FYI on LDS Creationism/Evolution history

[Calm]

1 hour ago, Stargazer said:

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

Yes, there is nothing evil in an evolving world after all.  It takes a moral agent to create evil and good.

Edited December 26, 2024 by Calm

[marineland]

On 12/24/2024 at 5:25 PM, Robert F. Smith said:

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

The Brethren are trying to correct previously-held false teachings.

[Robert F. Smith]

On 12/24/2024 at 5:41 PM, JAHS said:

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.

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.

“yet man is the king of kings and lord of lords in embryo.”  Journal of Discourses, X:223.

Joseph F. Smith, John R. Winder, Anthon H. Lund, First Presidency of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, November 1909,

Quote

“all who have inhabited the earth since Adam have taken bodies and become souls in like manner.”
* * * * *
“True it is that the body of man enters upon its career as a tiny germ embryo, which becomes an infant, quickened at a certain stage by the spirit whose tabernacle it is, and the child, after being born, develops into a man. There is nothing in this, however, to indicate that the original man, the first of our race, began life as anything less than a man, or less than the human germ or embryo that becomes a man.”  Improvement Era, Nov 1909, 75–81 (emphasis added).  Heber J. Grant, Anthony W. Ivins, and Charles W. Nibley explicitly agreed to this in 1925 as the next First Presidency.

 

Edited December 26, 2024 by Robert F. Smith

[Robert F. Smith]

3 hours ago, marineland said:

The Brethren are trying to correct previously-held false teachings.

You mean false assumptions

[longview]

19 hours ago, Stargazer said:

Ultimately, it doesn't matter. God created the Universe.

The entire Universe? Or do you mean multiple heavens? The scriptures is replete with describing the organization of planets with its corresponding heavens. I do not believe there was a "Original or First Creation." The hymn "If you could hie to Kolob" declares that there is no end to space, matter, etc. Thus infinite. Because of the "Endless Generations of the Gods" I am inclined to discount the big bang conjecture.

19 hours ago, Stargazer said:

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

I believe that there is an overarching power of the Priesthood. It controls all aspects of creation and maintains stability of numerous implementations of the "Plan of Happiness" for successive generations. I appreciated your post of the video "Exposing Scientific Dogma." It made me ponder on the changes in the laws of nature that could occur in transitions between the Telestial, Terrestrial and Celestial.

19 hours ago, Stargazer said:

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.

There is wide variations among "creationists". Some are pretty silly but I have a great appreciation for Stephen C. Meyer a highly trained scientist who has a extensive body of work exploring many aspects of science including the cell complex, cosmology, etc.

12 hours ago, Stargazer said:

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?

You need to keep in mind that the mortal phase of Earth is bookended by the Terrestrial State in the beginning (Garden of Eden) and another Terrestrial State at the "End of the World" immediately after the Second Coming of Christ. In both Terrestrial States there was/will be no death (creatures being transfigured to another plane of existence). The Millennium will last a thousand years before transitioning to the Celestial State.

Dave Butler has written a few books about his review of the scriptures where he has found many temple themes symbolically representing transitions between the three states. He has seen them in other cultures such as Egyptian rituals. See 

 

12 hours ago, Stargazer said:

Genesis as temple ritual, not as the literal creation, in other words.

Many ordinances and rituals in the temple are heavily laden with symbolism. I believe some of them (if not all) will have real meaningful applications in the next world. I also believe there are actual historical references that we can rely on. Consider the statements:

• here is matter unorganized
• Adam and Eve making a choice
• Sending angels to assist mortals
• performing ordinances for other actual people (actual historical figures)

There was an actual creation. It is specifically referenced in the temple.

[Mfbnew]

On 12/22/2024 at 12:40 PM, OGHoosier said:

@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. 

Been busy- but finally after reading this, but the first time I read this, my feelings went to the "ineffable" side of the chart. 

Nailed it, and more!  We now see and try to communicate through a "glass (mirror) darkly"- all we can understand is reflected in that "dark mirror" of- ready for it?- all that we can understand.   We are stuck seeing in that dark mirror,  staring at our own thoughts and limitations staring back at us.  We cannot get very far from being "human"- though perhaps just enough to be tantalized into trying to get beyond- as we are in the example you bring up.

Other concepts connect to this idea easily- 1. the concept of "qualia", 2.-a famous essay entitled ""What is it like to be a bat" and then - 3.- a talk given by President Kimball on "Absolute Truth".   https://speeches.byu.edu/talks/spencer-w-kimball/absolute-truth/

Henri Bergson was a foundational figure in what later become the cornerstone of much of contemporary philosophies including Rorty's Pragmatism- William James- and his "Functionalism"- and then Husserl and his "Phenomenology"- which evolved into "Existentialism"--  ALL of these rely on the idea that the only ldeas that we personally hold as "true" are principles gained by our own personal EXPERIENCE.

And that set of ideas includes religious experience.   We can be as sure that God talks to us as we can be that the sun will rise in the morning!   We can only know both if we have personally experienced them.

How can we know that an experienced color is "red"- Because we have experienced it!

Can we describe it to one who has never seen "red"- perhaps due to colorblindness?  Not possible.

And then we have "Mary's  Room."    All of these point to the idea that there IS no absolute "truth" except for those experiences we have personally had!

Quote

 

Qualia: The Knowledge Argument

Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy

https://plato.stanford.edu › entries › qualia-knowledge

 

[Mfbnew]

On 12/22/2024 at 12:40 PM, OGHoosier said:

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

Absolutely LOVE THIS!!  🤩

[JAHS]

8 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

Brigham Young said,

Joseph F. Smith, John R. Winder, Anthon H. Lund, First Presidency of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, November 1909,

 

OK. Recent Church leaders within the last 100 years. (John Rex. Winder was my great great grandfather 🙂)

[Robert F. Smith]

1 hour ago, JAHS said:

OK. Recent Church leaders within the last 100 years. (John Rex. Winder was my great great grandfather 🙂)

Well, no one has denied it.

[marineland]

On 12/26/2024 at 3:31 PM, Robert F. Smith said:

You mean false assumptions

You're partly right.  It would help if church leaders speak with qualifiers such 
as "this my opinion", "I assume", or "this is my theory" in what they say.

Edited December 28, 2024 by marineland

[Robert F. Smith]

3 hours ago, marineland said:

You're partly right.  It would help if church leaders speak with qualifiers such 
as "this my opinion", "I assume", or "this is my theory" in what they say.

Most of those LDS Church leaders are actually basing their statements on the inspiration of the Holy Spirit and on reading Holy Writ.  Their words are not inerrant or infallible, and probably include opinions, assumptions, and theories.  That's how humans think.

If I say that I think that one should not drink booze and drive a car, am I being unreasonable or dictatorial, or am I expressing a reasonable conclusion from life experience?  Can I not say that with some degree of certainty?  Do I really need a qualifier?

[The_Monk]

Part of the problem was that in the hermenuetics of Joseph Fielding Smith and others, they did NOT think they were "interpreting." They were merely conveyors of scripture's meaning, which was clear and plain. OTHERS interpreted, but scripture did not require interpretation. Smith expressed this on multiple occasions, but his clearest one is in a 1957 letter. 

Quote

If the revelations given from the divine source are not reliable; if they are possible [sic] of varied interpretations, then they become useless to the members of the Church and we find ourselves groping blindly in the dark. But this is not the case. The Lord has spoken clearly and definitely.

Note his implicit definitions. "Reliable" means 1) correct 2) plain and clear, requiring no interpretation. 

Denial of one's own assumptions and denial of interpretation means that you filter scripture through modern assumptions and knowledge. It's like reading scripture through heavily smudged lenses while denying you're wearing glasses. 

The positions we take are downstream of the assumptions we make, and that's why my diss examining the positions taken spend so much time looking at the expression of assumptions made. 

[JAHS]

7 hours ago, marineland said:

You're partly right.  It would help if church leaders speak with qualifiers such 
as "this my opinion", "I assume", or "this is my theory" in what they say.

The early Saints felt that they should preach strictly by the Spirit. Elder Orson Pratt said, sometimes he – and probably other speakers – gave sermons when their “mind[s] seemed to be entirely closed up....” Recalling such an incident, Pratt remarked, “What few words I could stammer forth before a congregation, were altogether unsatisfactory to my own mind, and I presume to those who heard me.”

They felt that teaching by the spirit means whatever they say is the will of God.  So therefore no qualifiers. Of course the issue is they may not have been teaching by the spirt sometimes. 

[InCognitus]

1 hour ago, JAHS said:

The early Saints felt that they should preach strictly by the Spirit. Elder Orson Pratt said, sometimes he – and probably other speakers – gave sermons when their “mind[s] seemed to be entirely closed up....” Recalling such an incident, Pratt remarked, “What few words I could stammer forth before a congregation, were altogether unsatisfactory to my own mind, and I presume to those who heard me.”

They felt that teaching by the spirit means whatever they say is the will of God.  So therefore no qualifiers. Of course the issue is they may not have been teaching by the spirt sometimes. 

Either I am misunderstanding what you are saying here, or I don't think you are reading that quotation accurately given the context.  At least I don't find the generalization you make that "early Saints" (as you put it) "felt that teaching by the spirit means whatever they say is the will of God" is correct, and I certainly don't get that at all from the full context of Orson Pratt's talk that you quoted.  He makes a very clear contrast between the experience he had in the portion of his talk that you quoted, and what he later described as being able to teach by the power and gift of the Holy Ghost.  Here's a more complete context of his remarks (with the portion you quoted shown in blue italics):

Quote

I have, through upwards of forty years' experience in the public ministry, learned some few lessons in regard to public speaking.  In the first place I know that the wisdom of man avails but very little, and that our own judgment, thoughts and reflections are not what the Lord requires; but he does require, and has required, ever since the rise of this Church, that his servants should speak by the power of the Holy Ghost.  A revelation given to the Elders of this Church in the year 1831, says, "My servants shall be sent forth to the east and to the west, and to the north and to the south, and they shall lift up their voices and speak and prophecy, as seemeth me good; but if you receive not the Spirit you shall not teach."  This is a commandment that the Lord gave to his servants over forty years ago.  I have seen a few times from the commencement of my ministry, when my mind seemed to be entirely closed up, and when what few words I could stammer forth before a congregation, were altogether unsatisfactory to my own mind, and I presume to those who heard me.  But I do feel thankful to God that latterly, from year to year, he has favored me with a liberty of utterance and with the power and gift of the Holy Ghost.  I acknowledge his hand in this, for I know it has come from him, and having experienced the two conditions of mind I know the difference.  I know that, not only as public speakers, but as individual members of the Church of the living God, there are many things pertaining to our everyday duties, which if we clearly understood by the light of the Spirit, we would escape many things which cause unhappiness.  It is the want of clearly understanding the will of the Lord under all circumstances that causes us to fall into many of the evils that we pass through in life.  I can look back on my past life and can speak from experience in these matters.  I can remember many times when, if I had been guided by the Spirit of the Lord in regard to temporal matters, it would have been well with me; but not altogether understanding what the mind of the Spirit was, the course I have taken at times has been very disadvantageous to me.   (Journal of Discourses, Vol.15, p.230 - p.231, Orson Pratt, November 24, 1972)

So in other words, the portion you quoted was Elder Pratt's example of NOT teaching by the Spirit, whereas he later had many experiences by which he clearly knew he was teaching by the power and gift of the Holy Ghost.

I think it's also important to point out that he also makes a clear distinction between the "wisdom of man... our own judgement, thoughts and reflections" and speaking "by the power of the Holy Ghost", which (again, if I understood you correctly) is exactly the opposite of the way you used the quotation.

Am I misunderstanding you?

ETA:  I did some googling, and I see how the quote you used has been utilized to explain that the early Saints felt that they should preach strictly by the Spirit and thus they rarely gave memorized or pre-written sermons (nearly all sermons were given extemporaneously), and that the quote you used demonstrates Elder Pratt's early attempts at trying to do that.  But I think it's important to recognize the difference between his early attempts and his later experiences in teaching by the Spirit.

Edited December 29, 2024 by InCognitus

[JAHS]

6 minutes ago, InCognitus said:

Either I am misunderstanding what you are saying here, or I don't think you are reading that quotation accurately given the context.  At least I don't find the generalization you make that "early Saints" (as you put it) "felt that teaching by the spirit means whatever they say is the will of God" is correct, and I certainly don't get that at all from the full context of Orson Pratt's talk that you quoted.  He makes a very clear contrast between the experience he had in the portion of his talk that you quoted, and what he later described as being able to teach by the power and gift of the Holy Ghost.  Here's a more complete context of his remarks (with the portion you quoted shown in blue italics):

So in other words, the portion you quoted was Elder Pratt's example of NOT teaching by the Spirit, whereas he later had many experiences by which he clearly knew he was teaching by the power and gift of the Holy Ghost.

I think it's also important to point out that he also makes a clear distinction between the "wisdom of man... our own judgement, thoughts and reflections" and speaking "by the power of the Holy Ghost", which (again, if I understood you correctly) is exactly the opposite of the way you used the quotation.

Am I misunderstanding you?

Not sure if you are or not. I am just trying to guess at why the church leaders back then did not use qualifiers like Marineland wanted. Whenever they spoke they hoped that they were led by the spirit so they could speak with confidence in what they were saying. I agree Elder Pratt was often usually speaking by the spirit, but he did seem to agree that sometimes he did not. He did learn the difference like you say but did his audience know the difference? 

[InCognitus]

35 minutes ago, JAHS said:

Not sure if you are or not. I am just trying to guess at why the church leaders back then did not use qualifiers like Marineland wanted. Whenever they spoke they hoped that they were led by the spirit so they could speak with confidence in what they were saying. I agree Elder Pratt was often usually speaking by the spirit, but he did seem to agree that sometimes he did not. He did learn the difference like you say but did his audience know the difference? 

I was adding an addendum to my post at the same time you were responding to it, so you may have missed that part.

I see what you were trying to get at now (based on how I found that quote had been used), but I take issue with your statement that, "They felt that teaching by the spirit means whatever they say is the will of God", because Orson Pratt explained that he recognized the clear difference between his early experience(s) and actually speaking by the Spirit.

I think it's more accurate to say that they felt that speaking extemporaneously was the best way that would lead them to teach by the Spirit, but sometimes they struggled with the latter.

Edited December 29, 2024 by InCognitus

[marineland]

On 12/28/2024 at 1:44 PM, Robert F. Smith said:

Most of those LDS Church leaders are actually basing their statements on the inspiration of the Holy Spirit and on reading Holy Writ.  Their words are not inerrant or infallible, and probably include opinions, assumptions, and theories.  That's how humans think.

If the inspiration of the Holy Spirit leads them to teach about a literal garden with
actual fruit, then the inspiration of different individuals to teach others to view it 
as symbolic fruit in a symbolic garden is coming from someone or somewhere else.

On 12/28/2024 at 1:44 PM, Robert F. Smith said:

If I say that I think that one should not drink booze and drive a car, am I being unreasonable or dictatorial, or am I expressing a reasonable conclusion from life experience?  Can I not say that with some degree of certainty?  Do I really need a qualifier?

No.  But teaching "Adam and Eve ate actual fruit in a literal garden" and "Adam and
Eve did not eat actual fruit in a literal garden" are both in agreement with scripture is
not a reasonable conclusion. It's one or the other, but not both.

Maybe some will feel the inspiration of what they believe to be coming from the Holy
Spirit and deny the command to be fruitful and multiply implies literal procreation.

[Teancum]

On 12/21/2024 at 8:26 PM, 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.

I like your approach but it certainly is not the approach most LDS take. See @teddyaware's comments.

[Teancum]

On 12/22/2024 at 8:38 AM, 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?

A lot of people who understand the science literally obliterates a literal reading of the scriptures you posit as myth and utter nonsense. So many try to jump through mental hoops to keep their testimony intact. I did this for many years until I conclude that yea, they are nothing less than a pack of preposterous lies.

[Teancum]

On 12/22/2024 at 4:37 PM, 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. 

Oh well, ah.....they were just speaking as men. Their own opinion and all that. See this is what the church does with teachings that cannot be defended or that are not liked anymore.

[Teancum]

On 12/22/2024 at 7:19 PM, Calm said:

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.

 

Ahh goodness, All the energy that is wasted on trying reconcile myths from a book so many think are from God and then all the hoops one needs to go through in order to twist and gyrate and still make it work. It is exhausting. Once one realized it is all just man made and has no relevance in reality it is much easier to just move on.  But I get it. Most my life, even as a believer, I had to to mental gyrations around this topic to make it work and then I realized I did not need to make it work because it is all fiction.

[Teancum]

On 12/22/2024 at 4:41 PM, OGHoosier said:

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.

This is such a fun thread. You all really need to work at this to make it work for you and still maintain your testimony.  🙃

[Calm]

 

45 minutes ago, Teancum said:

. It is exhausting

Guess it’s a POV thing and why you do it because I find it quite fun and engaging.  It feeds me rather than exhausts me. I like using my brain.

[let’s roll]

I understand why some may enjoy discussing these issues.  That said, both the believer and the scientist are credible only if they concede there is much that they don’t know.

As a believer I’m more than willing to acknowledge that the gap in knowledge between me and an omnipotent God is far wider than the gap between a child and a Nobel laureate physicist.  That being the case, I don’t expect Deity to deign to provide a literal explanation about something I don’t yet have the tools to understand.  What I can understand, as I seek and experience it, is Divine love.  Such seeking is noble.
 

And the Nobel laureate physicist may try to use simple examples and allegory in trying to share current science with a child , but in doing so would have to concede that the working theory of science 100 years ago was different than today’s and the working theory a century from now will undoubtedly be different from today’s as old theories are refined or discarded as science seeks clearer understanding.  Such seeking is noble.

[2BizE]

I believe our church is in the beginning processes of unlearning things we have been taught for centuries/decades as being the truth or doctrine. This is a perfect example of things we need to unlearn. We have been misled on many things including the concept that Adam and Eve were the first people on this Earth. Adam and Eve, the Garden of Eden, Noah and the Ark are liturgical. They are non-historical stories.