never be in space or on the moon. He was wrong, and even admitted it later.

While Prophets of old were inspired by God, not everything in the Bible is inspired by him correct. Pi isn't the whole round numeral 3. I believe Beethoven was inspired by God to write his beautiful music, but not everything Beethoven ever said was correct.

Edited August 27, 2017 by thesometimesaint

[SamuelTheLamanite]

3 minutes ago, thesometimesaint said:

 Joseph F. Smith believed men would never be ins space or on the moon. He was wrong, and even admitted it later.

He said that in General conference? Was that teaching included in church manuals?  

3 minutes ago, thesometimesaint said:

Yes I believe Conference talks are inspired by  God. But not every thing said in them is inspired by God correct. 

I will quote Elder Hales one last time, he said about modern general conferences. "These conferences are always under the direction of the Lord, guided by His Spirit. We are not assigned specific topics. Over weeks and months, often through sleepless nights, we wait upon the Lord. Through fasting, praying, studying, and pondering, we learn the message that He wants us to give"

Edited August 27, 2017 by SamuelTheLamanite

[thesometimesaint]

Red Herring.

[katherine the great]

3 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

So often one hears of such claims, but it is usually not actual speciation, but simply in-species adaptation.  Natural selection is proven and certainly takes place within species.  Making the jump to a completely new species is another matter.  Normally what we really end up with is greater diversity among members of the same species who can interbreed -- just as we do with canines.    However, I'd love to be shown that I am wrong, since it does make perfectly good sense to me logically -- despite the law of entropy.

I'm sorry but you are just incorrect. We have observed speciation in fruit flies. I'm amazed that so many people can accept microevolution and natural selection and then just irrationally reject macroevolution. One leads to the other. There is no mechanism to stop that from occurring given enough time, environmental change and isolation. It is the natural and inevitable result of continued microevolutionary processes. The fact that you brought up entropy tells me that you've already shut off your mind on the topic. The biosphere is not a closed system (but brains can be).

[CV75]

1 hour ago, SamuelTheLamanite said:

I don't think Evolution has significant flaws, God simply made it appear to be true.    

What did God simply make appear to be true in Abraham's day?

[Robert F. Smith]

3 hours ago, SamuelTheLamanite said:

Manuals, General Conference, scriptures teach there was no death before the Fall, I don't see how Evolution works without it. 

Yes the church has no official position on Evolution and many others things. I am open to the idea of Fast Evolution happening after the Fall. , but it is not science.  It is called Baraminology. 

Just to be clear: I believe in transmission, not in special creation or biological evolution.

3 hours ago, SamuelTheLamanite said:

Notice I am only quoting General Authorities teachings from modern General Conference, not their private journals or books. I do believe modern General Conference and church manuals are inspired.  

So you are a modernist?  All old LDS Conferences are now passe and to be ignored?

3 hours ago, SamuelTheLamanite said:

Why would God do that? Faith, the same reason why God told Abraham to sacrifice his Son, in the end we know it was just a test. 

This is a test, it is only a test.  If it were the real thing what would we do?

[Robert F. Smith]

8 minutes ago, katherine the great said:

I'm sorry but you are just incorrect. We have observed speciation in fruit flies. I'm amazed that so many people can accept microevolution and natural selection and then just irrationally reject macroevolution. One leads to the other. There is no mechanism to stop that from occurring given enough time, environmental change and isolation. It is the natural and inevitable result of continued microevolutionary processes. The fact that you brought up entropy tells me that you've already shut off your mind on the topic. The biosphere is not a closed system (but brains can be).

I just edited to eliminate "entropy."  My mind is reopened and awaiting actual proof from microbiology.  Speciation is not based on additive logic (incremental within species adaptation), and must be based on actual genetic results with real transitional forms.  Not word magic.

As for enough time, environmental change, and isolation, we only need the latter two according to Gould & Eldredge (punctuated equilibria).  According to them, evolution takes place very quickly, which is why there are no transitional fossils.

[Robert F. Smith]

2 hours ago, SamuelTheLamanite said:

Do you believe the church is very careful in General Conference? do you believe General Authorities seek inspiration and revelation during General Conference?  Do you believe what Elder Hales told us? Do you believe church manuals are inspired? 

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

The LDS Church is not to be personified.  That is a fallacy.  What happens at Conference time is that various speakers provide us with food for thought.  Their remarks may be inspired or not, and we can only tell that via the testimony to us of the Holy Spirit.  LDS manuals are carefully written by selected scholars, and approved of by the Brethren.  They are not Scripture, and do not have canonical status.  I always like to use the example of the 1957 Melchizedek Priesthood Manual written by Hugh Nibley.  Was it inspired?  Did it have canonical status?  Or was it simply a carefully thought-out study of the Book of Mormon?  In fact, manuals come and go.  They don't even agree with one another on some issues. They are merely the best available information at the time of publication.

[SamuelTheLamanite]

24 minutes ago, CV75 said:

What did God simply make appear to be true in Abraham's day?

God made Abraham think that he needed to sacrifice his son, but in the end it was just a test.   

31 minutes ago, katherine the great said:

I'm sorry but you are just incorrect. We have observed speciation in fruit flies. I'm amazed that so many people can accept microevolution and natural selection and then just irrationally reject macroevolution. One leads to the other. There is no mechanism to stop that from occurring given enough time, environmental change and isolation. It is the natural and inevitable result of continued microevolutionary processes. The fact that you brought up entropy tells me that you've already shut off your mind on the topic. The biosphere is not a closed system (but brains can be).

In Exodus 7:8-12 God didn't use Evolution to create serpents. 

28 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said:

So you are a modernist?  All old LDS Conferences are now passe and to be ignored?

Old Conferences are important too, but church leaders are now much more careful,  Elder Hales explains.

29 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said:

This is a test, it is only a test.  If it were the real thing what would we do?

Wait for revelation. Nothing in General Conference, scriptures, and church manuals points to an old earth with millions of years of evolution. 

1 hour ago, thesometimesaint said:

Red Herring.

Give me General conference talks that say death existed for millions of years.  

[Freedom]

13 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said:

I just edited to eliminate "entropy."  My mind is reopened and awaiting actual proof from microbiology.  Speciation is not based on additive logic (incremental within species adaptation), and must be based on actual genetic results with real transitional forms.  Not word magic.

As for enough time, environmental change, and isolation, we only need the latter two according to Gould & Eldredge (punctuated equilibria).  According to them, evolution takes place very quickly, which is why there are no transitional fossils.

What exactly are you expecting to see in the form of a transitional fossil? It is not like you have a duck, then a dog and then a man. The fossil record is full of transitions over millions of years. The change is very gradual. A thicker fir, then longer limbs, then a change in diet, and eventually an inability to reproduce with another from a common ancestor. And yes, there are examples today even among birds and monkeys. The issue is that species is such a misleading term. People hear species and they think horse versus cow. 

http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/lines_03

https://www.livescience.com/3306-fossils-reveal-truth-darwin-theory.html