Poll: Evolution

[bytor2112]

"Many among us have no difficulty envisioning that the atonement is infinite and eternal and applies to all forms of life. They know that the revelations say in so many words that all forms of life both lived as spirit entities and will be resurrected--animals, fowls, fishes--all things are eternal in nature.

But some among us have not yet had it dawn upon them that all things fell and became mortal so they could be resurrected.

The early Brethren of our dispensation wrote these words:

The word atonement signifies deliverance, through the offering of a ransom, from the penalty of a broken law. . . . As effected by Jesus Christ, it signifies the deliverance, through his death and resurrection, of the earth and everything pertaining to it, from the power which death has obtained over them through the transgression of Adam. . . . Redemption from death, through the sufferings of Christ, is for all men, both the righteous and the wicked; for this earth, and for all things created upon it. "[bruce R. McConkie]

All things which were created must have remained in the same state in which they were after they were created; and they must have remained forever, and had no end. [2 Nephi 2:22]

[bytor2112]

Interesting comments from one set apart as a propher-seer and revelator:

"Heresy two concerns itself with the relationship between organic evolution and revealed religion and asks the question whether they can be harmonized.

There are those who believe that the theory of organic evolution runs counter to the plain and explicit principles set forth in the holy scriptures as these have been interpreted and taught by Joseph Smith and his associates. There are others who think that evolution is the system used by the Lord to form plant and animal life and to place man on earth.

May I say that all truth is in agreement, that true religion and true science bear the same witness, and that in the true and full sense, true science is part of true religion. But may I also raise some questions of a serious nature. Is there any way to harmonize the false religions of the Dark Ages with the truths of science as they have now been discovered? Is there any way to harmonize the revealed religion that has come to us with the theoretical postulates of Darwinism and the diverse speculations descending therefrom?

Should we accept the famous document of the First Presidency issued in the days of President Joseph F. Smith and entitled "The Origin of Man" as meaning exactly what it says? Is it the doctrine of the gospel that Adam stood next to Christ in power and might and intelligence before the foundations of the world were laid; that Adam was placed on this earth as an immortal being; that there was no death in the world for him or for any form of life until after the Fall; that the fall of Adam brought temporal and spiritual death into the world; that this temporal death passed upon all forms of life, upon man and animal and fish and fowl and plant life; that Christ came to ransom man and all forms of life from the effects of the temporal death brought into the world through the Fall, and in the case of man from a spiritual death also; and that this ransom includes a resurrection for man and for all forms of life? Can you harmonize these things with the evolutionary postulate that death has always existed and that the various forms of life have evolved from preceding forms over astronomically long periods of time?

Can you harmonize the theories of men with the inspired words that say: And now, behold, if Adam had not transgressed he would not have fallen, but he would have remained in the Garden of Eden. And all things which were created must have remained in the same state in which they were after they were created; and they must have remained forever, and had no end.

And they [meaning Adam and Eve] would have had no children; wherefore they would have remained in a state of innocence, having no joy, for they knew no misery; doing no good, for they knew no sin.

But behold, all things have been done in the wisdom of him who knoweth all things. Adam fell that men might be; and men are, that they might have joy. And the Messiah cometh in the fulness of time, that he may redeem the children of men from the fall. [2 Ne. 2:22-26]

These are questions to which all of us should find answers. Every person must choose for himself what he will believe. I recommend that all of you study and ponder and pray and seek light and knowledge in these and in all fields.

I believe that the atonement of Christ is the great and eternal foundation upon which revealed religion rests. I believe that no man can be saved unless he believes that our Lord's atoning sacrifice brings immortality to all and eternal life to those who believe and obey, and no man can believe in the atonement unless he accepts both the divine sonship of Christ and the fall of Adam.

My reasoning causes me to conclude that if death has always prevailed in the world, then there was no fall of Adam that brought death to all forms of life; that if Adam did not fall, there is no need for an atonement; that if there was no atonement, there is no salvation, no resurrection, and no eternal life; and that if there was no atonement, there is nothing in all of the glorious promises that the Lord has given us. I believe that the Fall affects man, all forms of life, and the earth itself."[ Bruce R. McConkie]

Edited October 23, 2008 by bytor2112

[Prodigal_Son]

These are questions to which all of us should find answers. Every person must choose for himself what he will believe. I recommend that all of you study and ponder and pray and seek light and knowledge in these and in all fields.

Good advice.

I would add, however, that something so trivial as this is hardly relevant to one's salvation. Thus, unless you are having testimony issues regarding the matter - or just have a personal interest - then you probably have better things to do. No offense to anyone. Nor do I impune anyone's beliefs. I merely suspect there are more valuable nuggets of doctrine worth our speculation.

[threepercent]

May I say that all truth is in agreement, that true religion and true science bear the same witness, and that in the true and full sense, true science is part of true religion.

yepers.

[HiJolly]

and organic evolution doesn't square with Holy writ......

I disagree.

HiJolly

[HiJolly]

according to Moses:

planted

does this mean evolution does not occur? nope. I think science has shown, without a doubt, that evolution does occur on a micro level. I still see no compelling evidence of macro evolution.

what do you think the difference is, between 'micro' and 'macro' evolution. I have already stated the scientific consensus on this in a prior post in this thread, but I'm curious as to your definitions.

HiJolly

[HiJolly]

Did man evolve to look the way he does today? or has he always looked the same, from the beginning of his existence on this gods earth, remember this little quote, "man was created in gods image".

I would suggest that 'man' didn't take the label of 'man' until he looked like 'man'.

Can one believe in the evolution of man, and still believe in heavenly father?

Oh, absolutely yes.

We are created in God's image In the Old Testament God said, "Let us make man in our own image, after our likeness" (Genesis 1:26)

Yes we are. And we got to where we are via God's great tool of creation, evolution.

HiJolly

[HiJolly]

"...

The early Brethren of our dispensation wrote these words:

Elder McConkie is an "early brethren"?? I must be WAY old. When *I* think of early brethren, I think of Parley P. Pratt and Brigham Young!

HiJolly

[HiJolly]

Interesting comments from one set apart as a propher-seer and revelator:

"Heresy two concerns itself with the relationship between organic evolution and revealed religion and asks the question whether they can be harmonized.

There are those who believe that the theory of organic evolution runs counter to the plain and explicit principles set forth in the holy scriptures as these have been interpreted and taught by Joseph Smith and his associates. There are others who think that evolution is the system used by the Lord to form plant and animal life and to place man on earth.

May I say that all truth is in agreement, that true religion and true science bear the same witness, and that in the true and full sense, true science is part of true religion. But may I also raise some questions of a serious nature. Is there any way to harmonize the false religions of the Dark Ages with the truths of science as they have now been discovered? Is there any way to harmonize the revealed religion that has come to us with the theoretical postulates of Darwinism and the diverse speculations descending therefrom?

Should we accept the famous document of the First Presidency issued in the days of President Joseph F. Smith and entitled "The Origin of Man" as meaning exactly what it says? Is it the doctrine of the gospel that Adam stood next to Christ in power and might and intelligence before the foundations of the world were laid; that Adam was placed on this earth as an immortal being; that there was no death in the world for him or for any form of life until after the Fall; that the fall of Adam brought temporal and spiritual death into the world; that this temporal death passed upon all forms of life, upon man and animal and fish and fowl and plant life; that Christ came to ransom man and all forms of life from the effects of the temporal death brought into the world through the Fall, and in the case of man from a spiritual death also; and that this ransom includes a resurrection for man and for all forms of life? Can you harmonize these things with the evolutionary postulate that death has always existed and that the various forms of life have evolved from preceding forms over astronomically long periods of time?

Can you harmonize the theories of men with the inspired words that say: And now, behold, if Adam had not transgressed he would not have fallen, but he would have remained in the Garden of Eden. And all things which were created must have remained in the same state in which they were after they were created; and they must have remained forever, and had no end.

And they [meaning Adam and Eve] would have had no children; wherefore they would have remained in a state of innocence, having no joy, for they knew no misery; doing no good, for they knew no sin.

But behold, all things have been done in the wisdom of him who knoweth all things. Adam fell that men might be; and men are, that they might have joy. And the Messiah cometh in the fulness of time, that he may redeem the children of men from the fall. [2 Ne. 2:22-26]

These are questions to which all of us should find answers. Every person must choose for himself what he will believe. I recommend that all of you study and ponder and pray and seek light and knowledge in these and in all fields.

I believe that the atonement of Christ is the great and eternal foundation upon which revealed religion rests. I believe that no man can be saved unless he believes that our Lord's atoning sacrifice brings immortality to all and eternal life to those who believe and obey, and no man can believe in the atonement unless he accepts both the divine sonship of Christ and the fall of Adam.

My reasoning causes me to conclude that if death has always prevailed in the world, then there was no fall of Adam that brought death to all forms of life; that if Adam did not fall, there is no need for an atonement; that if there was no atonement, there is no salvation, no resurrection, and no eternal life; and that if there was no atonement, there is nothing in all of the glorious promises that the Lord has given us. I believe that the Fall affects man, all forms of life, and the earth itself."

Point ONE: There is NO SIN of "heresy" in the LDS Church. None.

Point TWO: He was speaking at BYU and was speaking his opinions, and not Church doctrine or even policy. His use of "my reasoning" is a very good indicator of this.

Point THREE: His father-in-law, Joseph Fielding Smith, didn't know any more about science than he did, and they were both wrong on this particular point.

Point FOUR: Don't just trust other people's opinions on this (including mine). Do the research. Learn for yourself. It may take a few years and a few dollars, but isn't truth worth it?

HiJolly

[threepercent]

scripture mingled with the philosophies of man is a phrase that comes to mind

[HiJolly]

May I say that all truth is in agreement, that true religion and true science bear the same witness, and that in the true and full sense, true science is part of true religion.

yepers.

Ok, then I suggest that you engage this philosophy by resisting the temptation to offer opinions concerning scientific things until after your mortal death. You will have a much larger chance of being correct, in the afterlife, where you can actually perceive and measure the spirit and its interaction with physical things. Eventually.

HiJolly

Edited October 23, 2008 by HiJolly

[HiJolly]

scripture mingled with the philosophies of man is a phrase that comes to mind

Yes, and the temple has the perfect solution to that problem. Go with it!!!

HiJolly

[threepercent]

Evolution 101: Macroevolution

Evolution 101: Microevolution

[HiJolly]

Evolution 101: Macroevolution

Evolution 101: Microevolution

Check out their equation: http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evosite/evo101/images/macroequation.gif

What's the difference? TIME. I posted that already on this thread.

HiJolly

[threepercent]

I have already stated the scientific consensus on this in a prior post in this thread

and I have already stated that a consensus is not the standard of truth. and I have already stated that general profession of science, is bought and paid for.

Ok, then I suggest that you engage this philosophy by resisting the temptation to offer opinions concerning scientific things until after your mortal death. You will have a much larger chance of being correct, in the afterlife, where you can actually perceive and measure the spirit and its interaction with physical things. Eventually.

why so angry? why personal attacks? I search for truth through all methods not just one or the other. should I then recommend you resist the temptation to offer opinions concerning religious things?

What's the difference? TIME. I posted that already on this thread.

I believe this is an incorrect equation, and that there is unsubstantial proof of this.

anyway, its not like I am uneducated in this, I am not offering an uninformed opinion, speaking strictly from a science viewpoint, I do not believe it.

speaking strictly from a religious standpoint, I disagree with how you have blended science and the revealed word to make it fit.

I am not saying, unlike you, that I have the sum total absolute answer to end all arguments. I am saying that the answers given so far don't hold water. In the Sherlock Holmes method of solving a problem: rule out all the likely solutions whatever is left, however improbable, must be the answer

from my personal studies, macro evolution does not pass the test.

[bytor2112]

Elder McConkie is an "early brethren"?? I must be WAY old. When *I* think of early brethren, I think of Parley P. Pratt and Brigham Young!

HiJolly

Sorry, the quote was from McConkie's talk...The Three Pillars of Eternity. Probably should have included this from the talk::)

I am not conscious of expressing a single thought or concept that has not already been said by the Brethren who have gone before. Almost every sentence I have uttered is a quotation or a paraphrase of something said by Joseph Smith, Brigham Young, John Taylor, Joseph F. Smith, Joseph Fielding Smith, Orson Pratt, or some other of the great theologians of our dispensation.

[bytor2112]

I disagree.

HiJolly

As I stated, I believe in pre-edenic evolution. Can you share from scripture the basis of your disagreement?

[deseretgov]

I votes on the one closest to my opinion, #2. I do not believe evolution is possible nor do I believe God uses it. I do, however, believe that adaptation can occur and does occur often. But I do think new species can form, only because of the way scientists classify species. But I don't think new types of animals can emerge from others. Such as a frog couldn't turn into a bird or stuff like that.

[Moksha]

Is there any way to harmonize the false religions of the Dark Ages with the truths of science as they have now been discovered?

My reasoning causes me to conclude that if death has always prevailed in the world, then there was no fall of Adam that brought death to all forms of life; that if Adam did not fall, there is no need for an atonement; that if there was no atonement, there is no salvation, no resurrection, and no eternal life; and that if there was no atonement, there is nothing in all of the glorious promises that the Lord has given us. I believe that the Fall affects man, all forms of life, and the earth itself."

I can do this by eschewing a house of cards approach to religion. I think science is helpful to religion by expanding its horizons.

[WANDERER]

I was reading the other day about DNA and bits and pieces that seemingly had no purpose but were utilised for genetic change. They actually deleted them quite successfully in a mouse with no obvious changes *eek* *literally*. Yes bits and pieces is the correct scientific terminology LOL.

All species are related seems a bit of a loose explanation...sort of...but some majorly unrelated due to *spontaneous* changes.

I don't claim to understand science or religion enough to say that I have a set concrete belief...one that is constantly changing I'll admit to.

[bytor2112]

Point ONE: There is NO SIN of "heresy" in the LDS Church. None.

Point TWO: He was speaking at BYU and was speaking his opinions, and not Church doctrine or even policy. His use of "my reasoning" is a very good indicator of this.

Point THREE: His father-in-law, Joseph Fielding Smith, didn't know any more about science than he did, and they were both wrong on this particular point.

Point FOUR: Don't just trust other people's opinions on this (including mine). Do the research. Learn for yourself. It may take a few years and a few dollars, but isn't truth worth it?

HiJolly

I posted the comment because I thought it was interesting. As I previously stated, I believe in pre-edenic evolution. As far as whether JFS or BRM were right or wrong...well, I would trust there opinion over most considering the fact that they were sustained as Prophets Seers and Revelators and one was the President of the Church....the mouthpiece of God......he was a living oracle, right?

How do you interpret the following scripture:

All things which were created must have remained in the same state in which they were after they were created; and they must have remained forever, and had no end. [2 Nephi 2:22]

Doesn't all things mean all things?

Edited October 23, 2008 by bytor2112

[HiJolly]

and I have already stated that a consensus is not the standard of truth. and I have already stated that general profession of science, is bought and paid for.

That's a very cynical view. You could be right, but I'm a bit more optimistic.

why so angry? why personal attacks? I search for truth through all methods not just one or the other. should I then recommend you resist the temptation to offer opinions concerning religious things?

I apologize. I did not intend it as an attack, but I can see in retrospect I was out of line. I also search for truth wherever I can find it. The greatest challenge I have found is in removing false conceptions and misunderstandings of reality. The Holy Ghost is very helpful in this process.

HiJolly

[HiJolly]

I posted the comment because I thought it was interesting. As I previously stated, I believe in pre-edenic evolution. As far as whether JFS or BRM were right or wrong...well, I would trust there opinion over most considering the fact that they were sustained as Prophets Seers and Revelators and one was the President of the Church....the mouthpiece of God......he was a living oracle, right?

He was at times, yes. He said himself he made mistakes in doctrine. It all depends on many things.

How do you interpret the following scripture:

All things which were created must have remained in the same state in which they were after they were created; and they must have remained forever, and had no end. [2 Nephi 2:22]

Doesn't all things mean all things?

Yes. Weren't they created spiritually, first? What do you think 'state' means?

HiJolly

[bytor2112]

Yes. Weren't they created spiritually, first? What do you think 'state' means?

The scripture in it's entirety......

22 And now, behold, if Adam had not transgressed he would not have fallen, but he would have remained in the garden of Eden. And all things which were created must have remained in the same state in which they were after they were created; and they must have remained forever, and had no end.

The verse is referring to the creation....the Garden of Eden. "State" would refer to the state of their created existence in the garden. It sounds like that had Adam not fallen....all things would have remained in their created, Edenic state forever. As for pre-creation, pre-edenic times....then certainly evolution could be a process in the creation period....IMO.

Edited October 24, 2008 by bytor2112

[Moksha]

St. Augustine of Hippo wrote:

It not infrequently happens that something about the earth, about the sky, about other elements of this world, about the motion and rotation or even the magnitude and distances of the stars, about definite eclipses of the sun and moon, about the passage of years and seasons, about the nature of animals, of fruits, of stones, and of other such things, may be known with the greatest certainty by reasoning or by experience, even by one who is not a Christian. It is too disgraceful and ruinous, though, and greatly to be avoided, that he [the non-Christian] should hear a Christian speaking so idiotically on these matters, and as if in accord with Christian writings, that he might say that he could scarcely keep from laughing when he saw how totally in error they are. In view of this and in keeping it in mind constantly while dealing with the book of Genesis, I have, insofar as I was able, explained in detail and set forth for consideration the meanings of obscure passages, taking care not to affirm rashly some one meaning to the prejudice of another and perhaps better explanation.

– The Literal Interpretation of Genesis 1:19–20, Chapt. 19 [AD 408]