Peter Carmack and Ross Baron’s Philosophy, Evolution, and the Restored Gospel

[Emily]

On 1/9/2025 at 4:01 PM, Analytics said:

In contrast, various theories of souls all claim that souls don't change and can't change (i.e. they are "rigid, exclusive, and theologically meaningful"). Thus, the two theories aren't compatible. According to evolution, there was never a clear line where Homo erectus parents gave birth to the first Homo sapien child. The dividing line is very blurry and tens-of-thousands of years wide. So did God come down and arbitrarily say this child is Homo sapien and gets priesthood, eternal blessings, etc., while his parents are mere animals? How and where could God possibly draw such a line?

The Book of Abraham actually presents a situation of gradient souls.... One more "intelligent" than the other. So at least one theory of souls is compatible with the idea that the dividing line is very blurry when it comes to status of souls as well. In addition, souls are capable of growth and change or there wouldn't be much point to mortality (the whole point of which is to learn and be tested) and gaining a body (a pretty significant change for a soul.) 

Nibley had a fairly cogent dividing line for determining "our people" vs the people who came before. Adam was taught to read and write and keep records. So our people have books. If they didn't have books, they may still be people, but they aren't the family of Adam.

But leaving aside the book theory, I don't think God needs to draw lines. His children reveal themselves. Who gets the priesthood and eternal blessings? The people who are actively looking for further light and knowledge. 

[Analytics]

4 hours ago, Emily said:

The Book of Abraham actually presents a situation of gradient souls.... One more "intelligent" than the other. So at least one theory of souls is compatible with the idea that the dividing line is very blurry when it comes to status of souls as well. In addition, souls are capable of growth and change or there wouldn't be much point to mortality (the whole point of which is to learn and be tested) and gaining a body (a pretty significant change for a soul.) 

Nibley had a fairly cogent dividing line for determining "our people" vs the people who came before. Adam was taught to read and write and keep records. So our people have books. If they didn't have books, they may still be people, but they aren't the family of Adam.

But leaving aside the book theory, I don't think God needs to draw lines. His children reveal themselves. Who gets the priesthood and eternal blessings? The people who are actively looking for further light and knowledge. 

A+ answer; thanks 

[Stargazer]

On 1/9/2025 at 4:00 AM, Calm said:

Am curious if anyone has read the book or is otherwise familiar with the arguments included in it against evolution.  I believe the premise is if you are a theist, belief in evolution is contradictory.  (Just to be clear, this is definitely not what I believe, I am an evolutionary theist and proud of it ).

Yeah, me too. I enjoy annoying atheists who try to use evolution to shame me for believing in God. 

Atheist: "How can you possibly believe God created the earth in only seven days? That's ridiculous."
Me: "Oh, the earth wasn't created in a week. I trust science on that one. The seven day thing is symbolic and is meant to show that God was the one who did it, intentionally, and that it was just an accident. Besides, after talking about seven days in Genesis 1, in Genesis 2 God says it only took a day. So he was using "day" to mean something like "creative period." And just because some believers want to take it literally doesn't mean that I have to."

 

[Emily]

2 hours ago, Stargazer said:

Besides, after talking about seven days in Genesis 1, in Genesis 2 God says it only took a day. So he was using "day" to mean something like "creative period." And just because some believers want to take it literally doesn't mean that I have to."

Our "Genesis" was pieced together from at least three major, and possibly other minor manuscripts that were collected after the Babylonian captivity under a political directive. In the interests of not losing something important, the scholars who did the work included pieces from all the manuscripts without apparently worrying too much about duplication or discrepancies. Changes in how much time something took (number of days) is probably a reflection of the account coming from a different manuscript rather than an indication of variance in the meaning of the word.

But your overall argument is still good because there are plenty of indications that the Hebrew word "yom" as it is used in the Bible had variations of meaning similar to our own use of the English word "day." It can mean a period of light (daytime). It can mean a cycle of light and dark (24 hrs). It can mean a general vague period of time (in those days). And can be used figuratively, "a year for us is like a day for God."

But even if Moses meant to use yom in the sense of "day" meaning exactly 24 hours when he wrote Genesis, it's not an indication of how long it took to form and organize the Earth because the whole story of the Garden of Eden is part of a ritual and should only be understood in the context of the ritual. Trying to use it as a scientific theory makes as much sense as insisting that Christ was once an actual wooly lamb and is going to turn into a sword carrying lion. 

 

 

Edited March 11, 2025 by Emily

[Calm]

7 hours ago, Emily said:

because the whole story of the Garden of Eden is part of a ritual and should only be understood in the context of the ritual

This!!!!

You really need to post more.

Edited March 11, 2025 by Calm

[InCognitus]

19 hours ago, Calm said:

This!!!!

You really need to post more.

You probably already know this (I've mentioned it before), but Emily is my wife.   I enjoy her posts here too.

She has a lot of things going on and she doesn't visit here regularly, so when I see a thread topic or a post that I know is of interest to her I send her a link to it (like I did with this thread).  I'll work harder to find more ways to draw her in.