FYI on LDS Creationism/Evolution history

[The_Monk]

My doctoral dissertation on the topic is now available from ProQuest  
https://benspackman.com/2024/12/dissertation/

[Rain]

1 hour ago, The_Monk said:

My doctoral dissertation on the topic is now available from ProQuest  
https://benspackman.com/2024/12/dissertation/

Thank you!

[Calm]

1 hour ago, The_Monk said:

My doctoral dissertation on the topic is now available from ProQuest  
https://benspackman.com/2024/12/dissertation/

Thank, thank, thank you!

[sunstoned]

Congratulations!  Completing a dissertation and obtaining a terminal degree is a monumental achievement. 

[Robert F. Smith]

4 hours ago, The_Monk said:

My doctoral dissertation on the topic is now available from ProQuest  
https://benspackman.com/2024/12/dissertation/

Nice article.  Short and sweet.

I particularly appreciated your take on LDS intellectual history, something most Latter-day Saints are wholly ignorant of.  Joseph Fielding Smith's adoption of an inerrant and simplistic Protestant reading of Scripture is especially damaging.  Even worse is his reading of the Creation and Garden Story as a scientific and historical narrative.  You'd have thought that a well-informed Latter-day Saint would immediately realize that the Creation & Garden Story is pure liturgy.  And highly symbolic and figurative at that.

I also thought that without a wife you'd never have finished a PhD.  Congratulations on all those correct decisions.

[teddyaware]

2 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

Nice article.  Short and sweet.

I particularly appreciated your take on LDS intellectual history, something most Latter-day Saints are wholly ignorant of.  Joseph Fielding Smith's adoption of an inerrant and simplistic Protestant reading of Scripture is especially damaging.  Even worse is his reading of the Creation and Garden Story as a scientific and historical narrative.  You'd have thought that a well-informed Latter-day Saint would immediately realize that the Creation & Garden Story is pure liturgy.  And highly symbolic and figurative at that.

I also thought that without a wife you'd never have finished a PhD.  Congratulations on all those correct decisions.

You’ve got me wondering if the above means you don’t believe that we have two literal human ancestors, from whom we are all literally descended, named Father Adam and Mother Eve? I’m also wondering if the following 3 verses from Doctrine and Covenants 138 are also highly symbolic and figurative, and that in his vision Joseph F Smith didn’t actually see a man named Father Adam and a woman named Mother Eve whom we are taught once lived and died on this earth? But if you do believe we actually are the descendants of two very real human forebears named Adam and Eve, where and how does one draw the line between the symbolic & figurative and the literal? And if the Adam and Eve narrative is to be understood as highly symbolic and figurative, the question the needs to be answered is symbolic and figurative of exactly what? In other words, what are the great actual realities that are pointed to and suggested by the figurative language and symbolism of the Adam and Eve story?

38 Among the great and mighty ones who were assembled in this vast congregation of the righteous were Father Adam, the Ancient of Days and father of all,

39 And our glorious Mother Eve, with many of her faithful daughters who had lived through the ages and worshiped the true and living God.

40 Abel, the first martyr, was there, and his brother Seth, one of the mighty ones, who was in the express image of his father, Adam. (Doctrine and Covenants 138)

Edited December 22, 2024 by teddyaware

[Dario_M]

Oh interesting. Is it a movie? 

[sunstoned]

It's a dissertation.

[Dario_M]

Just now, sunstoned said:

It's a dissertation.

What is dissertation actually? 

[sunstoned]

Here is a site that goes into some detail about dissertations:

Quote

A dissertation is a long, original piece of academic writing that presents research and findings to support an academic degree or professional qualification. It's usually the final step in a PhD program, and is often the longest and most difficult assignment a student completes at university

https://www.topuniversities.com/blog/what-dissertation#:~:text=Sometimes known as a thesis,on your course of study.

[Calm]

2 hours ago, teddyaware said:

we have two literal human ancestors, from whom we are all literally descended, named Father Adam and Mother Eve?

If Adam and Eve have any living descendants, we are all literally descended from the two.

I have no problem believing there was an Adam and an Eve (two people who have been given those names by scripture writers and interpreters) way way back who first worshipped and covenanted with God.

Do I believe we had other literal human ancestors who came before Adam and Eve as well as other of our ancestors living in the same time period?  Yep, I do.  I don’t feel the need to insist that Adam and Eve’s lives were fully documented as they lived them in the scriptures. I see the stories as more temple rituals taught to worshippers of God, meant to be passed on just as we use the temple today.

[Calm]

2 hours ago, teddyaware said:

And if the Adam and Eve narrative is to be understood as highly symbolic and figurative, the question the needs to be answered is symbolic and figurative of exactly what?

Do you believe the temple ceremonies of today show the reality as if we were watching a news report or that they are symbolic and figurative and if so, of exactly what? (Serious question as I think the answer can show points that those who respond might want to make to convey why they treat scripture and/or temple ritual a certain way)

[Dario_M]

23 minutes ago, sunstoned said:

Here is a site that goes into some detail about dissertations:

https://www.topuniversities.com/blog/what-dissertation#:~:text=Sometimes known as a thesis,on your course of study.

Thanks. 

[Dario_M]

I'm now in the church and i keep hearing the word "advent" what is an "advent" what does it mean? I don't wanna bother my stake president with my questions. So i ask it here. 

[Calm]

Advent is the time period of the four weeks prior to Christmas, starting on the Sunday…

Quote

Advent is a season observed in most Christian denominations as a time of waiting and preparation for both the celebration of Jesus's birth at Christmas and the return of Christ at the Second Coming. It begins on the fourth Sunday before Christmas, often referred to as Advent Sunday. Advent is the beginning of the liturgical year in Western Christianity. The name comes from Latin adventus ('coming; arrival'), translating the Greek parousia from the New Testament, originally referring to the Second Coming.

The season of Advent in the Christian calendar anticipates the "coming of Christ" from three different perspectives: the physical nativity in Bethlehem, the reception of Christ in the heart of the believer, and the eschatological Second Coming.[a]

Practices associated with Advent include Advent calendars, lighting an Advent wreath,[b] praying an Advent daily devotional,[1] erecting a Chrismon tree,[1] lighting a Christingle,[2] as well as other ways of preparing for Christmas, such as setting up Christmas decorations,[6] a custom that is sometimes done liturgically through a hanging of the greens ceremony.[1][7]

From wiki

It is not typically part of LDS celebration, but it may be borrowed.  I have adapted it the past three years with varying success with something my families do each day….or more likely when we can get together.  This year my husband, me, and daughter are doing a brain teaser type game.

Christmas feels over too quickly for all the effort put into it, so I am trying to extend the feel.  We don’t do the religious stuff as a family anymore as my daughter is agnostic, so that leaves decoration and presents.  Kind of blah for me, so I have to go over the top with something.  Trying out Advent to see if it will fill the void and maybe be able to sneak in some religious aspect eventually without her feeling awkward.

Edited December 22, 2024 by Calm

[teddyaware]

7 hours ago, Calm said:

If Adam and Eve have any living descendants, we are all literally descended from the two.

I have no problem believing there was an Adam and an Eve (two people who have been given those names by scripture writers and interpreters) way way back who first worshipped and covenanted with God.

Do I believe we had other literal human ancestors who came before Adam and Eve as well as other of our ancestors living in the same time period?  Yep, I do.  I don’t feel the need to insist that Adam and Eve’s lives were fully documented as they lived them in the scriptures. I see the stories as more temple rituals taught to worshippers of God, meant to be passed on just as we use the temple today.

I’d appreciate learning how you’re able to square your understanding of creation with the following verses of scripture? I’m interested to see if you’re able to engage in an exegesis of these verses without compelling your listeners to end up believing that they’re nothing less than a pack of preposterous lies?

5 And every plant of the field before it was in the earth, and every herb of the field before it grew. For I, the Lord God, created all things, of which I have spoken, spiritually, before they were naturally upon the face of the earth. For I, the Lord God, had not caused it to rain upon the face of the earth. And I, the Lord God, had created all the children of men; and not yet a man to till the ground; for in heaven created I them; and there was not yet flesh upon the earth, neither in the water, neither in the air;

6 But I, the Lord God, spake, and there went up a mist from the earth, and watered the whole face of the ground.

7 And I, the Lord God, formed man from the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul, the first flesh upon the earth, the first man also; nevertheless, all things were before created; but spiritually were they created and made according to my word. (Moses 3)

[Kenngo1969]

13 hours ago, sunstoned said:

Congratulations!  Completing a dissertation and obtaining a terminal degree is a monumental achievement. 

Especially if it doesn't "terminate" you first!   

[Calm]

7 hours ago, teddyaware said:

I’d appreciate learning how you’re able to square your understanding of creation with the following verses of scripture?

Very briefly, it is a ritual description, not a scientific description.  
 

Its purpose is to teach purpose….meaning and roles, not history or science.

Edited December 22, 2024 by Calm

[Calm]

My question:  If you believe the scripture accounts describe events in a historical fashion in regards to the creation, how do you deal with the contradictions?  Do you privilege one account?

From Ben back in 2017…have you really been working on your dissertation that long?

https://www.fairlatterdaysaints.org/conference/august-2017/truth-scripture-and-interpretation

Quote

Second, ultimate truth must be consistent with itself, but we have scripture that is internally inconsistent throughout our standard works. Exodus, for example, says to fire-roast the Passover sacrifice and not boil it, but Deuteronomy specifies that the Passover sacrifice must be boiled. Chronicles does not know what to make of this, so it combines them and it says you have to boil it in fire. Who knows how, but… Samuel attributes David’s inspiration to take a census to God, but Chronicles attributes it to Satan. The four Gospels disagree on what day Jesus was crucified, and whether the temple was cleansed at the beginning of Jesus’ ministry or the end. Paul and James both cite Genesis 15 to make points 180 degrees apart.

In uniquely LDS scripture, there are numerous inconsistencies between the parallel creation chapters in the books of Moses and Abraham, and many more when we compare them to Genesis, on the one hand, and the temple ritual on the other. To pick one of these, in the Genesis 2-3 section, in Genesis and Moses, there is a creation sequence where Adam comes first, followed by animals, followed by Eve as a help “meet for him.” When none of the animals has proven to be so, Eve is created, and Adam expresses some joy, that “finally, this is the right thing!” The Book of Abraham has restructured this [and you can see with the red arrows that this entire section has been rearranged] so that Eve is created with Adam, followed by all the animals. And whereas Genesis portrays Adam explicitly as not finding a “help meet for him,” which necessitates the creation of Eve, in Abraham [and this is the green arrow in the Abraham part] there is indeed found a help meet for Adam. But this is not consistent with the order in Genesis and Moses, nor with the temple.

In all of these examples, if we approach scripture with an absolute paradigm of truth vs. error and the assumption that scripture is primarily recounting history, we quickly run into problematic questions. Which Gospel is correct, which Gospel is incorrect? Which of the creation accounts is correct, which is incorrect? Does incorrect mean “not inspired”?

Also https://content.libsyn.com/p/5/0/8/508c161aee4a8f0f/LDSP_Ben_Spackman_on_Genesis_1.pdf?

 

[OGHoosier]

7 hours ago, teddyaware said:

5 And every plant of the field before it was in the earth, and every herb of the field before it grew. For I, the Lord God, created all things, of which I have spoken, spiritually, before they were naturally upon the face of the earth. For I, the Lord God, had not caused it to rain upon the face of the earth. And I, the Lord God, had created all the children of men; and not yet a man to till the ground; for in heaven created I them; and there was not yet flesh upon the earth, neither in the water, neither in the air;

6 But I, the Lord God, spake, and there went up a mist from the earth, and watered the whole face of the ground.

7 And I, the Lord God, formed man from the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul, the first flesh upon the earth, the first man also; nevertheless, all things were before created; but spiritually were they created and made according to my word. (Moses 3)

Is the First Lady the oldest lady in the United States?

Your interpretation of these verses takes something very important for granted: the nature of time and the idea that "first" represents a temporal primacy as opposed to a procedural or causal primacy. This talk by BYU physics professor J. Ward Moody does not, in my opinion, offer many answers, but is a good introduction to the idea that the commonplace, straightforward understanding of time that we operate with is not actually accurate: Time in Scripture and Science: A Conciliatory Key? | Religious Studies Center. There is a risk here: if you insist that God must give you the truth in plain reading, then you are of course thinking unscripturally, but also opening yourself up to a very great threat: being given things you can't understand because you insist upon them.

The study of physics has revealed that the world is a very strange place, much more ethereal than previously supposed. That which we call "matter" is really just the compilation of unspeakable quantities of fields who interact with each other by overlapping. Likewise, there are arguments about the nature of time, and inconsistencies in our vernacular discussion regarding them, which immensely complicate a straightforward discussion of "time." The above-linked talk quotes St. Augustine thusly: 

Quote

For what is time? Who can easily and briefly explain it? Who can even comprehend it in thought or put the answer into words? Yet is it not true that in conversation we refer to nothing more familiarly or knowingly than time? And surely we understand it when we speak of it; we understand it also when we hear another speak of it. What, then, is time? If no one asks me, I know what it is. If I wish to explain it to him who asks me, I do not know.

- St Augustine of Hippo, Confessions 1:17, as quoted by Moody, J. Ward, "Time in Scripture and Science: A Conciliatory Key?"

@Mfbnew might find that this dovetails with Rorty's thoughts about truth and language. The fundamentals are, as ever, ineffable. Part of the reason why I find it easy to believe that Christ prayed in words that cannot be written is because human languages are incapable of containing all the concepts required to contemplate the truth of all things, and therefore any symbolic representation of those truths must occur in a language higher than ours. 

I find Moody's discussion of "Time as Choice" interesting because it seems like the only way for God to have a concept of time. Time for us is always dictated by outside referents. The decay of a caesium-133 atom at the US Naval Observatory, the ephemeris second of the Earth's orbit around the sun, the ticking of the clock, the space of a heartbeat...we define time by reference to things outside us. God controls those rates, though, and if we accept special relativity those rates are not constant at all possible places and times. Choice, or the causal procession of events, is the only concept of time I could imagine for God, though of course my imagination is in no way dispositive...since earth was made for the embodied souls of man, of which Adam was the progenitor, a causal-primacy account of time would indeed have Adam as first. 

True, from a certain point of view? So's D&C 19. God has to meet us where we're at, and in this case He is focused on impressing upon us the idea that all things were first created spiritually, which is not contradicted by anything @Calm said.

Edit: I write as a sort of stream-of-consciousness thing most of the time, so sometimes I realize that I get ahead of myself in my internal monologue and didn't include a point I wanted to make. I will continue the discussion here. 

The vernacular notion of time assumes that causes precede effects. The idea of backward causation  has been discussed philosophically however. This sort of idea has gained relevance as one of numerous interpretations of quantum theory in light of the measurement problem: in that context it is referred to as retrocausality. In the scriptural context, we might consider Abraham 4, in which the creation of the earth is discussed. Note verse 18:

Quote

18 And the Gods watched those things which they had ordered until they obeyed.

Further, in verse 20, emphasis mine:

Quote

21 And the Gods prepared the waters that they might bring forth great whales, and every living creature that moveth, which the waters were to bring forth abundantly after their kind; and every winged fowl after their kind. And the Gods saw that they would be obeyed, and that their plan was good.

There is in all of this the idea that the fulfillment of the command is at some remove from the giving of the command. This is not an instantaneous creation. It could be that God ordered the earth to produce Adam and Eve and in so doing instantiated millions of years of time leading up to that event, making Adam's creation the first causal step in the genesis of life on earth. 

Edited December 22, 2024 by OGHoosier

[Calm]

I like this short video explaining Genesis as a temple text…

https://biologos.org/resources/understanding-genesis-with-john-walton

Quote

We have to approach Genesis 1 for what it is. It’s an ancient document. It’s not a document that was written to us. We believe the Bible was written for us, that it’s for everyone of all times and places because it’s God’s Word. But it wasn’t written to us. It wasn’t written in our language, it wasn’t written with our culture in mind or our culture in view. Therefore, if we want to get the best benefit from the communication, we need to try to enter their world, hear it as the audience would have heard it and as the author would have meant it, and read it in those terms. There is no more important place to do that than in Genesis 1.

To get the idea of what the six days, the seven days, actually, of course, is all about, we have to try to understand the context of the ancient world. First of all, we would have to understand that this resting on the seventh day is a very important element of it. One thing that we don’t pick up at all when we read the text, but that any ancient reader, Israelite or otherwise, would have understood, is that if it talks about God resting, it’s talking about a temple, because that’s where God rests and where the gods rest. That’s why temples were built. Therefore, we are automatically thrown into a temple context when we understand the ancient world.

The idea that they had in the ancient world was that the temple and the cosmos were kind of all blended into one. If we used a modern metaphor, it would almost be like the temple was the Oval Office. It’s kind of where all the business is done, where the work is run. It’s the hub of activity and of control. So for them, that’s what the temple represented, and the cosmos was run from the temple.

When a deity took up his rest in the temple, it wasn’t for leisure or relaxation. It was to settle down to the work now that everything was set up and ready to go. When our candidates run for office and want to get into the White House, it’s not so they can just flop down in the Lincoln bedroom. It’s rather so they can get into the Oval Office and start running it. If you ask what happened after the person was elected and inaugurated, well, then they started running the country. Likewise, after the cosmos is organized and God takes up His rest in this cosmic temple, now He starts running it.

 

Edited December 22, 2024 by Calm

[JAHS]

15 hours ago, Calm said:

If Adam and Eve have any living descendants, we are all literally descended from the two.

I have no problem believing there was an Adam and an Eve (two people who have been given those names by scripture writers and interpreters) way way back who first worshipped and covenanted with God.

Do I believe we had other literal human ancestors who came before Adam and Eve as well as other of our ancestors living in the same time period?  Yep, I do.  I don’t feel the need to insist that Adam and Eve’s lives were fully documented as they lived them in the scriptures. I see the stories as more temple rituals taught to worshippers of God, meant to be passed on just as we use the temple today.

What do you make of what Elder Marion G. Romney said regarding Adam and Adam's line:
"There were no pre-adamic men in the line of Adam. ... I am not a scientist. I do not profess to know anything but Jesus Christ, and him crucified, and the principles of his gospel. If, however, there are some things in the strata of the earth indicating there were men before Adam, they were not the ancestors of Adam. Adam was the son of God. ... He did not come up through an unbroken line of organic evolution. There had to be a fall. 'Adam fell that men might be." (2 Nephi 2:25.) (Conference Report, April 5, 1953)

Perhaps there were human-like beings that existed before Adam, as scientific evidence suggests, but I think most church leaders would agree that Adam was the first human with both body and spirit, from whom we are descended. 

[OGHoosier]

4 minutes ago, JAHS said:

What do you make of what Elder Marion G. Romney said regarding Adam and Adam's line:
"There were no pre-adamic men in the line of Adam. ... I am not a scientist. I do not profess to know anything but Jesus Christ, and him crucified, and the principles of his gospel. If, however, there are some things in the strata of the earth indicating there were men before Adam, they were not the ancestors of Adam. Adam was the son of God. ... He did not come up through an unbroken line of organic evolution. There had to be a fall. 'Adam fell that men might be." (2 Nephi 2:25.) (Conference Report, April 5, 1953)

Perhaps there were human-like beings that existed before Adam, as scientific evidence suggests, but I think most church leaders would agree that Adam was the first human with both body and spirit, from whom we are descended. 

They don't have to be in the line of Adam, just Adam's grandchildren. Also, tbh, I don't think all of Romney's points follow from his premises. Since we talk about Adam and Eve falling knowingly, if that belief is maintained, then the fall could just as easily be choosing to come to earth at all.

Edited December 22, 2024 by OGHoosier

[Calm]

6 hours ago, JAHS said:

but I think most church leaders would agree that Adam was the first human with both body and spirit, from whom we are descended. 

If all things have a spirit, why wouldn’t preadamites have one?  If you mean were one of God’s spirit children, that is a possibility.

I think you should read Ben Spackman’s discussions on this for varying viewpoints among leaders.

Also:

https://www.fairlatterdaysaints.org/answers/Adam_and_Eve_as_historical_figures

Quote

Elder James E. Talmage noted in his journal:

...Involved in this question is that of the beginning of life upon the earth, and as to whether there was death either of animal or plant before the fall of Adam, on which proposition Elder Smith was very pronounced in denial and Elder Roberts equally forceful in the affirmative. As to whether Preadamite races existed upon the earth there has been much discussion among some of our people of late. The decision reached by the First Presidency, and announced to this morning's assembly, was in answer to a specific question that obviously the doctrine of the existence of races of human beings upon the earth prior to the fall of Adam was not a doctrine of the Church; and, further, that the conception embodied in the belief of many to the effect that there were no such Preadamite races, and that there was no death upon the earth prior to Adam's fall is likewise declared to be no doctrine of the Church. I think the decision of the First Presidency is a wise one in the premises. This is one of the many things upon which we cannot preach with assurance and dogmatic assertions on either side are likely to do harm rather than good

Quote

Do not begrudge existence to creatures that looked like men long, long ago, nor deny them a place in God's affection or even a right to exaltation — for our scriptures allow them such. Nor am I overly concerned as to just when they might have lived, for their world is not our world. They have all gone away long before our people ever appeared. God assigned them their proper times and functions, as he has given me mine — a full-time job that admonishes me to remember his words to the overly eager Moses: "For mine own purpose have I made these things. Here is wisdom and it remaineth in me." ([https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/scriptures/bofm/mosiah/1?lang=eng&id=p31#p31 Moses 1꞉31].) It is Adam as my own parent who concerns me. When he walks onto the stage, then and only then the play begins. ^[8]

Added:  ancient existence was based on functional, not material existence.  An example from below video:  think of the difference between an empty house and a house full of people, being used to shelter them as a family and what is the story of the house vs the story of the home, different origin stories of the same building.  The latter (home) exists in an ancient sense, not the former (house).  God is creating order, not physical material.  Naming and separation gives roles, purpose.  That is what God is creating, a place for his children to live and function…order as seen through time, weather, food and then assigns functions within this functional cosmos.

 

I love this video, especially the discussion about what “rest” means….and it is not taking a break.  The LDS version of Sabbath activity of service is closer than sleeping in and watching football games.  
 

Resting is more about taking residence (which makes Genesis 1 a temple text), sitting on his throne, time to rule those he gave a function to.

PS:  John Walton is an evangelical and has some theological beliefs I disagree with (like creatio ex nihilo).  In some other videos I have watched he gets into his beliefs and it’s “of course God does ….”, but he makes it clear when the text won’t support those ideas.  I suspect it likely some bias has affected some of his preferred readings as I think it likely to do with everyone, but he seems to work hard trying to avoid it.

Edited December 23, 2024 by Calm

[Calm]

8 hours ago, teddyaware said:

I’d appreciate learning how you’re able to square your understanding of creation with the following verses of scripture? I’m interested to see if you’re able to engage in an exegesis of these verses without compelling your listeners to end up believing that they’re nothing less than a pack of preposterous lies?

I have answered your question.  Will you now answer mine (that was asked first btw)?