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

[thesometimesaint]

On 8/27/2017 at 7:37 AM, Robert F. Smith said:

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.

That is not true.

SEE https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn14094-bacteria-make-major-evolutionary-shift-in-the-lab/

Transitional forms.

SEE http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/List_of_transitional_forms

People evolved.

SEE https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JVRsWAjvQSg

 

[hope_for_things]

15 hours ago, SamuelTheLamanite said:

So when is a teaching inspired? I quoted three conferences for No Death. If No Death isn't inspired how can we know the Flood, the tower of Babylon, Jonah and the Fish, historical book of Mormon,  Adam the first human,  and many others teachings are inspired?  If No Death isn't inspired then our general conferences may be full of mistakes.  I understand mistakes can and do happen, but the same mistake three or more times?  

Please tell me your method of knowing truth 

I'm just jumping in to add my two cents.  Religiously speaking I think we individually must be the judge about whether something is inspired or not, and I think the Alma 32 method of whether it produces fruit is the primary mechanism for judgment.  I think its also important to recognize that what bears fruit for me personally, might be poisonous for someone else.  I have an allergy to peanuts that is life threatening, yet for most others peanuts are perfectly good food.  In other words, my subjective truth is different from your subjective truth. 

So essentially what a church leader says might be true for one person, but false for someone else.  For that first person, the truth was inspired.  For the other person, it wasn't.  Inspiration is subjective.  

[CV75]

2 hours ago, clarkgoble said:

The alternative interpretation is that the terrestrial world Adam and Eve were in simply was a different world that they were cast out of. Thus instead of Eden falling it was just Adam and Eve falling. There are compelling reasons to believe that I should add. The Moses version of the fall seems to suggest Eden was still there and still paradisiacal. The main reason no death before the fall people give for their belief tends to be 2 Nephi 2:22. However even that verse depends upon "all things which were created must have remained in the same state." But it's explicitly talking about Adam and Eve and there's nothing explicit about birds only experiencing death because of the fall. Indeed that makes little sense if Eden still exists. Further again it's Adam and Eve who sin and are cast out. Why punish the birds in Eden for Adam's sin?

Now I recognize those defending NDBF tend to do so because of what 20th century GAs said. However none of those GAs claimed a revelation to the Church on the subject but were giving their interpretation (largely based upon that verse). It's quite a theology to build based upon one at best ambiguous verse. Especially when there aren't other scriptures to point to.

Certainly as the "home base," Eden could continue in a terrestrial condition after Adam and Eve exited. This would mean that anything remaining there of "all things which were created must [remain] in the same state in which they were after they were created; and they must have remained forever, and had no end." Not sure what the Lord's plan would eventually be for them. On one hand as the steward-ees, they would fall also just as a farmer's crops would fail along with him due to his decisions on husbandry. On the other hand, Adam's dominion could span both the terrestrial and telestial realms until he is relieved of all or part of either or both. If his dominion was the garden only (it being a subset of Eden), then that would be reflected in this world by whatever subset he was given of this Earth to steward, leaving it open for many kinds of life to fall outside that stewardship.

I've mentioned on occasion that if "all things" refers strictly to "all things" that constitute the two people Adam and Eve, and so all things that constitute the children of God in the flesh, this would allow that all other creations are actually extensions of Adam and Eve and their posterity, or the children of God, making the Earth a gigantic symbiotic organism with the children of God at the masters of its destiny, and this is what defines humanity as a god/someday-God. For example, without the incredible integration of microbes into the human system we might not even be human; the same for our integration with all forms of life and life-supporting elements.

With this in mind, the transition into the Fall would simply be a telestial read of the terrestrial template following lesser laws without Eden having to be destroyed, and it could remain as the home base perhaps for a new pair of stewards. The Fall still preceded any death in this cosmos/world, and hopefully those life forms remaining in paradise could proceed and fulfill the measure of a telestial creation but "whatever"! Maybe they were translated life forms, already having had a mortality and then performing a particular function while they await a full resurrection into a celestial kingdom. Maybe Eden is a "millennial earth" of a prior, graduating generation of God's children, and the garden a terrestrial compound within it. Lots of possibilities, for sure.

I don't know which particular scriptures "no death before the Fall" originates from, but if the Lord's Atonement offsets death and the atonement wasn't realized until after the Fall, that gives an indication of when death became something to contend with in the flesh. While His Atonement was prepared from the foundation of the world in anticipation of death, and served as an object of faith for the spirit children, it could not be realized in the flesh until after death came about. And if death was operable in a separate place before and without the Fall, then by Adam death did not come (Moses 6:48; 1 Corinthians 15, especially verses 21-22 and 45-49).

[clarkgoble]

1 hour ago, CV75 said:

I don't know which particular scriptures "no death before the Fall" originates from, but if the Lord's Atonement offsets death and the atonement wasn't realized until after the Fall, that gives an indication of when death became something to contend with in the flesh. While His Atonement was prepared from the foundation of the world in anticipation of death, and served as an object of faith for the spirit children, it could not be realized in the flesh until after death came about. And if death was operable in a separate place before and without the Fall, then by Adam death did not come (Moses 6:48; 1 Corinthians 15, especially verses 21-22 and 45-49).

I think the argument is that it only applies to Adam and Eve and their descendents. Most theologies follow the King Follet Discourse which has there being creations prior to this one. But Adam, Even and Jesus only apply to this creation. So it can't relate to death in some extremely broad sense. Jesus was not the savior of God the Father.

[Robert F. Smith]

2 hours ago, thesometimesaint said:

That is not true.

SEE https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn14094-bacteria-make-major-evolutionary-shift-in-the-lab/

Transitional forms.

SEE http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/List_of_transitional_forms 

Thank you.  Excellent material and good science, which I recommend to anyone interested in the subject.  Since I am not a creationist, I have no problem with any of it.

2 hours ago, thesometimesaint said:

People evolved.

SEE https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JVRsWAjvQSg 

Thanks for that also.  I like one of the anonymous comments there in particular:

Quote

Nearly all highly educated Christians accept theistic evolution. Ken Miller and Francis Collins are well known experts on the subject, who try to educate theists about the evidence. Francis Collins was the head of the Human Genome project and is a devout born again Christian who accepts and understand the evidence for evolution. If anyone is skeptical of evolution for religious reasons, I'd recommend his book the Language of God. I'd also mention that the Catholic Church accepts theistic evolution, as does the Pontifical Academy of Science. It's the only scientific theory that unites the evidence from the following fields of science: paleontology, paleobiology, geology, anthropology, biology, microbiology, genetics, biochemistry, archeology, entomology, plate tectonics, astronomy, and cosmology. As an atheist, I'd much rather Christians learn and understand the evidence, rather than remain ignorant of the subject because of theological reasons.

However, since we humans use CRISPR, and since any sufficiently advanced species could do so, the notion of intelligent design is not only true in theory, but it is a fact operative in the lab.

[Robert F. Smith]

6 hours ago, Bob Crockett said:

I wish I could.  When I turned 60 I boxed up all my church books, deciding I needed to focus on something else.  Maybe I'll find it in the next few days.

I already gave the citation to  him.

[cinepro]

21 hours ago, RevTestament said:

But not spiritual death. The law brought spiritual death - first seal. Read Paul if you aren't familiar.

Without spiritual death, and the fall, all things would have to continue as they were created - without progression - like in heaven.

Who was talking about spiritual death?  The presence of physical death during the evolutionary process is more than enough to make a hash of the doctrines regarding Adam's fall and its effects on the world.

[SamuelTheLamanite]

8 hours ago, CV75 said:

We have no corresponding appearance that God wants us to believe in evolution, and there are no revelations to do so. We have scientists who believe in it and for this reason so many saints do, and God hasn't commanded one way or another. He has inspired His servants to teach that it can certainly be a dangerous doctrine in the wrong hands and when wicked assumptions and beliefs are attached to it, but that goes for the Atonement of Christ as well (note the Egyptian priests). We are counseled not to obey or follow false beliefs, or blindly obey and follow any belief.

God wants us to believe his prophets, not the world.  At least three general conferences talks teach No Death, and one is confirmed by Gordon B Hinckley as inspired. I understand that mistakes happen, but the same mistake three times? Is No Human Death, historical Book of Mormon, the great Flood, the Tower of Babel, Jonah and the Fish, and many other teachings also wrong? Science teaches two million years of human evolution,  but in General Conference we learn the contrary. Science says a Great Flood was impossible, General Conference teaches the contrary. 

So, in your opinion how many times are the apostles in General Conference wrong? Are most General Conference teachings wrong? If not, how do you know? 

If we can't trust General Conference on many topics, then why even bother listening to it? 

Edited August 28, 2017 by SamuelTheLamanite

[SamuelTheLamanite]

3 hours ago, thesometimesaint said:

People evolved

We can find many General Conference teachings that disagree.  I don't believe General Conference is a waste of time. 

If our prophets are wrong on that, then how do you know they are not wrong on almost everything?  

[SamuelTheLamanite]

14 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

Sola Scriptura?  How very evangelical fundamentalist.

The scriptures says "In the mouth of two or three witnesses shall every word be established". Like I keep asking everyone here, if Science is right about millions of years of death before the fall, Human evolution, No great flood, no historical Book of Mormon, then you open to the door to the possibility that almost everything taught in General Conference is a mistake.  I don't see how the Lord can allow his prophets to teach the same non-doctrines for many years. I don't think he does. 

14 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

You need to read more carefully.  You completely misunderstood those manuals and LDS theology.

Does the manual talk about an old earth with millions of years of Evolution? 

I understand it is possible that creation took a very long time, but it doesn't mean there was death. 

Edited August 28, 2017 by SamuelTheLamanite

[RevTestament]

1 hour ago, cinepro said:

Who was talking about spiritual death?  The presence of physical death during the evolutionary process is more than enough to make a hash of the doctrines regarding Adam's fall and its effects on the world.

You seem to be avoiding my point. 

"The presence of physical death" - only if you interpret death as physical. I am merely pointing out, that it is consistent with spiritual death. Just because the Church has traditionally interpreted as physical death, doesn't make it so. Just about everything having to do with the fall is spiritual. Why should I believe the death is not? Why should I believe it can only be talking about physical death? Let me put it this way. Do you agree that spiritual death occurred at the fall?

[CV75]

1 hour ago, clarkgoble said:

I think the argument is that it only applies to Adam and Eve and their descendents. Most theologies follow the King Follet Discourse which has there being creations prior to this one. But Adam, Even and Jesus only apply to this creation. So it can't relate to death in some extremely broad sense. Jesus was not the savior of God the Father.

To me, this further indicates that the Atonement prepared from before the foundation of the world anticipated a death that would be brought into the world by Adam through his Fall (in line with Moses and 1 Corinthians).

If the "world" and this "earth" refer only to the 7,000 year "generation" beginning with our scriptural Adam, many such generations could have preceded ours, which would allow that our own Father Adam's paradisaical / terrestrial creation was precipitated by another previous generation's Adam whose fallen world and mortal offspring eventually became terrestrial (a millennium) and parented our Adam and Eve, who resumed the same pattern of terrestrial creation-fall-telestial creation in the next generation of "world." So "no death before the fall" still seems to be a valid doctrine, no matter what processes took place between an Adam's Fall and his arrival in his "world."

Edited August 28, 2017 by CV75

[Bob Crockett]

1 hour ago, Robert F. Smith said:

I already gave the citation to  him.

Thanks.  A well-known KSL host gave it to me.  I can't necessarily vouch for it, but it turned me into an agnostic over evolution.

Edited August 28, 2017 by Bob Crockett

[clarkgoble]

1 hour ago, CV75 said:

To me, this further indicates that the Atonement prepared from before the foundation of the world anticipated a death that would be brought into the world by Adam through his Fall (in line with Moses and 1 Corinthians).

If the "world" and this "earth" refer only to the 7,000 year "generation" beginning with our scriptural Adam, many such generations could have preceded ours, which would allow that our own Father Adam's paradisaical / terrestrial creation was precipitated by another previous generation's Adam whose fallen world and mortal offspring eventually became terrestrial (a millennium) and parented our Adam and Eve, who resumed the same pattern of terrestrial creation-fall-telestial creation in the next generation of "world." So "no death before the fall" still seems to be a valid doctrine, no matter what processes took place between an Adam's Fall and his arrival in his "world."

I don't think that follows logically. The 7000 years refers to the period where there was history starting with Adam. I don't think anything has been revealed beyond that. Some who accept pre-Adamites assume that at some point they became sons of Adam by adoption even if they lived prior to "history" in the sense used by the scriptures. Others think Adam and Eve actually fell prior to that 7000 year period but history only goes back to 7000 years.

For my own view I think there's so little data it's not even worth speculating. I just find problematic the idea that everyone on the earth was solely descended from an Adam and Eve 7000 years ago. That's just not possible to reconcile to the evidence.

Edited August 28, 2017 by clarkgoble

[Robert F. Smith]

1 hour ago, SamuelTheLamanite said:

The scriptures says "In the mouth of two or three witnesses shall every word be established". Like I keep asking everyone here, if Science is right about millions of years of death before the fall, Human evolution, No great flood, no historical Book of Mormon, then you open to the door to the possibility that almost everything taught in General Conference is a mistake.  I don't see how the Lord can allow his prophets to teach the same non-doctrines for many years. I don't think he does. 

Does the manual talk about an old earth with millions of years of Evolution? 

I understand it is possible that creation took a very long time, but it doesn't mean there was death. 

You are thinking in very narrow, protestant evangelical fundamentalist terms, and so have no hope of understanding the issues.  Thus, you end up rejecting the views of Joseph Smith, Brigham Young, James Talmage, John Widtsoe, David O. McKay, and  others, and have drawn absurd conclusions about what all that possibly means.  A little self-restraint would help you a lot.  Your absolutism is astonishing and completely inappropriate.

[SamuelTheLamanite]

13 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said:

You are thinking in very narrow, protestant evangelical fundamentalist terms, and so have no hope of understanding the issues.  Thus, you end up rejecting the views of Joseph Smith, Brigham Young, James Talmage, John Widtsoe, David O. McKay, and  others, and have drawn absurd conclusions about what all that possibly means.  A little self-restraint would help you a lot.  Your absolutism is astonishing and completely inappropriate.

I don't reject the views of Smith, Young. I have no reason to believe in the personal views of Talmage, Widtsoe, and Mckay because they never taught them in General Conference, and I don't find their views in church manuals. Talmage, Witsoe, and Mckay were humans too. 

13 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said:

You are thinking in very narrow, protestant evangelical fundamentalist terms, and so have no hope of understanding the issues.  

Please help me understand. If Hales, Eyring, Romney, and others were wrong about No Death in General Conference, then how can General Conference be useful? How would we know General Conference is not full of errors? How would we know General Authorities are not wrong about everything? Do you realize you open the door to that possibility? If you are right I honestly don't see how General Conference would be a reliable source.  

13 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said:

 Your absolutism is astonishing and completely inappropriate.

Science teaches human death and evolution for 2 millions years, the church teaches Adam was the first flesh. Who would I believe? 

God's church is suppose to teach truth, otherwise we wouldn't need a church. What is the church and general conference for? 

Edited August 28, 2017 by SamuelTheLamanite

[katherine the great]

9 hours ago, snowflake said:

What's your take on the "Cambrian Explosion", where all of the major structural and differing species seem to appear out of nothing very rapidly without a common ancestor. The mechanisms (natural selection and genetic mutation) seem woefully inadequate to explain this specific event.  

Very good question. Unfortunately you are talking about very deep time and it is beyond my area of expertise (which begins approximately 65 mya). There are so many strange forms that are just too unfamiliar to me to even begin to try to create any kind of a cladogram for those organisms. We also need to know about the physical environment to understand the forces that drove the Cambrian explosion and I'm just not familiar enough with it to even give an educated guess.

[cinepro]

2 hours ago, RevTestament said:

You seem to be avoiding my point. 

"The presence of physical death" - only if you interpret death as physical. I am merely pointing out, that it is consistent with spiritual death. Just because the Church has traditionally interpreted as physical death, doesn't make it so. Just about everything having to do with the fall is spiritual. Why should I believe the death is not? Why should I believe it can only be talking about physical death? Let me put it this way. Do you agree that spiritual death occurred at the fall?

I'm really not sure there ever was a "fall" to begin with.  

It's not about what I believe.  It's about what the scriptures and the Church teach as doctrine.

That's great if you don't believe what the Church teaches.  That means we agree.  If you want to try and frame it in such a way that you can still feel like you do agree with the doctrine, that's up to you.  I don't really feel that compulsion at this point.

 

 

 

 

[cinepro]

2 hours ago, SamuelTheLamanite said:

We can find many General Conference teachings that disagree.  I don't believe General Conference is a waste of time. 

If our prophets are wrong on that, then how do you know they are not wrong on almost everything?  

The surprising thing isn't that LDS believe the Prophets (and other Church leaders) are right about some stuff and wrong about some stuff.

The surprising thing is that they think it just happens to exactly mirror the stuff they do and don't agree with.  

What are the odds that every time a Prophet has stood in Conference and said something that I disagree with, they were just expressing fallible, mistaken opinions?  But every time a Prophet or Church leader has taught something I agree with, they are expressing the will of God and I know it is true.

 

[SamuelTheLamanite]

15 minutes ago, cinepro said:

I'm really not sure there ever was a "fall" to begin with.  

It's not about what I believe.  It's about what the scriptures and the Church teach as doctrine.

Yes, thanks cinepro. So we have scriptures, many General Conference talks, church manuals, and Gospel Topics "The Fall of Adam brought physical death into the world (see Moses 6:48)."  "into the world" contradicts the idea that "No Death" only applies to the garden.  

Edited August 29, 2017 by SamuelTheLamanite

[Robert F. Smith]

2 hours ago, SamuelTheLamanite said:

I don't reject the views of Smith, Young. I have no reason to believe in the personal views of Talmage, Widtsoe, and Mckay because they never taught them in General Conference, and I don't find their views in church manuals. Talmage, Witsoe, and Mckay were humans too. 

Please help me understand. If Hales, Eyring, Romney, and others were wrong about No Death in General Conference, then how can General Conference be useful? How would we know General Conference is not full of errors? How would we know General Authorities are not wrong about everything? Do you realize you open the door to that possibility? If you are right I honestly don't see how General Conference would be a reliable source.  

We are all humans, Sam, and the fact that you haven't been able to get past that elementary fact is part of the problem.  That and your false notions about the august nature of modern but not older LDS conferences is an additional hurdle which you are unable to overcome.  Then you compound that error by making your own misunderstandings about comments made by the Brethren at conferences the measure of all other possibly related points of doctrine.  Many of the fallacies you employ in doing so are hasty generalizations and strawman conclusions not in any way justified by the actual comments made by the Brethren.  I see that sort of illogic thrown around regularly in anti-Mormon literature by well-meaning protestant evangelical fundamentalists, so fully expect it from them.  I don't see that sort of narrow and superficial thinking very often on this board, but it does come occasionally from a greenie who just hasn't had much time to think seriously about such matters.

Of course I fully expect anti-Mormons to claim that LDS conferences are chock full of errors, that the Brethren are wrong about everything, and that therefore conferences cannot be reliable sources for anything.  That is part and parcel of their infallible and absolutist approach to religion and the Bible generally.  They dig a pit and then fall into it.

2 hours ago, SamuelTheLamanite said:

Science teaches human death and evolution for 2 millions years, the church teaches Adam was the first flesh. Who would I believe? 

God's church is suppose to teach truth, otherwise we wouldn't need a church. What is the church and general conference for? 

It might be helpful if you knew what LDS doctrine is, as well as what science is, but I have seen no evidence that you understand either of those things, Sam.  If you read and study widely during the next couple years, you can probably overcome some of those deficits, but it won't happen overnite.  Patience, humility, and effort are called for.

[sunstoned]

On 8/26/2017 at 6:39 PM, SamuelTheLamanite said:

There are many teachings in the Journal of Discourses volumes that we don't believe. It is possible that Satan with his power changed some passages,  D&C section 10 tells us that it can happen. 

I'm sure that Satan could change some of the passages.  Probably just the ones that contradict the pet theories you believe in.

[SamuelTheLamanite]

23 minutes ago, sunstoned said:

I'm sure that Satan could change some of the passages.  Probably just the ones that contradict the pet theories you believe in.

The No Death "pet theory" is found in the scriptures, general conference talks, church manuals, and LDS Gospel Topics.   

23 minutes ago, sunstoned said:

I'm sure that Satan could change some of the passages.  

We all disagree with some teachings in the Journal of discourses

Edited August 29, 2017 by SamuelTheLamanite

[RevTestament]

7 hours ago, cinepro said:

I'm really not sure there ever was a "fall" to begin with.  

It's not about what I believe.  It's about what the scriptures and the Church teach as doctrine.

That's great if you don't believe what the Church teaches.  That means we agree.  If you want to try and frame it in such a way that you can still feel like you do agree with the doctrine, that's up to you.  I don't really feel that compulsion at this point.

I'm not so much concerned with doctrine as with what scripture says. If you want to show how my position that spiritual death is referenced is not scriptural, by all means...

[CV75]

14 hours ago, clarkgoble said:

I don't think that follows logically. The 7000 years refers to the period where there was history starting with Adam. I don't think anything has been revealed beyond that. Some who accept pre-Adamites assume that at some point they became sons of Adam by adoption even if they lived prior to "history" in the sense used by the scriptures. Others think Adam and Eve actually fell prior to that 7000 year period but history only goes back to 7000 years.

For my own view I think there's so little data it's not even worth speculating. I just find problematic the idea that everyone on the earth was solely descended from an Adam and Eve 7000 years ago. That's just not possible to reconcile to the evidence.

Well, there are many kinds of logic!

The scriptures do use Adam’s reckoning, which evidently began 6,000 years ago, assuming that is when the Gods appointed unto Adam his reckoning. But They could also have appointed unto Adam his reckoning billions of years before that and introduced Earth’s 7,000-year “work and glory” timeline once he became telestial; neither is clearly revealed.

If we are going to view scriptural accounts as a form of written history in the same way that we attempt to reconcile science with religion, it is well to view historical and scientific data as only half the input (and what are religious data, but symbols that are more figurative than measurable ones?). Sometimes it’s more practical to compartmentalize science and religion (each a set of independent truths operating in their own sphere); but then again, spiritual purification drives us to see these truths as part of a whole in the same way that spirit and element are connected (D&C 131:7-8).

I was focusing on “no death before the fall” and how that could still be the case considering our cosmic and geological evidence. As far as the descendants of Adam and Eve from their arrival 6,000 years ago, there must be some of us still around! As far as people living on Earth before that, they also could have been the children of Adam and Eve brought forth during one of many periodic telestial sojourns, after which they returned to Eden until they finally made Earth their permanent home 6,000 years ago. As far as those people / hominids not looking like us, many factors could contribute to that – anything from genetic processes other than Adam and Eve’s procreation to their bonafide, natural children being subject to curses, environment, and microbes, the last being my latest kick (see Alma 37: 6, 7!). There is also the consideration that the entire planet is one organism with Adam and Eve designated as the governing principal members (in other words, our identity is that of a planet, individually and collectively; perhaps more accurately, the planet and all life is part of our greater identity and being).