Evolution and the Gospel

[bmy-]

Brigham Young taught he came here with one of his wives Eve as an already Celestial being.

As far as I could find it was taught by Brigham Young (and accepted by the Church) and that part of it was never called out as a false doctrine. The part about Adam being Heavenly Father was disputed and the Churches position is now that Brigham was wrong or misquoted.

[Guest Believer_1829]

As far as I could find it was taught by Brigham Young (and accepted by the Church) and that part of it was never called out as a false doctrine. The part about Adam being Heavenly Father was disputed and the Churches position is now that Brigham was wrong or misquoted.

He definitely wasn't misquoted, as he taught it many times in many settings. Perhaps he was wrong, wouldn't be the first time. But in light of LDS doctrine, it actually makes perfect sense.

[Snow]

Adam came to this world as a perfect, unfallen being.

.

Does bolding and underlining it make true?

If you use italics, is it doubly true?

[Gatorman]

Does bolding and underlining it make true?

If you use italics, is it doubly true?

Snow - Do you honestly believe that these are valid or worthwhile questions? Do you see the tone of condescension that others see or do you not realize it? Do such questions make his statement not true?

For my part, I tend to agree. My understanding is that Adam walked with HEavenly Father in the Garden. To be in Heavenly Father's presence, one must be perfect. Ergo, Adam was perfect until he fell.

[Justice]

Brigham Young taught he came here with one of his wives Eve as an already Celestial being.

His words can be understood many different ways.

The problem is, people paraphrase his words in a way that they can only mean what they think they mean.

Perhaps quote his words exactly and let others decide what they mean.

[Snow]

Snow - Do you honestly believe that these are valid or worthwhile questions? Do you see the tone of condescension that others see or do you not realize it? Do such questions make his statement not true?

Missed the point Gatorman.

Bmy posted that Adam was not perfect and then Changed rebutted the claim by saying that Adam was perfect. Rather than actually demonstrating somehow that Adam was perfect, Changed simply said it louder (bold and underlined). That's nonsense. If you are going to rebut something, at least rebut it on the basis of something real.

For my part, I tend to agree. My understanding is that Adam walked with HEavenly Father in the Garden. To be in Heavenly Father's presence, one must be perfect. Ergo, Adam was perfect until he fell.

That's not true, nor do you believe it. Joseph Smith was far from perfect and he was in God's presence. Why say something you don't believe?

[Guest Believer_1829]

His words can be understood many different ways.

The problem is, people paraphrase his words in a way that they can only mean what they think they mean.

Perhaps quote his words exactly and let others decide what they mean.

Will do. Just happens I have a Journal of Discourses set handy...

Journal of Discourses Volume 1 page 50, second paragraph, right hand column...

"When our father Adam came into the garden of Eden, he came into it with a celestial body, and brought Eve, one of his wives, with him.

** The italics are in the text, I did not add them for emphasis. **

Edited August 16, 2009 by Believer_1829

[pam]

I don't base my beliefs on the JOD.

[Gatorman]

Missed the point Gatorman.

Bmy posted that Adam was not perfect and then Changed rebutted the claim by saying that Adam was perfect. Rather than actually demonstrating somehow that Adam was perfect, Changed simply said it louder (bold and underlined). That's nonsense. If you are going to rebut something, at least rebut it on the basis of something real.

Ahh...I see. So, your message was lost in your method.

That's not true, nor do you believe it.

So, now, not only are you far more intelligent than everyone here, you also know what we think better than we do? Amazing Snow. Next, can we watch you walk on water? Seriously, Snow, this is beyond acceptable. Simple fact is, I do believe it.

Joseph Smith was far from perfect and he was in God's presence. Why say something you don't believe?

I didn't. Why suggest you know me better than I do. Seriously Snow, do you really believe that your communication method or your intelligence is so far superior as to be able to know what I think? But, let me clarify it, even though you never thought to ask for better understanding before you started telling me what I think.

Joseph Smith saw Heavenly Father. However, he did not walk daily with him in the Garden of Eden. My own personal belief and understanding is that Adam essentially did exactly that. The Garden of Eden was Celestrialized, as it were.

So, to clarify, yes, I absolutely believe that Adam was perfect until the fall, as a baby is perfect. Had he achieved what our purpose is here? No. But, he had not sinned. Once he sinned, he was cast out of the Garden and Heavenly Father's presence. Until then, Adam was different from what we are today.

[Guest Believer_1829]

I don't base my beliefs on the JOD.

Never asked you to...

I was essentially accused of taking something out of context, so I was making clear that I was not.

It matters not to me whether he was right or wrong, the fact is he said it.

[bmy-]

I don't base my beliefs on the JOD.

But when no doctrine is available on the subject.. and the Prophets "thoughts" were important enough to be recorded.. I do think it carries some weight.

[Moksha]

I skipped the opening post and subsequent threads just because I thought talking about the Evolution of the Gospel might be a prickly subject. However if we take the earliest thoughts of the Gospel writers and compare them with the abundant diversity we have today, we could well observe one of Darwin's tenets, that the Gospel evolves to fill various niches available.

Anyway, carry on with whatever else you are writing.

:)

[rayhale]

One question I have for people that believe in evolution, but not in God. Why can’t through the billions, if not trillions of years of evolution, one species got evolved into a perfect god-like creation? Isn’t this where evolution will ultimately end up?

[Guest Godless]

One question I have for people that believe in evolution, but not in God. Why can’t through the billions, if not trillions of years of evolution, one species got evolved into a perfect god-like creation? Isn’t this where evolution will ultimately end up?

What do you mean by perfect god-like creation? Are you asking if humans could, potentially, evolve into gods? My answer would be no. That sort of evolution would require the work of forces outside of nature. A deity is a being which stands apart from the natural world, thus it would be impossible for it to evolve through natural selection. Besides, most theists go on the assumption that the natural laws that guide things like evolution were put in place by God. How could he have created the law that spawned his very existence? Anyway, this answer is based on how I interpreted the question you posed. If I misread it, please let me know.

[rayhale]

Well I guess I mean that evolution has evolved from one celled life to humans, that is if you believe in evolution in a straight line of evolution of one-celled life, when people have taught different animals to speak like parrots or apes, or have trained different animals to do different things, like a dog, or any other animal, to sit, roll over, or any other trick, this means that these animals have, at least a simple, and base, understanding of what we say to them, yet humans can think for themselves, there’s the whole ‘I think therefore I am’ kind of thing, like I said about when animals are taught to speak, they speak of simple, base emotions, like the need to eat, sleep, or fear, yet when humans are taught to speak, we can think of so much more, so why not evolution can go this far, why not evolution go the next step or so more into a species that doesn’t die, and can learn how to create new life?

Edited August 17, 2009 by rayhale

[Bluejay]

Hi, Gatorman.

Joseph Smith saw Heavenly Father. However, he did not walk daily with him in the Garden of Eden.

What difference does that make?

Moses was able to be in God's presence at the top of Mount Sinai for 40 days and 40 nights (Exodus 24:18), so I think you're wrong about this.

[Bluejay]

Hi, Changed.

It is not about making humans less special, it is about destroying the entire plan of salvation.

Please make your points to the proper person: I'm not the one arguing that it is about making humans less special. That was Ray Hale.

-----

Did or did not the fall bring death into the world?

Spiritual death.

-----

Was or was not Adam created as a perfect unfallen being?

What do you mean by "perfect"?

I consider infertility to be a disorder. If, as the story goes, Adam was infertile, how can he also be considered perfect?

-----

Did or did not Adam fall?

Yes.

-----

If you say Adam started out as an imperfect ape decendant - there is no more fall, there is no more need for a savior, there is no more plan of salvation.

Why? Because apes are perfect?

Does primate ancestry mean a man can't sin?

Sin comes as a function of awareness about right and wrong. Let's suppose Adam was the first human in a line of apes. If so, becoming aware of right and wrong made it possible for Adam to sin; and, Adam was the first with this awareness. Then, Adam sinned. He was the first being on earth to sin, and thus, he brought spiritual death into the world. Animals, who are not aware of right and wrong, cannot sin, and thus, cannot experience spiritual death.

Thus, the whole world remained in the same state of unawareness, until Adam Fell.

-----

Generational Darwinian evolution destroys the fall/plan of salvation.

Then so be it.

Or, alternately, it destroys what you think the Fall and the Plan of Salvation is.

[Guest Godless]

Well I guess I mean that evolution has evolved from one celled life to humans, that is if you believe in evolution in a straight line of evolution of one-celled life, when people have taught different animals to speak like parrots or apes, or have trained different animals to do different things, like a dog, or any other animal, to sit, roll over, or any other trick, this means that these animals have, at least a simple, and base, understanding of what we say to them, yet humans can think for themselves, there’s the whole ‘I think therefore I am’ kind of thing, like I said about when animals are taught to speak, they speak of simple, base emotions, like the need to eat, sleep, or fear, yet when humans are taught to speak, we can think of so much more, so why not evolution can go this far, why not evolution go the next step or so more into a species that doesn’t die, and can learn how to create new life?

Death is a fact of nature, even outside of the biological world (stars don't last forever). While our brains may have evolved beyond the simple processes that govern the rest of the animal kingdom, we are still bound by the natural laws that control all life, regardless of cognitive capability. We may, someday, learn how to create new life, but only on a local level. God-like attributes like omnipotence and omnipresence are supernatural phenomena that would be impossible to reach through strictly natural means because it would require us to take full control of nature and its laws rather than be controlled by them.

As to the reason why we are intellectually superior to the rest of the animal kingdom, it's actually quite simple. It's an adaptative reaction to the fact that we are in many ways physically inferior to other animals. Without our highly-evolved intellect, we'd go extinct due to the fact that we are unable to outrun, outswim, or in any other way overpower potential predators. Our ancestors survived by using primitive weapons against said predators. They had us beat in strength and speed, so we had to outsmart them, and our species survived as a result. As our intellect evolved, we took our place at the top of the food chain. But keep in mind that it is only our intellect that has allowed us to survive this long. It's really the only thing we have going for us. When all is said and done, we are still one species of animal trying to survive like all the others. We are governed by the same laws of nature that govern them. Food, sleep, and procreation are the basic tenets of our survival. We are still, and always will be, subject to the the ultimate recycling tool of nature, death. We may continue to evolve as a species, but we will never be able to overcome the basic laws of nature through natural means.

[bmy-]

Each after their own kind. Immortal perfect beings beget immortal perfect children. Immortal being does not beget moral children. We require experiencing mortality to progress.

Then where did the 'first Father' come from?

[Bluejay]

Hi, Changed.

Each after their own kind. Immortal perfect beings beget immortal perfect children. Immortal being does not beget moral children. We require experiencing mortality to progress.

What does this have to do with Adam's infertility?

[HiJolly]

A chicken does not beget a monkey. A perfect immortal being cannot beget a mortal. Through the plan of salvation, the only way we could come to Earth is as a mortal. The whole point of this life is to learn and grow - make mistakes, gain experience, we needed mortal bodies - practice bodies, temporary bodies... Adam/Eve were unable to give us mortal bodies in their perfect state.

Ok, that's certainly all true. It's just not very useful, in trying to figure out how these things happened. Some people don't need to know 'how'. For them, this is great. For me, it just brings up lots more questions. I think it's OK, as long as we never forget God and His plan.

HiJolly

[Bluejay]

Hi, Changed.

A chicken does not beget a monkey.

No one has said otherwise.

-----

A perfect immortal being cannot beget a mortal.

Immortal perfect beings beget immortal perfect children.

In 2 Nephi 2:23, it is stated that Adam would have had no children. It does not leave wiggle-room for immortal children. So, your entire argument topples here: Adam would not have had any children at all: not mortal, not immortal.

-----

Through the plan of salvation, the only way we could come to Earth is as a mortal.

Okay. But, evolving from apes is also coming to Earth as a mortal...

[threepercent]

the key to understanding creation is not to learn about creation, but to learn about the fall, and the atonement.

you will never find those answers in the geological record.

[Bluejay]

Hi, Threepercent.

the key to understanding creation is not to learn about creation, but to learn about the fall, and the atonement.

you will never find those answers in the geological record.

I'm pretty sure the key to understanding the creation is to learn about creation.

[Justice]

In 2 Nephi 2:23, it is stated that Adam would have had no children. It does not leave wiggle-room for immortal children. So, your entire argument topples here: Adam would not have had any children at all: not mortal, not immortal.

But, Alma 12 describes how Adam (and Eve) could have had immortal children. :)

This was Satan's plan. This would have removed mortality and destroyed the agency of man.