Resurrection, evolution and the Gospel

[beefche]

You've piqued my curiosity, HiJolly, and now I want to know the answer to believer's question.

Very good. Have you heard some LDS say that the Garden of Eden was a 'unglorified Terrestrial' state of existence? And that mortality is a 'unglorified Telestial' state? If so, do you agree?

If not, what do you think about that idea?

HiJolly

I think I have. I do believe that I'm living in a world that represents the telestial state. Is that the same?

[HiJolly]

You've piqued my curiosity, HiJolly, and now I want to know the answer to believer's question.

Well, I do think that much of the scriptural account concerning the creation is allegorical. However, I don't think that all the elements of creation that occur in a higher spiritual plane of existence are allegorical. It's just easier to refer to them in the allegorical sense, than it is to know the details of what isn't apparent (or, knowable) in mortality.

So if the Garden of Eden was on a higher plane than this mortal earth, that would make a difference. Different laws would apply, as we are taught in the Doctrine & Covenants, and in Joseph's recorded talks. But the 'Fall' would be both literal, and deeper in meaning than what the literal description could convey.

I think I have. I do believe that I'm living in a world that represents the telestial state. Is that the same?

An unglorified telestial state. Yes, in a sense. To me, it is unclear exactly what pre-mortal state the Garden itself was in at first, but it clearly was not a telestial state.

As far as I understand it, physical death is only possible in an unglorified Telestial state of existence. None of the other states allow it.

HiJolly

[HiJolly]

FWIW --- I don't think the Garden of Eden was ever, nor ever will be, on the 'earth'.

HiJolly

[beefche]

FWIW --- I don't think the Garden of Eden was ever, nor ever will be, on the 'earth'.

HiJolly

I noticed you put earth in quotes--are you thinking that earth is not this physical ball of dirt and water or referring to something else?

[Hemidakota]

so, this question is for all those people who have evolution and the history of the earth figured out.

how long will it take evolution to create the body I get when I get resurrected?

I am going to go out on a limb here (get the evolutionary connection? insert chortle) and say that it would follow that those who reach the celestial kingdom will have to wait the longest for their bodies to fully evolve before they can be "put into" them.

and can you tell me, as long as we are going to discuss such deep subjects, the evolutionary mechanism of "tarrying in the flesh" as it pertains to the three nephites?

we can skip Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego for now.

No one, I mean no one really knows the exact age of this earth since it was last destroyed during the animal creation period [violating the GODs commandments] and was not part of this solar system. Even our present day orbital periods cannot be used to determine the exact age of the earth since materials layered are not from original world. From the previous world, Joseph Smith stated, it was covered over from other dead worlds and began anew. For all we know, it can be in the billions since matter age is not really relative in a eternal schema. We will know the exactness when many who will live in the millennium will begin the rewrite history.

Many, I mean many in the church will not inherit the highest order of the Celestial Kingdom unless they follow what was given in 2 Peter chapter 1. According to Joseph Smith, there are three grand secrets that are revealed. Listen to what is given in the following quote -

There are three grand keys to unlock the whole subject: First, what is the knowledge of God? Second, what is it to make our calling and election sure? Third and last is how to make our calling and election sure. It is to obtain a promise from God for myself that I shall have eternal life. That is the more sure word of prophecy. Discourse of 21 May 1843, recorded by James Burgess; WJS, 209.

What will occur for those who did not seek this, will wait [Paradise] until they have met the conditions. Then Holy Ghost will present them before the Godhead for acceptance in the highest order. This may take sometime or can be feasible as the day of judgment.

For those who received knowledge, election was made sure, and received the promise from on high on their calling in this mortality, they will inherit and be resurrected before the judgment day and perhaps, not long after death, the body will reunite with the spirit body to be glorified as a Celestial being. Even the resurrection, they are different grades of resurrected bodies.

There is a grand secret to our pre-mortality and where we came from [we were created in the image of GOD. So what was our previous image?]....you can find it in three books within the LDS scriptures. This is left up to the Spirit to help and guide you to those referred scriptures. Why? It requires mature spirituality in understanding how intelligences evolve.

Edited August 19, 2009 by Hemidakota

[HiJolly]

I noticed you put earth in quotes--are you thinking that earth is not this physical ball of dirt and water or referring to something else?

Sorry. I meant 'earth' as in this unglorified physical telestial state of existence.

HiJolly

[Hemidakota]

Look at the local Sun...is that a Telestial glorified world? :)

[HiJolly]

Look at the local Sun...is that a Telestial glorified world? :)

I don't know.

HiJolly

[Hemidakota]

Curious question...thanks.

What needs to be answer for this one, can a telestial level [this earth] world could bare the presence of a celestial glorified world? I think you already know the answer.... :)

[beefche]

HiJolly, are you saying that since Garden of Eden was not on this earth and was subject to a higher law than telestial, that evolution then is the operating tool for creation? I'm not sure what you are saying regarding evolution and the allegorical Garden of Eden.

Also, why do you think the earth will never was/be Garden of Eden?

[Bluejay]

Hi, Threepercent.

as we all now KNOW< god used the process of evolution to create the body he then placed Adam in, or something like that. so I guess he will use the same process to create a celestial body for me when I die and go to heaven. I mean that logicaly follows right?

I was afraid that this was what you were getting at. Ironically, you're suffering from a misunderstanding of the scriptures, not a misunderstanding of evolution.

Remember when Jesus was resurrected, and Mary was horrified to learn that Jesus's body was not there? Why was His body not there?

Because Jesus was alive again in that same body.

God doesn't make you a new body when you're resurrected: rather, He changes the one you already have into a celestial state. And, since that body has already been created, there is no need to create it again.

[Bluejay]

Hi, Believer.

Just curious how it jives with evolution and the idea amoung some here that the Fall was purely allegorical.

I actually addressed this same question on the other recent evolution thread. Here was my proposal:

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.

Don't ask me what other evolutionists think, though.

[HiJolly]

HiJolly, are you saying that since Garden of Eden was not on this earth and was subject to a higher law than telestial, that evolution then is the operating tool for creation? I'm not sure what you are saying regarding evolution and the allegorical Garden of Eden.

My opinion is that whilst Adam & Eve were in the Garden, where there was no death nor sin, the earth was formed in a different state, and life began there and diversified to its current diversity via what we call organic evolution, including death, decay, etc.

Also, why do you think the earth will never was/be Garden of Eden?

Because I see the paradisaical state as one being very different with the mortal earth's state, with it's death, disease, birth defects, and so forth. I most certainly *do* believe in the 10th Article of Faith. I just don't think the earth will be unglorified telestial at that point. It will be 'raised'.

HiJolly

[HiJolly]

Curious question...thanks.

What needs to be answer for this one, can a telestial level [this earth] world could bare the presence of a celestial glorified world? I think you already know the answer.... :)

Yup.

HJ

[rameumptom]

You're right Ram, science and religion go hand-in-hand. Because truth is truth, whether it is the gospel or biology, or geology, or archeology. The trouble is determining what is actual truth and what is theory based on limited understanding. Just as we find truth in the gospel that disagrees with some commonly-held beliefs and theories, we also are still finding truth in science which disproves some commonly-held beliefs and theories. And sometimes the truths in one area cross over to smash the theories held in the other. I believe that we will eventually find a clear mesh of the two and that they are inseparably intertwined. Our problem is taking two things which seem to disagree between the two and finding how they work together, to make sense of the two things, so fit together as one.

In the realm of science, it could be called the Grand Unification Theory, eh?

To explain, in science there is a big conundrum. The Law of Gravity works great on the macro scale. However, when one gets down to the microscopic scale, gravity no longer works in the same way, and Quantum theory/Theory of Relativity comes into play. While both are science, and work on their level, we know they are incomplete, as there must somewhere be a unifying theory/law that explains how they work together. Some are hoping String theory will fit the bill, but so far we don't have any way to test it.

So instead of tossing out Newton and Einstein's physics because they do not currently work together in our methodology, we use them both, understanding that there is a greater truth out there that we haven't reached yet. Both theories work great in application. With Newton's laws, we are able to track the revolutions of planets around stars. With Einstein's laws, we can manipulate electrons and quantum particles, so we can run computers and satellites.

Creation and Evolution are just this way. There is truth in both, but we are missing major pieces of the equation. That does not mean we toss out either one of them, but use them both in their own environments (render unto Caesar) until a better and more complete understanding is gained.

[rameumptom]

scary, I just found this out

The two groups who have the greatest difficulty in following the prophet are the proud who are learned and the proud who are rich.

good thing i am dumb and poor. whew!

You cannot be saved in ignorance. So there's no hope for you, either....

As to how evolution might fit in with the Fall of Adam, we have to be clear on a few issues. First, evolution is a THEORY, and it isn't a perfect science. Most evolutionists do not agree on every point made by different theorists concerning evolution.

Second, for LDS evolutionists, we believe that God didn't just wind up a clock and let it wind itself down, as early Deists believed. We believe God keeps a hand in his creation.

Joseph Smith and Brigham Young believed that the earth, or at least the Garden of Eden was in a different state than the earth is in now. IOW, it is possible that Adam and Eve were initially in a Garden that was on a chunk of rock floating around Kolob. All the living beings on that chunk of rock would have been innocent and unable to die or have children in that state. With the Fall of Adam came a physical fall from its location around Kolob (or the higher state it was in). Our planet now revolves in a telestial orbit around our sun. Whether it was the entire planet that was moved, or just a chunk of it, we do not know. We do know that when Christ comes, there will be a "new heaven and a new earth", suggesting we will be moved to a higher order again.

So, this earth could have been long in the planning, with many animals living, dying, and turning into fossil fuels. A chunk of the planet was taken into orbit in a terrestrial sphere, where there was no death. Adam and Eve were plunked down there (remember, Brigham Young taught they were born on a planet, and moved to their new location in the Garden). When the Fall occurred, they all fell back to the telestial earth, where spiritual and physical death were literally introduced to Adam and Eve.

The humans that lived on the earth would become Adam's seed, just as the Abrahamic covenant creates children to Abraham from the peoples of the earth (through the Priesthood. See Abr 1).

So, I have here attempted to create a unifying theory. This theory takes the teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, allows for the events in the Garden, and still allows for a form of evolution and a billions year old earth.

Is this how it happened? I don't know. It is a theory. Instead of refusing to accept truth wherever it is found, and trying to see how it all fits together, why don't we accept that some type of evolution does exist, but not necessarily as the evolutionists view it. Remember, they do not have Joseph Smith's teachings to guide them. At the same time, Joseph Smith did not believe in the 6000 year old earth, either (he said it was at least 2.555 billion years old).

All of these concepts fit with my theory. I do not have to struggle, as you do, in rejecting major facts that whisper to us from out of the ground. Facts are stubborn things. The interpretation of facts are not necessarily stubborn, if we open our heads to seeking unifying theories, rather than embracing concepts that should have no room in a Church that rejects creatio ex nihilo.

[rameumptom]

Look at the local Sun...is that a Telestial glorified world? :)

I think it probably is....

[rameumptom]

Another thought: why are we so concerned about being related to apes or amoeba? Joseph Smith clearly taught that all stuff is matter in some form. We all are created from intelligence (where there are several theories on what it is, also), and placed in physical bodies.

In the revelations, we see seraphim with their wings surrounding the throne of God (Isa 6). LDS don't have a problem seeing ourselves related to gods and angels (including seraphim), why are we so worried about any possible relation to other creations of God?

[HiJolly]

Another thought: why are we so concerned about being related to apes or amoeba? Joseph Smith clearly taught that all stuff is matter in some form. We all are created from intelligence (where there are several theories on what it is, also), and placed in physical bodies.

In the revelations, we see seraphim with their wings surrounding the throne of God (Isa 6). LDS don't have a problem seeing ourselves related to gods and angels (including seraphim), why are we so worried about any possible relation to other creations of God?

so enjoyable! Good points, ram. The really important thing is to not reject truth.

HiJolly

[rameumptom]

Yes, not to reject truth.

Also, to keep an open mind, but not so open that your brains fall out.... :)

[Bluejay]

Hi, Rameumptum

Another thought: why are we so concerned about being related to apes or amoeba? Joseph Smith clearly taught that all stuff is matter in some form. We all are created from intelligence (where there are several theories on what it is, also), and placed in physical bodies.

In the revelations, we see seraphim with their wings surrounding the throne of God (Isa 6). LDS don't have a problem seeing ourselves related to gods and angels (including seraphim), why are we so worried about any possible relation to other creations of God?

That's a good point: if His being related to me is not demeaning to God, why should my being related to a slime mold be so demeaning to me?

[Hemidakota]

You cannot be saved in ignorance. So there's no hope for you, either....

As to how evolution might fit in with the Fall of Adam, we have to be clear on a few issues. First, evolution is a THEORY, and it isn't a perfect science. Most evolutionists do not agree on every point made by different theorists concerning evolution.

Second, for LDS evolutionists, we believe that God didn't just wind up a clock and let it wind itself down, as early Deists believed. We believe God keeps a hand in his creation.

Joseph Smith and Brigham Young believed that the earth, or at least the Garden of Eden was in a different state than the earth is in now. IOW, it is possible that Adam and Eve were initially in a Garden that was on a chunk of rock floating around Kolob. All the living beings on that chunk of rock would have been innocent and unable to die or have children in that state. With the Fall of Adam came a physical fall from its location around Kolob (or the higher state it was in). Our planet now revolves in a telestial orbit around our sun. Whether it was the entire planet that was moved, or just a chunk of it, we do not know. We do know that when Christ comes, there will be a "new heaven and a new earth", suggesting we will be moved to a higher order again.

So, this earth could have been long in the planning, with many animals living, dying, and turning into fossil fuels. A chunk of the planet was taken into orbit in a terrestrial sphere, where there was no death. Adam and Eve were plunked down there (remember, Brigham Young taught they were born on a planet, and moved to their new location in the Garden). When the Fall occurred, they all fell back to the telestial earth, where spiritual and physical death were literally introduced to Adam and Eve.

The humans that lived on the earth would become Adam's seed, just as the Abrahamic covenant creates children to Abraham from the peoples of the earth (through the Priesthood. See Abr 1).

So, I have here attempted to create a unifying theory. This theory takes the teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, allows for the events in the Garden, and still allows for a form of evolution and a billions year old earth.

Is this how it happened? I don't know. It is a theory. Instead of refusing to accept truth wherever it is found, and trying to see how it all fits together, why don't we accept that some type of evolution does exist, but not necessarily as the evolutionists view it. Remember, they do not have Joseph Smith's teachings to guide them. At the same time, Joseph Smith did not believe in the 6000 year old earth, either (he said it was at least 2.555 billion years old).

All of these concepts fit with my theory. I do not have to struggle, as you do, in rejecting major facts that whisper to us from out of the ground. Facts are stubborn things. The interpretation of facts are not necessarily stubborn, if we open our heads to seeking unifying theories, rather than embracing concepts that should have no room in a Church that rejects creatio ex nihilo.

Even nature is held in check by those assigned.

[Traveler]

My friends on the forum – there are problems trying to discuss elements of truth when so many do not understand core definitions and basic principles. For example there seems to be a great misunderstanding between the terms “evolution” and the “theory of evolution”.

First to the term “evolution”. This term is used in science to express related changes. The meaning of evolution is deeply seeded in temporal reality. Temporal reality is time. Many uninformed and uneducated individuals believe time is a dimension because they do not understand relativity. Because time stops at the speed of light – time is not an actual (continuous) function; there are mathematical problems in defining time as a dimension. There are, however, properties of time (not considering the speed of light) that are very important to understanding the place or state in which we live and exist. The most important understanding is that time is a measurement of change. When there is no change there is no time. Evolution is the scientific principle of related change or the observance of related change. When I say related change I am making reference to change where you start with something and modify it in any way. If you have any problem with the deeper scientific implications then just think of change and evolution as being synonymous. There is a paradox with eternal notions and temporal change that I cannot even begin to discuss with many on this forum because they do not understand temporal and eternal implication that are associated with change or evolution. So for now let us stay focused on the simple concept of evolution and a temporal time line.

If someone says that evolution is just a theory they are displaying a great deal of ignorance. I have posted many times that evolution is a fact of our universe and state of being – it is not a theory. Anything that changes is by definition evolving. Growth is evolution. Aging is evolution. To say that evolution cannot be proven is to say change cannot be observed. Anyone that opposes evolution need to think about what they are opposing and be careful that they do not mix the very specific theory of evolving life as the genesis of all species with the broad and general meaning of evolution as change. Many people of a religious nature that do not study science are so bound by fear and ignorance that they deny principles of science without any understanding of what it is they deny. This gives many in the scientific community the impression that such people of religion are “nut cases”.

The scriptures clearly tell us that the resurrection is in fact a process of evolution. It is evolution that according to scripture can take place in the twinkling of an eye. The evolution is the change from that which is “corruptible” to a new state of “incorruptible”. The scriptures could say we evolve from corruptibility to incorruptibility without changing the doctrine or concept – for the sake of understanding truth, I personally believe it would be better interpretation of ancient scripture if evolution was the modern English word used to describe the resurrection to avoid the arguments with so many “nut cases” that dominate various segments of the religious community.

Some have attempted to insert the term “Macro evolution” to overcome dealing with evolution in any true sense. The problem I have with this term is that I really do not understand what the “intent” of the definition is. The question moving forward is – if through genetic engineering or viral influence a genetic variation meeting the definition of “altered species” cannot be reached if there is a G-d? Personally I do not accept such a definition of G-d nor do I suggest or support any such definition by anyone else. If this is your intent in worshiping the G-d you worship – I am not sure I can have a lasting and meaning conversation with you.

I could continue this thought – but I will end it here because I am not sure this pearl is worth casting any farther.

Thanks to all reading this little rant of mine.

The Traveler

[Justice]

I'll add for you that the "Theory of Evolution" is different than evolution. It is describing evolution in a methodical way, that may or may not have happened (not going to argue it here).

But, when someone refers to the "Theory of Evolution" they are using the principle of evolution to arrive at a hypothesis of how they believe it happened, based on what they believe to be evidence.

So, you can't say "evolution didn't happen," because it most certainly happens every day. But, you can disagree with the "Theory of Evolution."

I agree, Traveler, it's good to be clear when involved in a discussion as to exactly what you're talking about. When someone tries to disagree with evolution they frequently can't understand why they lose the debate.

[Bluejay]

Hi, Traveler.

The scriptures clearly tell us that the resurrection is in fact a process of evolution. It is evolution that according to scripture can take place in the twinkling of an eye. The evolution is the change from that which is “corruptible” to a new state of “incorruptible”. The scriptures could say we evolve from corruptibility to incorruptibility without changing the doctrine or concept – for the sake of understanding truth, I personally believe it would be better interpretation of ancient scripture if evolution was the modern English word used to describe the resurrection to avoid the arguments with so many “nut cases” that dominate various segments of the religious community.

I disagree very strongly with this. It is precisely because the religious "nut cases" think the term "evolution" means something like what you are espousing that they are considered "nut cases" by the scientific community, in the first place. Well, it's one of the more prominent reasons, anyway.

The last thing the evolution debate needs is one more usage of the term "evolution." The religious community invented its own word---"resurrection"---and there is not enough to be gained from semantic purification to override the vast damage it would do to communication in the discussion.

In debates and discourse, communication trumps etymology: so, regardless of the semantic correctness of the term "evolution" in whatever context, allowing it to be simultaneously used for multiple different meanings will not contribute in anyway to the progress of the discussion. Invariably, the discussion will simply become about words, and we'll never get around to discussing the actual substance of the debate.

Biological evolution and resurrection are simply not analogous in any meaningful way. If someone wishes to start a discussion about biological evolution, then it is a gesture of good faith to not use different definitions of the term during the discussion.