FYI on LDS Creationism/Evolution history

[Benjamin McGuire]

9 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?

James Talmage recorded in his journal (1931):

Quote

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 pre-Adamite 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 on the premises. This is one of the many things upon which we cannot speak with assurance and dogmatic assertions on either side are likely to do harm rather than good.

I agree with Elder Talmage. The insistence that there is only one way to read scripture with regard to these questions does more harm than good. Just as problematic is the assertion that you make that scripture must be either literally true or that the implication is that it is a pack of preposterous lies. With regard tot he narrative of Adam and Eve, this is particularly challenging since we have so many leaders who have suggested that the narrative cannot be literally true everywhere. Even Elder McConkie (who had a fairly strong literalist understanding of the scriptures) admitted this:

Quote

It also says, speaking figuratively, that Eve was formed from Adam’s rib. ... As to the Fall itself we are told that the Lord planted “the tree of knowledge of good and evil” in the midst of the garden. (Moses 3:9.) To Adam and Eve the command came: “Of every tree of the garden thou mayest freely eat, But of the tree of knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it, nevertheless, thou mayest choose for thyself, for it is given unto thee; but, remember that I forbid it, for in the day thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die.” (Moses 3:16–17.) Again the account is speaking figuratively. What is meant by partaking of the fruit of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil is that our first parents complied with whatever laws were involved so that their bodies would change from their state of paradisiacal immortality to a state of natural mortality."

Clearly there is an acceptable middle ground where things are neither literally true and yet also not a "pack of preposterous lies".

[Robert F. Smith]

19 hours ago, teddyaware said:

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)

Spencer Kimball and Bruce McConkie both emphasized that stories about creation of Eve from a rib, or of eating fruit from the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil are figurative (not to be taken literally):

Quote

“And I, God, created man in mine own image, in the image of mine Only Begotten created I him; male and female created I them. [The story of the rib, of course, is figurative.]”  “The Blessings and Responsibilities of Womanhood,” Ensign, 6/3 (Mar 1976):70, 
https://www.lds.org/ensign/1976/03/the-blessings-and-responsibilities-of-womanhood?lang=eng .

Bruce McConkie not only shared this same view, but extended it to include the partaking of fruit from the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil.  Mormon Doctrine 2nd ed. (1966), 242; "Eve and the Fall," in Woman (1988), 60.

Even some evangelical Christians agree on this approach:  John Walton, “Origins Today - Genesis Through Ancient Eyes,” https://youtu.be/qsZddI-Tr4I .

 

Brigham Young said,

Quote

    “Though we have it in history that our Father Adam was made of the dust of this earth and that he knew nothing about his God previous to being made here, yet it is not so; and when we learn the truth we shall see and understand that he helped to make this world and was the chief manager in that operation.
    “He was the person who brought the animals and the seeds from other planets to this world and brought a wife with him and stayed here. You may read and believe what you please as to what is found written in the Bible. Adam was made from the dust of an earth, but not from the dust of this earth. He was made as you and I are made, and no person was ever made upon any other principle.”   Journal of Discourses, III:319.

So, if "dust" does not mean "dust," a "rib" is not really a "rib," and the "fruit" and "tree" are figurative, where does that leave us?  Indeed, the bread & water we took today in Sacrament Meeting are not the very body and blood of Jesus Christ -- instead they are emblems in an ordinance, liturgy.  In the temple, each of us is Adam or Eve, but for what purpose?  For the purpose of taking oaths and making covenants on our own behalf and on behalf of others.  Sacramentalism so deeply pervades the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints that it is astonishing that Latter-day Saints often fail to see what is so obvious to Anglican Bishop Tom Wright, i.e., that the Creation & Garden Story is "a temple story."  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fxQpFosrTUk&t=5s .  We need to take that to heart.

Biblical scholars agree that adam and eve are archetypal references rather than names, while anthropologists have shown that we do in fact have one female human ancestor.  Genetic research demonstrates one single source of mtDNA (mitochondrial DNA) for all of humanity -- who lived in East Africa around 100,000 to 200,000 years ago.  However, she is only our most recent single ancestor, because she also had ancestors -- represented by "gene lineages that coalesce into an ancestor who lived around 60 million years ago."  https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/8533083/ .  We can get deeper into the weeds by noting that DNA is the code for all of life on planet Earth.  No exceptions, unless you count viruses.

If you get stuck on names, bear in mind that we have several Flood stories earlier than the Classical Hebrew one, and they do not call the pilot of the ark "Noah."  We also have Creation stories earlier than the biblical one, and they are performed in Assyro-Babylonian temples.  They are liturgy.  Hugh Nibley was always excited to find that all these ancient practices go back to the beginning.

 

[Calm]

This is another good video on Adam and Eve from the ‘text’s’ POV…

Adam and Eve are the first humans who were accountable…not the first biological humans.

He is not LDS, but his portrayal of what the story of Adam and Eve was meant to achieve fits well with LDS beliefs, imo.

 

Edited December 23, 2024 by Calm

[The_Monk]

3 hours ago, JAHS said:

What do you make of what Elder Marion G. Romney said regarding Adam and Adam's line:

Romney (and virtually all other General Authorities who commented on this topic after 1950) are intellectually downstream of Joseph Fielding Smith.  They echoed his assumptions and positions, without knowing that those did not remotely represent the historical decisions and views of the First Presidency. Romney, in fact, was the first to "violate" the 1931 First Presidency directive not to discuss these topics. But of course, Romney wasn't there, he probably didn't know. But he re-opened the door, and Smith ran through it. 

Edited December 23, 2024 by The_Monk

[The_Monk]

Latter-day Saints like to imagine that we get our ideas exclusively from scripture and revelation, facing to recognize that we also get MANY ideas from culture and traditions (which are then often retrojected back into scripture); culture and traditions that need to be examined through rational discourse. 

This is simply recognizing the human contingency inherent in the process of receiving, understanding, expressing, and interpreting revelations.

Or, as Elder Richards said in General Conference nearly a century ago, "In the interpretation of scripture and doctrine [Church leaders] are dependent on their knowledge and experience….. The revelations of the new dispensation, as well as those of the Bible, were in the beginning and are now interpreted by men, and men can interpret only in the light of human experience and understanding"

[JAHS]

5 hours ago, Calm said:

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

Added:  ancient existence was based on functional, not material existence (example from video:  think of the difference between an empty house and a house full of people and what is the story of the house vs the story of the home, different origin stories of the same building).  The latter exists in an ancient sense, not the former.  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.

So in other words we don't know, so it's useless to even speculate on it. I don't sleep in but do watch an occasional football game.🏈🙂

[JAHS]

5 hours ago, Calm said:

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

Added:  ancient existence was based on functional, not material existence (example from video:  think of the difference between an empty house and a house full of people and what is the story of the house vs the story of the home, different origin stories of the same building).  The latter exists in an ancient sense, not the former.  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.

So in other words we don't know, so it's useless to even speculate on it. I don't sleep in but do watch an occasional football game.🏈🙂

[JAHS]

5 hours ago, Calm said:

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

Added:  ancient existence was based on functional, not material existence (example from video:  think of the difference between an empty house and a house full of people and what is the story of the house vs the story of the home, different origin stories of the same building).  The latter exists in an ancient sense, not the former.  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.

So in other words we don't know, so it's useless to even speculate on it. I don't sleep in but do watch an occasional football game.🏈🙂

[marineland]

On 12/21/2024 at 8:26 PM, Robert F. Smith said:

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.

Viewing it as a literal garden and fruit is bound to happen when the church teaches it.

"The most immediate effect of eating the fruit of the tree of knowledge of good
and evil was becoming mortal, becoming subject to death. Soon, Adam and Eve also 
suffered spiritual death; they were cast out of the presence of God and out of 
the Garden of Eden. Perhaps the forbidden fruit contained elements that changed 
Adam's and Eve's bodies from being immortal to mortal. As Latter-day Saints, we 
believe that Adam and Eve partook of actual fruit"

https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/ensign/1994/02/i-have-a-question/what-is-the-latter-day-saint-view-on-the-forbidden-fruit?lang=eng

"Adam and Eve were the first of God's children to come to earth. They lived 
in a place called the Garden of Eden, where they were still in God's presence.

"Our Heavenly Father gave Adam and Eve agency, or freedom to choose. He commanded 
them not to eat the fruit of the tree of knowledge of good and evil. Obeying this 
commandment meant they could remain in the garden, but they could not progress by 
learning from experiences and challenges. Satan tempted Adam and Eve to eat the 
forbidden fruit, and they chose to do so. This was part of God's plan. Because of 
their decision, they were separated from God's presence physically and spiritually".

https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/bc/content/ldsorg/content/english/manual/missionary/pdf/36950_the-plan-of-salvation-eng.pdf

"When we think of Adam and Eve, often our first thought is of their idyllic life in 
the Garden of Eden. I imagine that the weather was always perfect—not too hot and 
not too cold—and that abundant, delicious fruits and vegetables grew within reach 
so they could eat whenever they liked. Since this was a new world for them, there 
was much to discover, so every day was interesting as they interacted with the 
animal life and explored their beautiful surroundings. They also were given commandments 
to obey and had different ways of approaching those instructions, which caused some 
initial anxiety and confusion" (2020 General Conference).

https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/general-conference/2020/04/34bingham?lang=eng

Then we have 2 Nephi 2:19 and Alma 42:1-9 in support.

"And after Adam and Eve had partaken of the forbidden fruit they were driven 
out of the garden of Eden, to till the earth"

 

[Ragerunner]

On 12/21/2024 at 3:20 PM, The_Monk said:

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

Outstanding work. Thank you for sharing. 

[MiserereNobis]

On 12/22/2024 at 4:56 PM, Robert F. Smith said:

Sacramentalism so deeply pervades the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints

Can you elaborate on this? I guess coming from Catholicism I barely see any sacramentalism. I’m guessing that there is in the temple, but that’s not a very common (as in doesn’t happen very often for most members) experience, right?

Edited December 24, 2024 by MiserereNobis

[Robert F. Smith]

5 hours ago, marineland said:

Viewing it as a literal garden and fruit is bound to happen when the church teaches it.

.... As Latter-day Saints, we believe that Adam and Eve partook of actual fruit"

https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/ensign/1994/02/i-have-a-question/what-is-the-latter-day-saint-view-on-the-forbidden-fruit?lang=eng

Yes, indeed, BYU Professor Bruce Van Orden teaches that, and it is published in an LDS magazine.

5 hours ago, marineland said:

"Adam and Eve were the first of God's children to come to earth. They lived 
in a place called the Garden of Eden, where they were still in God's presence.

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

https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/bc/content/ldsorg/content/english/manual/missionary/pdf/36950_the-plan-of-salvation-eng.pdf

Yes, indeed, an LDS missionary manual has that content.  But so does the Bible.

5 hours ago, marineland said:

"When we think of Adam and Eve, often our first thought is of their idyllic life in 
the Garden of Eden. I imagine that the weather was always perfect—not too hot and 
not too cold—and that abundant, delicious fruits and vegetables grew within reach 
so they could eat whenever they liked. Since this was a new world for them, there 
was much to discover, so every day was interesting as they interacted with the 
animal life and explored their beautiful surroundings. They also were given commandments 
to obey and had different ways of approaching those instructions, which caused some 
initial anxiety and confusion" (2020 General Conference).

https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/general-conference/2020/04/34bingham?lang=eng

Yes, indeed, Sister Jean B. Bingham, the Relief Society General President, did say that at Conference.

5 hours ago, marineland said:

Then we have 2 Nephi 2:19 and Alma 42:1-9 in support.

"And after Adam and Eve had partaken of the forbidden fruit they were driven 
out of the garden of Eden, to till the earth"

Yep.  So the Bible says also.

How do you square all that with the very clear contention by the Brethren that the terms used are symbolic and figurative?

You may as well claim that the Psalms and Jesus' parables are to be taken literally.  That is a fundamental category mistake.

[JAHS]

16 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said:

Yes, indeed, BYU Professor Bruce Van Orden teaches that, and it is published in an LDS magazine.

Yes, indeed, an LDS missionary manual has that content.  But so does the Bible.

Yes, indeed, Sister Jean B. Bingham, the Relief Society General President, did say that at Conference.

Yep.  So the Bible says also.

How do you square all that with the very clear contention by the Brethren that the terms used are symbolic and figurative?

You may as well claim that the Psalms and Jesus' parables are to be taken literally.  That is a fundamental category mistake.

I have understood that the church does agree that there was an Adam and Eve who were created by God, but there are some parts of the creation that should be taken figuratively. For example, there probably was not an actual snake-like serpent that tempted Eve but it was Satan himself. Eve was probably not actually created from one of Adams' ribs, And there was probably not any actual tree that they could partake of that somehow caused them to suddenly understand good and evil. 
I think we are left to understand that the Garden of Eden story is a mixture of real and figurative components. Oh and if Adam was created from the dust of the earth, did he have a belly button? 🤔

[Robert F. Smith]

5 hours ago, MiserereNobis said:

Can you elaborate on this? I guess coming from Catholicism I barely see any sacramentalism. I’m guessing that there is in the temple, but that’s not a very common (as in don’t happen very often for most members) experience, right?

Yes, esoteric temple sacramentalism is in stark contrast to the ordinary context of an LDS chapel or meetinghouse, as well as the exoteric sacramentalism practiced almost unnoticed by Latter-day Saints.  You are no doubt familiar with formal LDS baby blessings, the Sacrament of the Lord's Supper, baptisms & confirmations, grave dedications, individual anointing & blessing of the sick and afflicted, etc.  All done publicly.

The esoteric temple rites are widely published and available, and include baptism & confirmation for the dead, washing & anointing, and an endowment -- which includes holy oaths & covenants, prayer circles, and finally eternal sealings of families.  Members will often go to the Celestial Room for private prayer.

[Stargazer]

On 12/21/2024 at 8:20 PM, The_Monk said:

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

Sweet! I will try to read it.

Something you reference in the Abstract, "The Backstory to Elder Eyring’s Age of the Earth Comment and Creationism," led me at last to a term for what my understanding of creation has evolved into. Now I can confidently call myself a "theistic evolutionist"! I didn't have a name for it previously.

Thanks for that!

[Stargazer]

On 12/22/2024 at 10:09 AM, Calm said:

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

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.

My wife loves to give out Advent calendars to everyone, specially selected according to the recipient's interests. Last year she gave me a geology Advent calendar, with geology samples of various types in each box. This year she gave me one with a little marzipan sample behind each door (since I love marzipan):

 

[Robert F. Smith]

59 minutes ago, JAHS said:

I have understood that the church does agree that there was an Adam and Eve who were created by God, but there are some parts of the creation that should be taken figuratively. For example, there probably was not an actual snake-like serpent that tempted Eve but it was Satan himself. Eve was probably not actually created from one of Adams' ribs, And there was probably not any actual tree that they could partake of that somehow caused them to suddenly understand good and evil. 
I think we are left to understand that the Garden of Eden story is a mixture of real and figurative components. Oh and if Adam was created from the dust of the earth, did he have a belly button? 🤔

Yep, it is temple liturgy.  If we go along with Brother Brigham, then it is clear that Michael (who is a man-adam) was born of woman just as all humans are born, and the same for his wife.  "Dust" merely stands in for the elements from which all things are made, whether on this planet or another.  Michael was born from the womb of his mother on another planet, and then brought here as an innocent babe with a navel.  We celebrate it with ritual.

[Stargazer]

I used to try to convince LDS who were all hung up on a literal 6-day creation etc., that it didn't need to be literal. That the scriptures were not written to be scientific dissertations. I've kind of given up, actually. If you want to believe the way that Joseph Fielding Smith believed, go ahead. It doesn't hurt, unless your faith can be damaged by actual scientific facts. 

The Universe is beautiful, and when we look at it through telescopes, do we imagine that it is a huge CGI display for us to gawk at, or is it real?

Consider Moses chapter 1. We love to dwell hopefully on verse 39: "For behold, this is my work and my glory—to bring to pass the immortality and eternal life of man."

But have we read the other verses, especially the ones that describe Moses' conversation with God, wherein Moses asks God about our world that the Lord had shown him, and God goes on to tell Moses that there is lot more.

33 And worlds without number have I created; and I also created them for mine own purpose; and by the Son I created them, which is mine Only Begotten.
34 And the first man of all men have I called Adam, which is many.
35 But only an account of this earth, and the inhabitants thereof, give I unto you. For behold, there are many worlds that have passed away by the word of my power. And there are many that now stand, and innumerable are they unto man; but all things are numbered unto me, for they are mine and I know them.
37 And the Lord God spake unto Moses, saying: The heavens, they are many, and they cannot be numbered unto man; but they are numbered unto me, for they are mine.
38 And as one earth shall pass away, and the heavens thereof even so shall another come; and there is no end to my works, neither to my words.

When you look at the enormity of the Universe, you are looking at the past, because of lightspeed. And how many of those stars above that you see once harbored Adams and Eves? And how many will harbor Adams and Eves in the future?

Or is it all just one big lightshow?

[JAHS]

19 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said:

Yep, it is temple liturgy.  If we go along with Brother Brigham, then it is clear that Michael (who is a man-adam) was born of woman just as all humans are born, and the same for his wife.  "Dust" merely stands in for the elements from which all things are made, whether on this planet or another.  Michael was born from the womb of his mother on another planet, and then brought here as an innocent babe with a navel.  We celebrate it with ritual.

Yes, Joseph Smith is quoted as saying:

"Now regarding Adam: He came here from another planet, an immortalized Being, and brought his wife Eve with him, and by eating of the fruit of this earth, became subject to death and decay. . . was made mortal and subject to death." - (Prophet Joseph Smith, Jr., as recorded by Anson Call and copied by Patriarch John Whitmer)

Brigham Young:
"Here let me state to all philosopahers of every class upon the earth. when you tell me that father Adam was made as we make adobies from the earth. You tell me what I deem an idle tale when you tell me that the beasts of the field were produced in that manner. You are speaking idle words devoid of meaning. There is no such thing in all the eternities. Where the gods dwell mankind are here because they are the offspring of parents who were first brought here from another planet and power was given them to propagate their species and they were commanded to multiply and replenish the earth." (Journal of Discourses 7:285-286)

If his is true, I guess that means Adam and Eve really did have belly buttons. 🙂

But is it really "official" church doctrine? I don't think any other Church prophet since then as repeated it.

 

[longview]

6 minutes ago, Stargazer said:

38 And as one earth shall pass away, and the heavens thereof even so shall another come; and there is no end to my works, neither to my words.

Does this verse indicate that the Universe is infinite? That the number of intelligences (pre-First Estate) is also infinite?

8 minutes ago, Stargazer said:

35 But only an account of this earth, and the inhabitants thereof, give I unto you. For behold, there are many worlds that have passed away by the word of my power. And there are many that now stand, and innumerable are they unto man; but all things are numbered unto me, for they are mine and I know them.

The works of God and His Generations (Eternal Rounds?) are unimaginably huge to the minds of mortal men but this is still finite (not infinite) and countable to Him. People who keep their Second Estate are qualified to participate in new Eternal Rounds. Thus the work will never end but the scope of the work expands exponentially!

19 minutes ago, Stargazer said:

I used to try to convince LDS who were all hung up on a literal 6-day creation etc., that it didn't need to be literal. That the scriptures were not written to be scientific dissertations.

Agree that some interpretations are too simplistic. But many Latter Day scriptures teach that the first creations were spiritual: spiritual planets, spiritual plants, spiritual creatures, etc. Then there was the physical creation in the Terrestrial State in which there was no death. As will the case in the Millennium with identical conditions. Plants and animals reproducing and then transfiguring to a different plane of existence after a set period of time.

God could not start with a fallen and corruptible world as it is not permitted by the eternal law of justice. Thus the world had to be set up in a way that Adam and Eve with the veil of forgetfulness over their minds were given mutually exclusive commands for having children but NOT partaking of the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil. They had to make a choice. One way or the other but NOT both.

2 hours ago, Stargazer said:

Something you reference in the Abstract, "The Backstory to Elder Eyring’s Age of the Earth Comment and Creationism," led me at last to a term for what my understanding of creation has evolved into. Now I can confidently call myself a "theistic evolutionist"! I didn't have a name for it previously.

Because there were uncountable generations of creations (Eternal Rounds) it really does NOT make sense for the Gods to have to use evolution to start things up each and every time. We are now seeing more and more evidences of the incredible machinery and function of many parts within the cell complex. The only thing scientists have proved is that natural selection do bring about more survivable traits in some cases. But there is zero evidence of interspecies transitions.

What do the fossil records tell us? Not enough to provide a sufficient picture of what did transpire. What scientists do is make extrapolations and conjectures. Sometimes they fall into the trap of making circular reasonings.

[Calm]

20 hours ago, longview said:

Because there were uncountable generations of creations (Eternal Rounds) it really does NOT make sense for the Gods to have to use evolution to start things up each and every time.

He has eternity to create, using evolution gives him time to pay attention to those of his myriad of creations in the later, more complicated stages while allowing the newer worlds to percolate on their own after being seeded to get them going.

Iow, if he has multiple pots on the stove, it makes sense to minimize effort and need for attention.

Quote

What scientists do is make extrapolations and conjectures. Sometimes they fall into the trap of making circular reasonings.

Sounds familiar.

Edited December 25, 2024 by Calm

[Stargazer]

21 hours ago, longview said:

Does this verse indicate that the Universe is infinite? That the number of intelligences (pre-First Estate) is also infinite?

No. As I once said to someone who no longer posts here, not even God can count to infinity, because infinity cannot be reached. An infinite universe is absurd.

21 hours ago, longview said:

The works of God and His Generations (Eternal Rounds?) are unimaginably huge to the minds of mortal men but this is still finite (not infinite) and countable to Him. People who keep their Second Estate are qualified to participate in new Eternal Rounds. Thus the work will never end but the scope of the work expands exponentially!

Yes. As it says in Moses 1:35

35 But only an account of this earth, and the inhabitants thereof, give I unto you. For behold, there are many worlds that have passed away by the word of my power. And there are many that now stand, and innumerable are they unto man; but all things are numbered unto me, for they are mine and I know them.

21 hours ago, longview said:

Agree that some interpretations are too simplistic. But many Latter Day scriptures teach that the first creations were spiritual: spiritual planets, spiritual plants, spiritual creatures, etc. Then there was the physical creation in the Terrestrial State in which there was no death. As will the case in the Millennium with identical conditions. Plants and animals reproducing and then transfiguring to a different plane of existence after a set period of time.

Your mileage may differ, but my understanding is that the spiritual creation consisted either of mere plans to make things a certain way and according to a certain schedule -- OR as it states in 2 Ne 2:14

for there is a God, and he hath created all things, both the heavens and the earth, and all things that in them are, both things to act and things to be acted upon.

This suggests that there are other "things to act" than human beings. In Genesis it says that God created this and that, but gives no mechanism. In Moses 2:5, however, God says

...this I did by the word of my power, and it was done as I spake...

This signifies that the method He used was to command. And he was obeyed. He did not create it all by force upon dead matter; he commanded and he was obeyed by those "things to act and things to be acted upon." This suggests that those things which he commanded had a will of their own, and obeyed.

Moses 1:32 And by the word of my power, have I created them, which is mine Only Begotten Son, who is full of grace and truth.

In other words, those things obey Him because He is full of grace and truth. 

21 hours ago, longview said:

God could not start with a fallen and corruptible world as it is not permitted by the eternal law of justice. Thus the world had to be set up in a way that Adam and Eve with the veil of forgetfulness over their minds were given mutually exclusive commands for having children but NOT partaking of the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil. They had to make a choice. One way or the other but NOT both.

I am unsure how to understand this, so I'll just leave it.

21 hours ago, longview said:

Because there were uncountable generations of creations (Eternal Rounds) it really does NOT make sense for the Gods to have to use evolution to start things up each and every time. We are now seeing more and more evidences of the incredible machinery and function of many parts within the cell complex. The only thing scientists have proved is that natural selection do bring about more survivable traits in some cases. But there is zero evidence of interspecies transitions.

Well, I have to disagree. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. It's difficult to find interspecies transitions because by its very nature, the continuum is too subtle, and fossils are actually overwhelmingly rare. The age of the dinosaurs lasted from about 243 million BC to 66 million BC. One genus of dinosaur, the Allosaurs, of which there were about 3 known species, lived 155 to 145 million years ago. In 10 million years, there would have been billions of them. How many fossils have been found? Maybe a couple hundred. How do you find transitions in that kind of sample? They used to think that there were as many as 19 species, but it became clear that there was a lot of individual variation within species. And if there were only 3 species, which one was the first? Maybe the first one went extinct and we haven't found any of its fossils. Paleontologists have no idea. But it was clear that there may have been speciation between whatever the original species was, going from one to three species. On the other hand, if you want to postulate that God originally created three distinct species of Allosaurus, feel free, but does it really matter what happened?

God is perfectly capable of creating life exactly according to how paleontology says it happened, or according to how you wish to believe He did. You can't prove one way over the other. And it does not harm the idea of God at all, whichever way it happened. 

21 hours ago, longview said:

What do the fossil records tell us? Not enough to provide a sufficient picture of what did transpire. What scientists do is make extrapolations and conjectures. Sometimes they fall into the trap of making circular reasonings.

And circular reasonings are also made by creationists.

Ultimately, it doesn't matter. God created the Universe. Whether He did so according to creationism or science doesn't matter in the slightest. Because He is the one who did it.

Creationists insist that science is trying to disprove God. But all science is trying to do is to find out how it happened. Or, how God did it.

Edited December 26, 2024 by Stargazer

[longview]

5 hours ago, Stargazer said:

On 12/24/2024 at 7:31 PM, longview said:

God could not start with a fallen and corruptible world as it is not permitted by the eternal law of justice. Thus the world had to be set up in a way that Adam and Eve with the veil of forgetfulness over their minds were given mutually exclusive commands for having children but NOT partaking of the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil. They had to make a choice. One way or the other but NOT both.

I am unsure how to understand this, so I'll just leave it.

I explained that pre-Fall earth was in a Terrestrial State because God cannot directly form a corruptible Telestial planet.

[Stargazer]

2 hours ago, longview said:

I explained that pre-Fall earth was in a Terrestrial State because God cannot directly form a corruptible Telestial planet.

Ah, got it. Nice!

But I feel you are using a figurative to describe a literal. And that is like comparing apples to oranges, as it were. 

Do you recall that part of the Endowment ritual was to symbolically transition from the telestial world to the terrestrial by brightening the lights, because we no longer changed rooms from the telestial to the terrestrial? Genesis as temple ritual, not as the literal creation, in other words.

And how is it that God cannot directly create a telestial world? Are you limiting God's capabilities?

[Stargazer]

In connection with this topic, I offer this intriguing video...