FYI on LDS Creationism/Evolution history

[Okrahomer]

14 hours ago, Teancum said:

And I would imagine you declare yourself a full tithe payer when you have your recommend interview and in tithing settlement

Yes.  You are correct.  BTW:  its’s called “Tithing Declaration” now rather than “Tithing Settlement”.

My post was directed to Robert Smith as an example of the Church's lax approach to controlling whether people are actually paying anything at all.  Because we pay tithing directly to Church HQ, the records available to my Bishop show that my wife and I have paid $0 in tithing for each of the past 15 years; and yet he signed our temple recommends anyway.

[Robert F. Smith]

On 1/8/2025 at 6:48 PM, Calm said:

Are you saying Lucifer is saying he did it on other worlds in the past or that is happened on other worlds in the past?

This is Longview’s interpretation:

I don’t think Lucifer did it on previous worlds nor do I think he was surprised he was punished.  I think he was a sulky teenager caught trying to pretend he was an adult, maybe like a 13 year old stealing Dad’s keys and totaling the car and then claiming it was someone else’s fault, he hadn’t done anything different than Dad did.

The Serpent is reciting a script, a liturgical phrase which he always repeats -- as though it is standard procedure, which it is.  That is how ordinances are done.

[Robert F. Smith]

11 hours ago, longview said:

God the Father confronted three persons in the Garden. First, Adam admitted taking the fruit because of Eve. Second, Eve confessed to partaking of the fruit because she was beguiled by Lucifer. Then God asked Lucifer: "What hast thou been doing?" Lucifer replied: "The same thing which I have been doing on other worlds." God: "What is that?" Lucifer: "Giving the fruit to them." God then imposed a punishment on Lucifer: "Because thou hast done this you shall go upon your belly and eat dust . . ." Lucifer is stunned and rages at God saying: "Why am I being punished for doing the same things as on other worlds?"

For several reasons: 1- all the concurrent earths were allowed to enter into the FALL; 2- God permitted the FALL in order to implement the Plan of Redemption (initiation of mortality and the Second Estate); 3- if God had imposed the punishment too soon then NOT all the earths would have been influenced into making the FALL; 4- because ALL of the earths made the critical step for the FALL, then could God finally impose the punishment on Lucifer (like after the fact). [Some church leaders have referred to this as being the "Fortunate Fall."]

Because Lucifer was punished on "our Earth", that implies ALL the concurrent earths were successfully transitioned to the Plan of Redemption. Therefore "our Earth" had to be the last to make that leap into mortality.

The Serpent is reading from a script in which he is merely one of the dramatis personae.  He plays a role in a liturgical drama which exists for the purpose of performing oaths and covenants, and the story itself is a set-piece, to be taken symbolically or figuratively.  All of humanity participates at one time or another, here or hereafter, in this life or on the other side (by proxy).  Actors are not "punished" for performing their roles.

11 hours ago, longview said:

@Calm I do not anticipate mods to have a problem with the above dialogue because I remember reading church leaders that as long as we do not discuss ordinances it would be alright.

The Brethren openly discuss the 5 main parts of the endowment.  The oaths and covenants.

[Robert F. Smith]

21 hours ago, Teancum said:

Oh brother.  More straw men.  I have argued nothing of the sort.  I will conclude I win my points since all you seem able to do is build straw men and toss out  disparaging comments. 

Here is another straw man for you (since everything is now a straw man), in which an ex-Mormon speaks to a specific LDS problem.  She lays it out rather nicely, I think, and it could as well be a suggestion for the Brethren:

Kristen Wilson, “Is it true that the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints has stopped holding dances for youth?” Quora, Dec 7, 2024, online at https://qr.ae/pYYubP .

[Teancum]

2 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

Here is another straw man for you (since everything is now a straw man), in which an ex-Mormon speaks to a specific LDS problem.  She lays it out rather nicely, I think, and it could as well be a suggestion for the Brethren:

Kristen Wilson, “Is it true that the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints has stopped holding dances for youth?” Quora, Dec 7, 2024, online at https://qr.ae/pYYubP .

No not everything is a straw man. It is only a straw man when it is and you have tossed out a bunch in our discussion on this.  Anyway, does not matter at this point. I think we have beat this one to death.  I still like you.  😃

[Benjamin McGuire]

12 hours ago, Stargazer said:

When it is written that "gravity comes into existence" I ask the question "What mechanism caused this?" The formation of the Higgs field? Where did that come from? Do they know when the Higgs field finally formed? Apparently, it began to form at the end of the electroweak epoch. And before the electroweak epoch, all particles were completely massless and travelled exactly at the speed of light. This suggests the question: why did the Higgs field form?

Gravity is a relationship between masses. There isn't significant mass in the early moments of the Big Bang Theory. So gravity always exists - its just that there is nothing that would create a gravity type effect in the early universe. So gravity doesn't come into existence, there is nothing for gravity to affect in the early moments of the universe.

One of the major constraints on the application of a Higgs field is related to the temperature of the universe (which is incredibly hot in the first few moments of the expanding universe). As the universe cools (which also occurs very quickly), the Higgs field begins to interact with particles in the universe, and sub-atomic particles translate energy potential into mass. The why is one of those answerable questions - other than to say that from our current perspective, it is one of the fundamental principles of the universe - we don't really know what necessitates it (at least I don't). The elctroweak epoch lasts for only a tiny, tiny fraction of a second. We can talk about before the electroweak epoch - but this represents an even smaller slice of time in which the singularity (where everything is everywhere at the same time) explodes and the energy/heat/particle soup of everything, everywhere, all at once prevents subatomic particles from stabilizing. These tiny slices of time - they exist mathematically, but aren't really observable in any real way. The electroweak epoch is supposed to have started between 10^-32 and 10^-36 seconds and ended around around 10^-12 seconds. This places an upper limit on the duration of the the electroweak epoch at around 10^-12 seconds or a time period roughly 1/1,000,000,000,000 seconds long. So long before the first second after the Big Bang begins, we have Higgs field interactions, we have mass, but, the inflationary epoch - the period before the electroweak epoch has already seen the volume of the universe expand by a factor of at least 10^78. To put that in perspective, if we were to take a starting diameter of 1 nm, in that brief fraction of a moment we have an expansion to a diameter of 62 trillion miles. And by this point in time, gravity is an insufficient force to re-shrink the universe back to its original singularity (which is what you were originally suggesting). Instead, gravity works in the areas of the expanding universe where matter is densest to begin forming galaxies, and individual stars and planets. Did the Higgs field come into existence? Did it always exist and only as conditions allowed for interactions did it play a role? I don't think we know yet.

It is also worth noting that although matter was itself (in relativistic fashion) traveling at the speed of light, during the inflationary epoch, the universe itself was expanding much, much faster - and so the matter was moving (from an imaginary external perspective) much faster than the speed of light. This may help understand why gravity played such a limited role in that tiny fraction of a second after the big bang begins.

13 hours ago, Stargazer said:

Apparently, Aristotelians liked to explain gravity, or the fall of objects to the ground, by saying that it was in the nature of objects to fall. Which rather sounds like "the universe was born with a tendency to expand". Or that "space does not like to remain static". I realize that Musser is trying to write down to the masses (but not with malice!) in order to help the reader to understand. And the above was written in 2003, so understandings have shifted since then.

Quite simply, as much as we can theorize, we start with observations. Because of the necessity of observations, it makes certain things difficult to understand - like what occurred before the big bang that may have triggered its expansion. Even our understanding of a Higgs field is limited by our ability to observe - which is mostly limited to observing the interactions that occur within the field. It exists everywhere so we can't compare a space with the Higgs field with a space without. Our understanding continues to grow. Just in the past while, we have observed with some certainty Higgs Bosons decaying into bottom quarks, and have put better limits on the theoretical decay into charm quarks. If there are constraints that limit interactions with the Higgs field, perhaps we could eventually develop technology that would allow us to test interactions outside those constraints - and this would almost certainly unlock a great deal of information about the Higgs field.

13 hours ago, Stargazer said:

I accept that the confirmation/discovery of the Higgs boson/field is a wonderful development. But my brain refuses to wrap itself around the idea that it is the Higgs Field that confers mass. Not disputing, mind. If you can understand that point, you have my respect. Looked at from a simple man-in-the-street point of view, the whole thing confers Pikachu Face upon one.

I don't contest this either. I think that when we talk about the big bang - and we discuss the idea that the big bang began and its first major periods all existed within tiny fractions of a second, we lose any sort of connection to it - these numbers are both so large and so small that we cannot relate to them except through mathematics. At the same time, the expansion of the universe (which is part of the big bang) continues today. And that the universe is still expanding is also hard to wrap our minds around. The universe isn't expanding at the edges - all of it is still expanding at the same time - and so any two parts of the universe are getting farther apart continuously at speeds that scale with the distance between them. There is much of the universe we may never observe because the expansion is greater than the speed of light.

How does the Higgs field confer mass? Here is my (poor) take on it. Think of the Higgs field as a magnetic field (the analogy doesn't work in every way - don't get too hung up on that). A magnetized object entering the field with the same polarity will experience resistance. Some particles don't interact with the Higgs field. Photons are one of these - they are like pushing a non-metallic object into that magnetic field - they don't even know that the field exists - and continue moving through the Higgs field at the speed of light. But lots of particles act as if they have that same magnetic polarity and so encounter resistance moving through the Higgs field. They slow down - and the energy potential in the difference is observable as mass. While the analogy of magnetic fields is a problem (the Higgs field, as far as I know, won't speed things up), I think it is easier to visualize than the idea of say a liquid which resists some materials more than others (some not at all). It is the same principle though. The interaction of particles that can interact with the Higgs field translates to energy potential translating into mass. The idea of magnets works as an analogy in this way a bit as well because if we force two similar polarity magnets together, the potential energy is stored up - if we release one of them, it will physically jump away. Since the Higgs field is everywhere, there isn't a place that the particle/magnet can jump to (where the field is reduced), the energy is just permanently stored in this attribute we call mass. Some particles have more mass than others (they interact with the Higgs field at a higher level). Some have none at all (like photons). And those that have none at all are the only ones that can travel at the speed of light.

Maybe this helps, maybe not. I am not great at explanations - especially of stuff that, like you, I have difficulty wrapping my head around. None of this helps us understand what caused the Higgs field to come into existence, or even if it was always there and only began to have an effect when certain other conditions were met. And this is why we build things like the Hadron Collider, where, in creating high energy collisions, we can temporarily create circumstances that allow us to observe the interactions between particles and the Higgs field.

[Robert F. Smith]

4 hours ago, Teancum said:

No not everything is a straw man. It is only a straw man when it is and you have tossed out a bunch in our discussion on this.  Anyway, does not matter at this point. I think we have beat this one to death.  I still like you.  😃

Not quite.  I appreciate valid criticisms, and have even made some of my own suggestions behind the scenes -- and in one case rec'd a nice letter in response from one of the Brethren.

I thought of Kristen Wilson's critique, for example, as an opportunity to consider spending some of those vast LDS funds with a focus on the youth -- who are, after all, the future of the LDS Church.  One could go even further and spend a great deal more than currently on LDS higher education, say covering higher ed for every member.

Such a policy might well encourage young people without college debt to marry and have children while still young.  That would certainly buck current trends.

[Stargazer]

9 hours ago, Benjamin McGuire said:

Gravity is a relationship between masses. There isn't significant mass in the early moments of the Big Bang Theory. So gravity always exists - its just that there is nothing that would create a gravity type effect in the early universe. So gravity doesn't come into existence, there is nothing for gravity to affect in the early moments of the universe.

One of the major constraints on the application of a Higgs field is related to the temperature of the universe (which is incredibly hot in the first few moments of the expanding universe). As the universe cools (which also occurs very quickly), the Higgs field begins to interact with particles in the universe, and sub-atomic particles translate energy potential into mass. The why is one of those answerable questions - other than to say that from our current perspective, it is one of the fundamental principles of the universe - we don't really know what necessitates it (at least I don't). The elctroweak epoch lasts for only a tiny, tiny fraction of a second. We can talk about before the electroweak epoch - but this represents an even smaller slice of time in which the singularity (where everything is everywhere at the same time) explodes and the energy/heat/particle soup of everything, everywhere, all at once prevents subatomic particles from stabilizing. These tiny slices of time - they exist mathematically, but aren't really observable in any real way. The electroweak epoch is supposed to have started between 10^-32 and 10^-36 seconds and ended around around 10^-12 seconds. This places an upper limit on the duration of the the electroweak epoch at around 10^-12 seconds or a time period roughly 1/1,000,000,000,000 seconds long. So long before the first second after the Big Bang begins, we have Higgs field interactions, we have mass, but, the inflationary epoch - the period before the electroweak epoch has already seen the volume of the universe expand by a factor of at least 10^78. To put that in perspective, if we were to take a starting diameter of 1 nm, in that brief fraction of a moment we have an expansion to a diameter of 62 trillion miles. And by this point in time, gravity is an insufficient force to re-shrink the universe back to its original singularity (which is what you were originally suggesting). Instead, gravity works in the areas of the expanding universe where matter is densest to begin forming galaxies, and individual stars and planets. Did the Higgs field come into existence? Did it always exist and only as conditions allowed for interactions did it play a role? I don't think we know yet.

It is also worth noting that although matter was itself (in relativistic fashion) traveling at the speed of light, during the inflationary epoch, the universe itself was expanding much, much faster - and so the matter was moving (from an imaginary external perspective) much faster than the speed of light. This may help understand why gravity played such a limited role in that tiny fraction of a second after the big bang begins.

Quite simply, as much as we can theorize, we start with observations. Because of the necessity of observations, it makes certain things difficult to understand - like what occurred before the big bang that may have triggered its expansion. Even our understanding of a Higgs field is limited by our ability to observe - which is mostly limited to observing the interactions that occur within the field. It exists everywhere so we can't compare a space with the Higgs field with a space without. Our understanding continues to grow. Just in the past while, we have observed with some certainty Higgs Bosons decaying into bottom quarks, and have put better limits on the theoretical decay into charm quarks. If there are constraints that limit interactions with the Higgs field, perhaps we could eventually develop technology that would allow us to test interactions outside those constraints - and this would almost certainly unlock a great deal of information about the Higgs field.

I don't contest this either. I think that when we talk about the big bang - and we discuss the idea that the big bang began and its first major periods all existed within tiny fractions of a second, we lose any sort of connection to it - these numbers are both so large and so small that we cannot relate to them except through mathematics. At the same time, the expansion of the universe (which is part of the big bang) continues today. And that the universe is still expanding is also hard to wrap our minds around. The universe isn't expanding at the edges - all of it is still expanding at the same time - and so any two parts of the universe are getting farther apart continuously at speeds that scale with the distance between them. There is much of the universe we may never observe because the expansion is greater than the speed of light.

How does the Higgs field confer mass? Here is my (poor) take on it. Think of the Higgs field as a magnetic field (the analogy doesn't work in every way - don't get too hung up on that). A magnetized object entering the field with the same polarity will experience resistance. Some particles don't interact with the Higgs field. Photons are one of these - they are like pushing a non-metallic object into that magnetic field - they don't even know that the field exists - and continue moving through the Higgs field at the speed of light. But lots of particles act as if they have that same magnetic polarity and so encounter resistance moving through the Higgs field. They slow down - and the energy potential in the difference is observable as mass. While the analogy of magnetic fields is a problem (the Higgs field, as far as I know, won't speed things up), I think it is easier to visualize than the idea of say a liquid which resists some materials more than others (some not at all). It is the same principle though. The interaction of particles that can interact with the Higgs field translates to energy potential translating into mass. The idea of magnets works as an analogy in this way a bit as well because if we force two similar polarity magnets together, the potential energy is stored up - if we release one of them, it will physically jump away. Since the Higgs field is everywhere, there isn't a place that the particle/magnet can jump to (where the field is reduced), the energy is just permanently stored in this attribute we call mass. Some particles have more mass than others (they interact with the Higgs field at a higher level). Some have none at all (like photons). And those that have none at all are the only ones that can travel at the speed of light.

Maybe this helps, maybe not. I am not great at explanations - especially of stuff that, like you, I have difficulty wrapping my head around. None of this helps us understand what caused the Higgs field to come into existence, or even if it was always there and only began to have an effect when certain other conditions were met. And this is why we build things like the Hadron Collider, where, in creating high energy collisions, we can temporarily create circumstances that allow us to observe the interactions between particles and the Higgs field.

That was a very good read! Thanks for taking the time to write all that. It definitely helped my understanding of the matter. Pun not intended!

[Stargazer]

On 1/9/2025 at 11:36 PM, longview said:

God the Father confronted three persons in the Garden. First, Adam admitted taking the fruit because of Eve. Second, Eve confessed to partaking of the fruit because she was beguiled by Lucifer. Then God asked Lucifer: "What hast thou been doing?" Lucifer replied: "The same thing which I have been doing on other worlds." God: "What is that?" Lucifer: "Giving the fruit to them." God then imposed a punishment on Lucifer: "Because thou hast done this you shall go upon your belly and eat dust . . ." Lucifer is stunned and rages at God saying: "Why am I being punished for doing the same things as on other worlds?"

For several reasons: 1- all the concurrent earths were allowed to enter into the FALL; 2- God permitted the FALL in order to implement the Plan of Redemption (initiation of mortality and the Second Estate); 3- if God had imposed the punishment too soon then NOT all the earths would have been influenced into making the FALL; 4- because ALL of the earths made the critical step for the FALL, then could God finally impose the punishment on Lucifer (like after the fact). [Some church leaders have referred to this as being the "Fortunate Fall."]

Because Lucifer was punished on "our Earth", that implies ALL the concurrent earths were successfully transitioned to the Plan of Redemption. Therefore "our Earth" had to be the last to make that leap into mortality.

@Calm I do not anticipate mods to have a problem with the above dialogue because I remember reading church leaders that as long as we do not discuss ordinances it would be alright.

As @Robert F. Smith noted, the story in the endowment is a liturgical set-piece and is not intended to be historically accurate. Consider who is sent down to visit A&E, to determine conditions and report back: three named men who eventually physically interact with A&E. But these men will not be physically incarnated for thousands of years, so they cannot do what is demonstrated. And why do they need to report back, since God knows what is happening?

Besides the covenants and signs and tokens, principles of governance are also being taught here. "Return and report" is one of them. Delegation is likewise being taught.

The endowment presentation has been subject to modification from the beginning. I was endowed in 1972, and there are many elements of the story that were removed or modified since then. There were many which were modified before then, too. This is because the presentation is not the endowment. The endowment is the ordinances. The rest is window dressing. Necessary window dressing, perhaps, and intended to teach important principles, yes, but window dressing nevertheless. 

At least that is how I understand it.

[Calm]

4 hours ago, longview said:

es, you make a good point. I had pondered on this for the past several days. I suppose you could make the case that "other devils" besides Lucifer were attempting to subvert God's Plan of Redemption by erroneously thinking that giving the fruit to "them" (meaning multiple Adams and Eves on uncountable concurrent earths in this current creative generation) would put a stop to it

Or that it was God or someone appointed by God who gave them the fruit at the appropriate time.

Edited January 11, 2025 by Calm

[Calm]

Quote

The other two parts that qualified for the Second Estate are being sent to all the concurrent mortal earths in this current creative generation.

So you see the Council where the Plan is presented as only occurring once in all the eternities for all the worlds the Father has created and not one for each world?

[Calm]

4 hours ago, longview said:

@marineland just made a post containing a great deal of misconceptions. I am going to try to provide some additional clarifications

Marineland is not LDS, so not surprising he misunderstands your comments at time, but you are also the first Saint I have run into that has this interpretation of the preexistence where it is Lucifer on every world and only one Council.  Not saying no one else interprets teachings that way, but I am curious how many in your experience have held the same understanding that you do without having been exposed to your ideas first.

Edited January 11, 2025 by Calm

[longview]

27 minutes ago, Calm said:

Or that it was God or someone appointed by God who gave them the fruit at the appropriate time.

As I have indicated previously but you seem to disagree, God cannot directly organize a corruptible telestial world OR to unduly influence Adam and Eve to choose between choices "one" and "two". I suppose as "added insurance" God allowed Lucifer to argue with Adam and Eve.

35 minutes ago, Calm said:

Quote

The other two parts that qualified for the Second Estate are being sent to all the concurrent mortal earths in this current creative generation.

So you see the Council where the Plan is presented as only occurring once in all the eternities for all the worlds the Father has created and not one for each world?

No. Each creative generation involves these steps:

1. Heavenly Parents invite intelligences to become spirit children. The pre-existence.
2. They grow and progress in knowledge and skills until they start to taper off.
3. Since they still want become like their Heavenly Parents but cannot progress much further, God the Father invoked a Grand Council.
4. A Plan of Redemption is presented. Since this requires special handling by the Eternal Law of Justice, a Savior must be provided.
5. Jesus, the Firstborn of all spirit children offers Himself to do the Father's Will.
6. Lucifer, being extraordinarily prideful, just had to raise a stink and start a war in Heaven.
7. Multiple concurrent worlds are provided to accommodate the "two parts."

46 minutes ago, Calm said:

Marineland is not LDS, so not surprising he misunderstands your comments at time,

Yes, he has a hard time grasping what is being presented.

46 minutes ago, Calm said:

but you are also the first Saint I have run into that has this interpretation of the preexistence where it is Lucifer on every world and only one Council.  Not saying no one else interprets teachings that way, but I am curious how many in your experience have held the same understanding that you do without having been exposed to your ideas first.

It is apparent you do not agree with the concept that every creative generation requires its own implementation of the Plan of Redemption. You should be familiar with the teaching that God was once a man. If that happened in the previous creative generation, then our God is presiding over His First Godhead and His first implementation of the Plan of Redemption. But I believe it is more likely that God has already presided over numerous creative generations.

God adds to His Dominions exponentially with every creative generation. Exponentially because those that qualify for the Celestial Kingdom are then able to assist in the never-ending Work of God. Which is bring to pass the immortality and eternal life of man [meaning more candidates from among the infinite numbers of intelligences].

I have received many intimations and sometimes "sudden strokes of inspiration" over my lifetime [I am in my seventies]. My first major influence began back in the Sixties with reading many church books and deep meditations in my scripture studies. Cleon Skousen was a huge influence. Temple worship is an important source of inspiration. Frequent prayers help tremendously.

[Robert F. Smith]

23 hours ago, longview said:

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

@Robert F. Smith there are definitely historical elements throughout the Endowment along with a great deal of pageantry, liturgy, symbolism, etc. 

Your quotations actually demonstrate @Calm's contention that this is a standard practice on other worlds.  And it has always been so, and will be into infinity.

The Endowment itself is always an historical event, with real people taking part, as in any Shakespearean play.

There is also the telescoping of time, as when some apostles of the Lord come back in time to teach adam & eve (everyone in the session is adam & eve).

[Robert F. Smith]

On 1/10/2025 at 6:35 PM, Stargazer said:

As @Robert F. Smith noted, the story in the endowment is a liturgical set-piece and is not intended to be historically accurate. Consider who is sent down to visit A&E, to determine conditions and report back: three named men who eventually physically interact with A&E. But these men will not be physically incarnated for thousands of years, so they cannot do what is demonstrated. And why do they need to report back, since God knows what is happening?

Besides the covenants and signs and tokens, principles of governance are also being taught here. "Return and report" is one of them. Delegation is likewise being taught.

The endowment presentation has been subject to modification from the beginning. I was endowed in 1972, and there are many elements of the story that were removed or modified since then. There were many which were modified before then, too. This is because the presentation is not the endowment. The endowment is the ordinances. The rest is window dressing. Necessary window dressing, perhaps, and intended to teach important principles, yes, but window dressing nevertheless. 

At least that is how I understand it.

Well said, Stargazer !!!

[BCSpace]

 

I see no contradiction between Evolution and LDS doctrine on the Creation and have my own hypothesis of how that works.

This debate was laid to rest in my opinion by the 1931 First Presidency Statement about pre-Adamite races of man (no doctrine for or against, and not an important question relative to the work). Since then, David O McKay answered a professor on the subject. Ezra Taft Benson mentions it as something the BoM teaches against in a talk as an Apostle but later gives the same talk as a prophet with that part removed. Bruce R McConkie, in a speech at BYU, admitted that as long as one could reconcile Evolution with doctrine, one is fine, but then noted that he could not so reconcile. There is an Ensign article from the 90's by a geology professor disagreeing with Evolution, but I consider that to be an aberration.

The Apostle Russel M Nelson, in an interview with Pew Research, expressed his disagreement with Evolution but then proceeded to inaccurately describe evolution so his argument made no sense. It should be noted that I believe these men to be prophets of God even though sometimes they stumble. They are mortal men.  None, including Joseph Smith or Brigham Young, have ever stumbled in any way catastrophic enough that I should not believe their truth claims. 

[Robert F. Smith]

2 hours ago, BCSpace said:

I see no contradiction between Evolution and LDS doctrine on the Creation and have my own hypothesis of how that works.

This debate was laid to rest in my opinion by the 1931 First Presidency Statement about pre-Adamite races of man (no doctrine for or against, and not an important question relative to the work). Since then, David O McKay answered a professor on the subject. Ezra Taft Benson mentions it as something the BoM teaches against in a talk as an Apostle but later gives the same talk as a prophet with that part removed. Bruce R McConkie, in a speech at BYU, admitted that as long as one could reconcile Evolution with doctrine, one is fine, but then noted that he could not so reconcile. There is an Ensign article from the 90's by a geology professor disagreeing with Evolution, but I consider that to be an aberration.

The Apostle Russel M Nelson, in an interview with Pew Research, expressed his disagreement with Evolution but then proceeded to inaccurately describe evolution so his argument made no sense. It should be noted that I believe these men to be prophets of God even though sometimes they stumble. They are mortal men.  None, including Joseph Smith or Brigham Young, have ever stumbled in any way catastrophic enough that I should not believe their truth claims. 

Like most people, I had thought that the debate was between Evolutionary Biology and Creationism.  I also knew that the entire Biology faculty at BYU was Evolutionary, and has continued to be so.  Imagine my surprise to discover that Joseph Smith, Brigham Young, and some subsequent prophets fell outside those categories.

In one of my three semesters of philosophy at BYU in 1963-1964, I took David Yarn's lntroductory class.  He used a textbook from CalTech which laid out the three options: (1) Creatlon, (2) Evolution, and (3) Panspermia.  Strange to say that it is precisely Panspermia which has been latched onto the strongest by recent science, and by the early LDS Brethren.

[Robert F. Smith]

On 1/9/2025 at 10:55 PM, Okrahomer said:

Yes.  You are correct.  BTW:  its’s called “Tithing Declaration” now rather than “Tithing Settlement”.

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

At one time, it was called "tithing settlement."  Young people won't recall that, just as they don't recall that current "sunday school President" was once "sunday school Superintendant."

[Robert F. Smith]

On 12/21/2024 at 1:20 PM, The_Monk said:

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

The abstract alone is a masterpiece, Ben.  The story had to be told.  Thanks.

[BCSpace]

1 hour ago, Robert F. Smith said:

Like most people, I had thought that the debate was between Evolutionary Biology and Creationism.  I also knew that the entire Biology faculty at BYU was Evolutionary, and has continued to be so.  Imagine my surprise to discover that Joseph Smith, Brigham Young, and some subsequent prophets fell outside those categories.

In one of my three semesters of philosophy at BYU in 1963-1964, I took David Yarn's lntroductory class.  He used a textbook from CalTech which laid out the three options: (1) Creatlon, (2) Evolution, and (3) Panspermia.  Strange to say that it is precisely Panspermia which has been latched onto the strongest by recent science, and by the early LDS Brethren.

Interesting. But I take my stand more with James E Talmadge and BH Roberts who apparently were in an ongoing debate with the young JFS on the subject.  Plus D&C 88:78-79 implies to me a command to study the science of things to learn these types of truths. And by science, I don't mean the misinterpretation of science. For example, those who claim evolution speaks to the non existence of God which it does not.

Panspermia is interesting, but I think it unlikely.