The People before Adam

[JohnnyRudick]

Hello again Seminarysnoozer. :)

Even though a big part of what you are describing I think is addressed in my last post to you, I did want to specifically deny two assertions your posts associates with me.

1. I don't know how else to state this than how I've stated it, but I am not arguing against evolution. I have not been using the statements that "we are the offspring of God" as a proof against evolution. I have been using it as a proof against the perpetuation of the idea that Adam was not the first man or that Adam evolved from "lower orders of the animal creation."

2. I've never suggested that we are begotten sons and daughters of God in the flesh.

Hopefully as we explore my other post, we can clear up any further misunderstandings between us. :)

Regards,

Finrock

And so as not to have my position misunderstood;

I do not agree with Evolution at all and stand on the

7day Creation declaration in the Scripture.

Also I let the Scripture and the plane statements of the

GA as expressed by Joseph F Smith and Bruce McConkie

speak for me on this matter.

[Seminarysnoozer]

Good morning Seminarysnoozer. I hope you've been doing well! :)

I've been trying to pay my response debt in the last few days, so I apologize for the late response.

Thank you for taking the time to do this exercise and for trusting that I'm not trying to set you up.

Since you agree with 5, I'll consider question 4 moot, even though you were uncertain. What I wanted to do was establish if and where, we disagreed. Based on your responses we both believe in the same things up to this point, so any disagreement doesn't exist in where we derive our identity from, which is our spirit.

It is here where I believe you are misunderstanding what I'm saying, or missing the point. Are you familiar with Plato's Theory of Forms? Perhaps a discussion of Plato's forms will be helpful in illustrating my point.

Plato describes that the, "...forms are eternal and changeless, but enter into a partnership with changeable matter, to produce the objects and examples of concepts, we perceive in the temporal world. These are always in a state of becoming, and may participate in a succession of forms. The ever changing temporal world can thus, only be the source of opinion. Plato likens the opinions derived from our senses, to the perception of shadows of real objects, cast upon the wall of a cave. True knowledge however, is the perception of the archetypal forms themselves, which are real, eternal, and unchanging (Plato's Theory of Forms, Ian Bruce).

When I speak of the "form" of our body, I am suggesting that our physical bodies are patterned after the unchanging and eternal archetypal form of Man, which archetype is God's body. Thus, all things, all creatures, have been physically patterned after their eternal forms, all things in their sphere (D&C 77:2). This doesn't mean that the physical body or structure of a thing perfectly matches the eternal form that it is patterned after, but that it is in it's likeness and in a "state of becoming."

Now, before I take my comments to their logical ends, I want to inquire to see what you understand and feel about my comments in this post?

Regards,

Finrock

PS

This post should also encompass the comments in your latest post to me.

Thanks for your response. Yes, this was the most specific and direct you have answered those comments. I think we are on the same page. I think it is actually rare to find people that believe the body form doesn't match the spirit form perfectly and I have a hard time understanding where that belief comes from. So, when I read something to that effect, I try to understand where the person gets that idea.

For me, I would even go a step further and say that many aspects of our physical form which would include all the little quirky aspects of body function, like even parts of personality, likes and dislikes are part of that "not perfectly matching our spirit" self. Just because Moses wasn't such a great speaker in this life doesn't mean that was the way his spirit was in the pre-existence. God could have specifically given him those sets of talents for his specific tests. Just like some might have a body that would give them tests related to becoming a professional athlete, but it was not given to reflect their personal tastes or tendencies in the pre-existence. Others might have been given a scientific mind that they have to battle with certain challenges related to that mode of thinking but doesn't reflect who they really are as spirits. Some may have been given bodies predisposed to emotional sensitivity and then we call them "more in tune with the spirit" and yet it is part of their set of talents (body) they have been given, not necessarily an aspect of their spiritual self.

I think we pretend to "know" another persons spiritual self by looking at their personalities and their mannerisms, their level of education, their likes and dislikes but forget many of those aspects are generated by this body, by neuronal circuitry.

[Traveler]

Finroc: I have gone to the church web site and searched for “origin of man”. There are numerous articles and statements recommended for official “Church Doctrine”. Missing is your favorite statement that you use to completely discount evolution. I do not know if this is intentional or not. I use to know someone that worked for the church IT department associated with the web site but they are not there anymore.

Some fact I have found from my research in the past:

1. The elements used to physically make up the body of Adam as were elements exclusive to earth. The statement is that man is made from the “dust” of the ground. Dust and ground are terms of significant symbolic reference. This indicates that man’s origin is not of anything “higher” than earth and from that which is of the lowest possible status. This would exclude Adam from being born of any creature not part of earth.

2. There is reference to the “development” of man from a single cell zygote. Although not specified the possibility is officially recognized. If this being the case then we know two things – first that even the zygote of Adam was unique and no such zygote had ever been part of earth before but I see nothing to suggest that the zygote of Adam as a possible existing “thing” could not have been hosted by some other creature similar to but not man. The second thing is that the zygote was likely hosted by something that was 100% of earth and not somewhere or something else.

3. We know from science and DNA tests that human like creatures that once lived and remains have been found are similar enough that according to known and proven processes “could” have been ancestors from which we have evolved.

I do not know how this all occurred but there is a preponderance of evidence pointing to evolution and no evidence I know of pointing to anywhere else. Since I believe G-d does not deliberately deceive anyone concerning his works and that science and nature if understood do testify of G-d and his works according to scripture – I am thinking that we should not declare evolution as not possible – unless someone knows something I do not.

The Traveler

[Moksha]

Snow, this letter from David O. McKay seems important:

February 3, 1959

David O. McKay, President

Dear Brother:

...The Church has issued no official statement on the subject of the theory of evolution.

Neither "Man, His Origin and Destiny" by Elder Joseph Fielding Smith, nor "Mormon Doctrine" by Elder Bruce R. McConkie, is an official publication of the Church.

Selected LDS quotes on evolution

[Snow]

Good evening Snow! :)

The evolution of man in it's broadest sense isn't in debate, at least it isn't with me. Attributing this to my speech is arguing a strawman. In actuality what I have argued is that there is a doctrinal position on the origin of man, which the statement titled "Origin of Man" speaks to, which represents an official interpretation of scripture.

My claim is simply if any member of the Church perpetuates the idea that Adam was not the first man (Moses 1:34) or that Adam developed "...from lower orders of the animal creation", they are perpetuating false doctrine because the scriptures and official statements of the Church teach otherwise.

If you disagree with my conclusion, then demonstrate how it is false. It's not complicated at all. :) To do this you'll need to deal with the actual content of my post. Second, no proof by assertion allowed. It's just not polite and ultimately meaningless. Lastly, there is no need to lean on ad hominems, strawmen, or red herrings! Facts and reason will speak for themselves. Now, simply demonstrate that the scriptures and official statements of the Church either actively teach that Adam was not the first man and that he developed from lower orders of the animal creation or that they support such a position. If you are right and I am wrong, you should have no trouble demonstrating it from the scriptures and official statements of the Church. :)

Good luck and I truly look forward to a response that deals with the actual content of my post and demonstrates its contradiction.

Regards,

Finrock

I wish I knew what you believed. I asked you a number of questions and tried to figure it out but you deferred. Without you actually stating what you believe or clarifying by asking questions, your position can only be inferred.

Rather than resorting to protestation of straw men, you ought to answer the clarifying questions.

You've made two point that seem kinda clear about what you believe but left so many unanswered questions that your hypothesis, whatever it is, is so sketchy that it doesn't merit much discussion, but I'll speak to your two points, such as they are;

1. Adam was the first man: Alright. Big deal. You don't define what "first man" means so for all we know Adam was the first to part his hair on the left side and so is properly designated as '"first man." Or maybe he was the first human being to get a soul or maybe the first to establish a covenant with God or the first to whom God revealed himself. Whatever it was - he's the first guy. Since your position is so ambiguous, one can't critically interact with it - except to say, the fall, according to the biblical account happened sometime in the last 13k years and modern man has been around for a long time before 11,000 BC.

2. That claiming that Adam was part of the evolutionary chain is promulgating false doctrine contrary to Church teachings and scripture...

... to which I say: Bull. That's false. You've chosen to interpret scripture in such a way that precluded evolution - although I used that term hesitantly because you your hypothesis while evolution - by which I mean the descent of man - means one thing to everyone else and a different thing to you. For you, modern man may have evolved or maybe not. Eve may have evolved or maybe not. Adam definitely did not evolve but other evolved human beings may have been around prior to, concurrent with and subsequent to Adam. It's hard to say because when asked, you deferred. Suffice it to say, your odd ideas notwithstanding, when everyone else talks evolution of man, they mean ALL mean/women.

...but back to the point, you claim that evolution is against our doctrine - for two reasons:

a) scripture

b) official statements of the Church

Scripture: YOU have interpreted scripture in such a way. Your interpretation is of no import as it related to doctrine so interpret it anyway you want, It's irrelevant.

Official statements: you allege that the statements make the interpretation of scripture unmistakable and doctrinal. We'll stipulate that Adam is doctrinally the first man but the real point at issue is whether or not Adam is in the evolutionary chain and you haven't posted a single official statement that says that he is not or cannot be. Moreover you have failed to respond to the numerous bits of evidence that I have referenced that make it clear that the Church is neutral re it's stance to evolution - and by that I mean evolution understood by everyone else - not your Adam hypothesis. I'll recap:

1909 Statement: ambiguous but does not rule out evolution. It does not address the mutability of species. It refers to the idea of Adam, the original human being, having descended from lower species as a 'theory of men' but that doesn't men it's untrue. The theory of gravity, the first law of thermodynamics or the theories of disease causation are also the theories of men and pretty darn good ones.

The statement also called Adam the primal parent of our race - race is a social definition not a biological distinction.

1910 Statement: came out less than 6 months after the 1909 statement. The statement was neutral on evolution. It offered three possibilities for the origin of man. One of those three possibilities was evolution.

In 1913, President Smith said in a conference address that "Adam, our earthly parent, was also born of woman into this world, the same as you and I."

In 1916 President Grant reiterated the 1909 Origin of Man statement but removed the ambiguous line about evolution being a theory of man.

If one sends a letter to the Church asking about evolution, they will receive a response: "...The scriptures tell why man was created, but they do not tell how, though the Lord has promised that he will tell that when he comes again (D&C 101:32-33). In 1931, the First Presidency said:

Upon the fundamental doctrines of the Church we are all agreed. Our mission is to bear the message of the restored gospel to the world. Leave geology, biology, archaeology, and anthropology, no one of which has to do with the salvation of the souls of mankind, to scientific research, while we magnify our calling in the realm of the Church."

In 2006 the Deseret published a story on a study undertaken by two LDS scientists that concluded that there was no Church position on the matter ( No definitive LDS stance on evolution, study finds | Deseret News )

President Gordon B Hinckley said: "What the church requires is only belief 'that Adam was the first man of what we would call the human race.'" President Hinckley added that scientists can speculate on the rest, and recalled his own study of anthropology and geology, saying, "Studied all about it. Didn't worry me then. Doesn't worry me now." ( No definitive LDS stance on evolution, study finds | Deseret News )

David O McKay has said on several occasions (already quoted in my previous posts) that the Church has no position on evolution.

I've listed numerous apostles and prophets who are open to the possible truth of the theory of evolution... and again, that refers to what everyone else thinks of in evolution, not your Adam as a possible special case hypothesis.

I urge you to desist spreading false doctrine.

[Finrock]

Helllo Traveler. I hope this evening finds you healthy and happy! :)

Finroc: I have gone to the church web site and searched for “origin of man”. There are numerous articles and statements recommended for official “Church Doctrine”. Missing is your favorite statement that you use to completely discount evolution.

In my post #102 I have a direct link to the statement found on lds.org. If you still can't find it, I can PM you a link.

I do not know how this all occurred but there is a preponderance of evidence pointing to evolution and no evidence I know of pointing to anywhere else. Since I believe G-d does not deliberately deceive anyone concerning his works and that science and nature if understood do testify of G-d and his works according to scripture – I am thinking that we should not declare evolution as not possible – unless someone knows something I do not.

I haven't claimed that evolution is not possible. In fact this is my sixth or seventh time (I've lost track) that I've explicitely stated that I believe evolution, for the most part, to be an actual phenomenon. I don't know how else to make it any more clear that I am not trying to "completely discount evolution."

I have no idea how this all occurred either, but I do know two things about the origin of man that the Church teaches; *Adam was the first man and that Adam was not a " development from lower orders of the animal creation" but rather "man began life as a human being in the likeness of Heavenly Father." Even if one accepts these statements made by the Church, it doesn't deny that evolution occurs. It may deny certain aspects of evolution, such as certain claims regarding speciation, but evolution isn't just about speciation and not all speciation is the same (i.e. spotted moth to dark moth vs. fish to mammal). But, all of this talk about evolution, in the end, is irrelevant to my claim because I'm not claiming to know how evolution works or how it jives with the Church's position. I'm simply stating that this* is the Church's position concerning Adam and to claim otherwise is false. If evolution turns out to be the absolute truth, which I mostly agree that it is truth, then whatever that actually entails in totality, when all the mysteries have been revealed, it will accomodate the concepts that Adam was the first man and that Adam did not develope from a lower order of the animal creation but rather man began life as a human being.

Regards,

Finrock

[Finrock]

Good evening Snow. I hope you've enjoyed your day and are doubly enjoying your evening.

I wish I knew what you believed.

Here is my claim in totality:

The Church teaches that Adam was the first man and that Adam did not develop from lower orders of the animal creation but rather man began life as a human being. I therefore claim that "if any member of the Church perpetuates the idea that Adam was not the first man (Moses 1:34) or that Adam developed "...from lower orders of the animal creation", they are perpetuating false doctrine because the scriptures and official statements of the Church teach otherwise."

Evolution, as it is currently understood, can still occur given my statements above. Possibly questions about speciation in certain cases could be affected, but my claims do not deny the concept of evolution. A discussion on evolution is irrelevant to responding to my claims. It speaks to what the Church teaches about Adam. A counter response would only need to speak to what the Church teaches about Adam.

A note about the way you are defining race as it is used in the statement, "The Origin of Man." Your definition is out of context. Race also means, "humans considered as a group" or the human race. It is obvious in context that race was not being used to designate the caucasian race or african race, etc. It clearly means the "human race". In other words, the statement is saying that Adam is the primal parent of the human race/human beings/human species.

One last note, your post takes my comment from speaking about Adam not developing from lower animal creations, to me claiming that the church teaches against evolution. There is no such connection between what I'm claiming and what you are arguing that I am claiming. This is clearly a distortion of what my argument says. Yet again, your posts wants to deal with issues that I have not made instead of just simply dealing with the text. Your post is apparently attempting to assume something in to my comments that doesn't belong. Why not simply deal with the stated claim as written? Evolution has not part in addressing my claim. It can be addressed without involving evoltion. I can even show you, if you wish?

What a strange thread this is starting to become.

Regards,

Finrock

[Seminarysnoozer]

Helllo Traveler. I hope this evening finds you healthy and happy! :)

In my post #102 I have a direct link to the statement found on lds.org. If you still can't find it, I can PM you a link.

I haven't claimed that evolution is not possible. In fact this is my sixth or seventh time (I've lost track) that I've explicitely stated that I believe evolution, for the most part, to be an actual phenomenon. I don't know how else to make it any more clear that I am not trying to "completely discount evolution."

I have no idea how this all occurred either, but I do know two things about the origin of man that the Church teaches; *Adam was the first man and that Adam was not a " development from lower orders of the animal creation" but rather "man began life as a human being in the likeness of Heavenly Father." Even if one accepts these statements made by the Church, it doesn't deny that evolution occurs. It may deny certain aspects of evolution, such as certain claims regarding speciation, but evolution isn't just about speciation and not all speciation is the same (i.e. spotted moth to dark moth vs. fish to mammal). But, all of this talk about evolution, in the end, is irrelevant to my claim because I'm not claiming to know how evolution works or how it jives with the Church's position. I'm simply stating that this* is the Church's position concerning Adam and to claim otherwise is false. If evolution turns out to be the absolute truth, which I mostly agree that it is truth, then whatever that actually entails in totality, when all the mysteries have been revealed, it will accomodate the concepts that Adam was the first man and that Adam did not develope from a lower order of the animal creation but rather man began life as a human being.

Regards,

Finrock

Finrock, sorry to keep singling you out but seems like you are trying to respond at least to questions and I thank you for that. And so you know, I am sincerely trying to understand all of this myself and trying to improve what I know.

When there are simple statements like "Adam was the first man" how is it that we can know if that means:

1. Adam (the spirit Adam or Michael) - having to use the name Adam because once he is here then his name is Adam but really saying he is the first spirit to occupy a body here on Earth.

or

2. Adam - the body of Adam before life was breathed into that body, in other words before Michael entered the created body.

or

3. Adam - the combination of the spirit and the body Adam.

My second question for you is; Why would it be contrary to the Gospel or not fit in with gospel teachings if the body of Adam (not Michael - the spirit of Adam) was formed from lower life forms. Is it just because it is repulsive, or doesn't seem right or does it not fit with other gospel teachings? Especially if we keep in mind that we, our spirit self, are God's children, why does it matter where this body comes from that will turn back to dust? Where does that attachment to something that is lower than rocks, that is described by Moses as being 'nothing' matter so much where it comes from?

I am aware that we are to treat the body as a temple, but that is because our spirit occupies it. If the spirit wasn't in it then the material that makes up the body is just as high and elevated as dust, like when we die. Just like the temple of the lord is just a building before it is dedicated for its purpose.

[Snow]

Good evening Snow. I hope you've enjoyed your day and are doubly enjoying your evening.

Here is my claim in totality:

The Church teaches that Adam was the first man and that Adam did not develop from lower orders of the animal creation but rather man began life as a human being. I therefore claim that "if any member of the Church perpetuates the idea that Adam was not the first man (Moses 1:34) or that Adam developed "...from lower orders of the animal creation", they are perpetuating false doctrine because the scriptures and official statements of the Church teach otherwise."

Evolution, as it is currently understood, can still occur given my statements above. Possibly questions about speciation in certain cases could be affected, but my claims do not deny the concept of evolution. A discussion on evolution is irrelevant to responding to my claims. It speaks to what the Church teaches about Adam. A counter response would only need to speak to what the Church teaches about Adam.

A note about the way you are defining race as it is used in the statement, "The Origin of Man." Your definition is out of context. Race also means, "humans considered as a group" or the human race. It is obvious in context that race was not being used to designate the caucasian race or african race, etc. It clearly means the "human race". In other words, the statement is saying that Adam is the primal parent of the human race/human beings/human species.

One last note, your post takes my comment from speaking about Adam not developing from lower animal creations, to me claiming that the church teaches against evolution. There is no such connection between what I'm claiming and what you are arguing that I am claiming. This is clearly a distortion of what my argument says. Yet again, your posts wants to deal with issues that I have not made instead of just simply dealing with the text. Your post is apparently attempting to assume something in to my comments that doesn't belong. Why not simply deal with the stated claim as written? Evolution has not part in addressing my claim. It can be addressed without involving evoltion. I can even show you, if you wish?

What a strange thread this is starting to become.

Regards,

Finrock

Finrock,

Your claims are simply bunk. I don't know how else to put it, despite how polite you act.

There's a bunch of problems with your hypothesis.. Here's a few.

1. Your hypothesis allows for men in the evolutionary chain before, during and after Adam, including each and every one of us. According to you, Adam, and only Adam is excused. It's a nonsensical concept with no basis in scientific fact or religious doctrine,

2. You keep claiming that your position is doctrinal yet you have never, ever demonstrated it. Very telling. All you do, for example, is point to the 1909 statement which says nothing no such thing.

3. It is disputed by numerous authoritative statements by Church authorities, which you continue to ignore.

And so on.

[Guest Godless]

1. Your hypothesis allows for men in the evolutionary chain before, during and after Adam, including each and every one of us. According to you, Adam, and only Adam is excused. It's a nonsensical concept with no basis in scientific fact or religious doctrine,

This is my main beef with your position as well. It's one step away from being akin to the "non-religious" ID position that accepts that Adam did not exist, but claims that some lifeforms were still designed by an intelligent creator rather than biologically evolving. Partial acceptance of a theory is simply illogical. Either you accept the conclusion drawn from the evidence or you don't. There's no rational basis for saying that all of it is true except for the parts that conflict with scripture.

[Finrock]

Good morning Snow. It's a nice day today where I'm at. I hope it's the same for you. :)

Finrock,

Your claims are simply bunk. I don't know how else to put it, despite how polite you act.

There's a bunch of problems with your hypothesis.. Here's a few.

1. Your hypothesis allows for men in the evolutionary chain before, during and after Adam, including each and every one of us. According to you, Adam, and only Adam is excused. It's a nonsensical concept with no basis in scientific fact or religious doctrine,

2. You keep claiming that your position is doctrinal yet you have never, ever demonstrated it. Very telling. All you do, for example, is point to the 1909 statement which says nothing no such thing.

3. It is disputed by numerous authoritative statements by Church authorities, which you continue to ignore.

And so on.

If I say the A teaches X; here is why... The only sensible response if you disagree is to say, no, A does not teach X; here is why... What's been happening mostly from your posts and from others, is that they are wanting to show how B indicates that Y is true. They are completely speaking past the point I'm asserting.

True, your post has made attempts at proving how my position isn't doctrinal, but it has gotten my position wrong. Your proofs have been speaking about evolution and how the church is neutral on evolution. Once you've made this point, you declare victory, that your position has been proven and my position is false. The only problem is that I haven't been arguing against evolution or making claims about the church's position on evolution.

So, why the persistent confusion? I'm beginning to sense a reason. It seems because you feel that a claim saying that Adam did not develop from lower orders of the animal creation entails an argument against evolution in general, then such a position isn't acceptable to you. In fact, it seems that such a thought is so reprehensible to your sense of reason that you would rather deal with the perceived consequences of such a position rather than deal with the actual content of the argument. This seems to be the feeling of several others taking part in this discussion as well. I would further speculate that such feelings are motivated by a dogmatic belief in evolution.

Well, whether my speculation above is accurate or not, it still appears from the content of your posts, and this applies to some others here as well, that you believe evolution only entails speciation. If this is true, then you should understand that evolution does not only entail speciation. In fact, the vast majority of observed examples of evolution do not involve speciation at all. Changes in traits and genetic mutations that result in adaptations or extinctions are things that occurs in populations all of the time, without speciation. In other words, a creature does not need to be evolving from one order of lifeform to another to be experiencing evolution.

Hence, your statement labelled 1 doesn't correctly reflect what I've spoken to. You've simply assumed, or misapplied a conclusion because of a misunderstanding of evolution, that because Adam did not develop from a lower order of the animal creation, that this means Adam was "excused" from evolutionary processes. When you understand that speciation does not have to occur in order for a population to experience the effects of evolution, then clearly, stating that "Adam did not develop from a lower order of the animal creation" is not a statement that denies evolution in general or that evolution doesn't apply to Adam.

I'll address your other points as I have time, but right now I must end this post.

Hey, and in case there is any misunderstanding, I don't mind your criticism of my position. I appreciate the discussion and you taking the time to interact with me.

Regards,

Finrock

[Moksha]

Finrock, I can respect the position that Adam was a young man sent by extraterrestrial means to a planet inhabited by other people just like him, who had developed through an evolutionary process, and that once on the planet Earth he was maintained in a garden and was devoid of any information. However, due to the inquisitiveness of his mate, he was able to obtain and consume an organic substance that furnished him an understanding equivalent to that of the native species of that planet which he and his mate identically resembled.

[Snow]

This is my main beef with your position as well. It's one step away from being akin to the "non-religious" ID position that accepts that Adam did not exist, but claims that some lifeforms were still designed by an intelligent creator rather than biologically evolving. Partial acceptance of a theory is simply illogical. Either you accept the conclusion drawn from the evidence or you don't. There's no rational basis for saying that all of it is true except for the parts that conflict with scripture.

I don't understand you post.

I accept evolution as the best theory to explain the origin of the species.

I accept the existence of Adam.

I accept the doctrine of a divine creator.

... so I don't know what your point is.

However, I have to say that your statement "Partial acceptance of a theory is simply illogical. Either you accept the conclusion drawn from the evidence or you don't" is simply wrong and contradicts the scientific method. Scientists regular accept parts of theories, while rejecting other parts that aren't useful in explaining the observed phenomena and so develop and advance new or improved theories. Straight Darwinian evolution is no longer the latest thinking on the matter. The theory has been improved over the years.

[Finrock]

Good afternoon Godless! I hope you are happy. :)

Although you were quoting Snow, I'm going to assume this was addressed to me. If I'm wrong, then you can discard this post.

This is my main beef with your position as well. It's one step away from being akin to the "non-religious" ID position that accepts that Adam did not exist, but claims that some lifeforms were still designed by an intelligent creator rather than biologically evolving.

First and foremost, my position is nowhere close to what you're describing.

A. I believe Adam existed and continues to exist.

B. I don't deny that lifeforms are evolving.

C. I do believe that God is the creator.

So, I have 1 out of the 3 criterias in common with what you find problematic. How does agreeing with 1/3 of the "troublesome" position equate to being "one step" away from the troublesome position? Rhetorical question so I'll answer: It's not.

Partial acceptance of a theory is simply illogical. Either you accept the conclusion drawn from the evidence or you don't. There's no rational basis for saying that all of it is true except for the parts that conflict with scripture.

Now, you make another interesting claim in your post. Apparently you believe that one must either completely accept or completely reject a theory, or otherwise one is being illogical. I'm not sure your logic follows. I mean, you seem to be using the statement, "Partial acceptance of a theory is simply illogical", as an axiom. Such a notion doesn't seem obviously true to me. Hypothetically speaking, if the actual evidence or lack of evidence justifies it, then partial acceptance of a theory seems perfectly reasonable to me. Accepting a theory completely, regardless of sufficient reason to question parts of it, seems unreasonable to me.

Also, speaking hypothetically again, it seems to me that if scripture represents eternal truth, then how could I rationally accept scientific data that contradicts scripture? What kind of sense does that make? You see, in this case it comes down to what we consider as king. God's word or man's word. If we consider man's word king, then, when there is an apparent conflict between the two, we will make God's word bow done to man. If we consider God's word king, then, when there is an apparent conflict, we will make man's word bow down to God.

Thanks for the dialoge. out.

Regards,

Finrock

[Snow]

Good morning Snow. It's a nice day today where I'm at. I hope it's the same for you. :)

If I say the A teaches X; here is why... The only sensible response if you disagree is to say, no, A does not teach X; here is why... What's been happening mostly from your posts and from others, is that they are wanting to show how B indicates that Y is true. They are completely speaking past the point I'm asserting.

True, your post has made attempts at proving how my position isn't doctrinal, but it has gotten my position wrong. Your proofs have been speaking about evolution and how the church is neutral on evolution. Once you've made this point, you declare victory, that your position has been proven and my position is false. The only problem is that I haven't been arguing against evolution or making claims about the church's position on evolution.

So, why the persistent confusion? I'm beginning to sense a reason. It seems because you feel that a claim saying that Adam did not develop from lower orders of the animal creation entails an argument against evolution in general, then such a position isn't acceptable to you. In fact, it seems that such a thought is so reprehensible to your sense of reason that you would rather deal with the perceived consequences of such a position rather than deal with the actual content of the argument. This seems to be the feeling of several others taking part in this discussion as well. I would further speculate that such feelings are motivated by a dogmatic belief in evolution.

Well, whether my speculation above is accurate or not, it still appears from the content of your posts, and this applies to some others here as well, that you believe evolution only entails speciation. If this is true, then you should understand that evolution does not only entail speciation. In fact, the vast majority of observed examples of evolution do not involve speciation at all. Changes in traits and genetic mutations that result in adaptations or extinctions are things that occurs in populations all of the time, without speciation. In other words, a creature does not need to be evolving from one order of lifeform to another to be experiencing evolution.

Hence, your statement labelled 1 doesn't correctly reflect what I've spoken to. You've simply assumed, or misapplied a conclusion because of a misunderstanding of evolution, that because Adam did not develop from a lower order of the animal creation, that this means Adam was "excused" from evolutionary processes. When you understand that speciation does not have to occur in order for a population to experience the effects of evolution, then clearly, stating that "Adam did not develop from a lower order of the animal creation" is not a statement that denies evolution in general or that evolution doesn't apply to Adam.

I'll address your other points as I have time, but right now I must end this post.

Hey, and in case there is any misunderstanding, I don't mind your criticism of my position. I appreciate the discussion and you taking the time to interact with me.

Regards,

Finrock

Finrock, you say that I have your hypothesis wrong but I don't. Here's your hypothesis:

"My claim is simply if any member of the Church perpetuates the idea that Adam was not the first man (Moses 1:34) or that Adam developed "...from lower orders of the animal creation", they are perpetuating false doctrine because the scriptures and official statements of the Church teach otherwise."

Those are YOUR words, not mine. I asked for clarification and received none. Your words have to stand. There is nothing in your theory that precludes evolution of other men, before, during or after Adam. Feel free to change your position but don't tell me I got it wrong. It's right there in black and white. If you want to amend you idea to preclude any man, Adam or otherwise, from evolution, go ahead. Till then I address what you say, not what you don't.

I'm no expert on the topic but am familiar with it. I certainly know that evolution entails more than speciation, but this is not a discussion about Galapagos Finches. This is a discussion about the origin and descent of man.

My biggest issue with your idea is not that it is an oddball idea (even though I have my thoughts about that) but that you false claim that a belief in the evolution of man, Adam being a man, is contrary to Church doctrine. If that is the case, one would expect you to demonstrate it. But you don't and won't and can't. When the Church speaks of evolution, it's not talking about the evolution of seed-bearing vascular plants, it's talking about the evolution of mankind. Unlike you, the Church does not single out Adam, one human, for the rest of mankind. The Church certainly advances Adam as the first man or the primal parent but makes no claim about exactly what that means, allowing for Adam to have been born of earthly parents. If Adam was born of earthly parents, then he cannot be the first man in the sense that before him, there were no homo sapiens sapiens.

[Snow]

And so as not to have my position misunderstood;

I do not agree with Evolution at all and stand on the

7day Creation declaration in the Scripture.

Also I let the Scripture and the plane statements of the

GA as expressed by Joseph F Smith and Bruce McConkie

speak for me on this matter.

I'm sure you know - actually I not sure but I say it that way to deftly segue to the point - that the less educated one is the more likely they are to believe in evolution and the more educated one is, the more likely they are to accept it.

Just so people know what you mean when you say you accept the plain statement of Joseph Joseph F. Smith and Bruce R. McConkie speak for you:

Joseph F. Smith said that the Church “not undertaking to say how much of evolution is true, or how much is false” and that “the Church itself has no philosophy about the modus operandi employed by the Lord in His creation of the world.”

He further said: "Man was born of woman; Christ, the Savior, was born of woman and God, the Father, was born of woman. Adam, our earthly parent, was also born of woman into this world, the same as Jesus and you and I."

On the other hand, Bruce R. McConkie said that “Those educational philosophies, which deny Christ and the divine origin of man as an off- spring of God (meaning especially the theories of organic evolution), are spawned and sponsored by Satan.”

and: "There are those who say that revealed religion and organic evolution can be harmonized. This is both false and devilish."

So may we assume that you believe that I, a believer in evolution as well as the millions of Mormons that also so believe as well as the numerous apostles and prophets who are open to the idea, are all in collusion of with The Prince of Darkness?

It's like the enlightenment never happened.

On the other hand, thankfully, the Church is full of enlightened members and leaders, like David O McKay who called it :"Evolutions beautiful theory of the creation of the world..."

It's worth noting about Elder McConkie's book Mormon Doctrine which spoke derisively about evolution... the Apostles Marrion Romney and Mark Peterson were asked to review the book:

"“Almost a full year later, the First Presidency met with Apostles Petersen and Romney, who had been asked to carefully review Mormon Doctrine. Both reported that the book had not been cleared for publication by the church’s reading committee. Elder Petersen remarked that he had located more than 1,000 doctrinal ‘errors,’ while Elder Romney reported that he had identified nearly forty problem areas, including the treatment of ‘evolution,’ ‘evolutionists,’ ‘pre-Adamites,’ ‘status of animals and plants in the Garden of Eden,’ and the ‘meaning of the various accounts of creation’. The First Presidency concluded that the book ‘[was] full of errors and misstatements, and [that] it [was] most unfortunate that it [had] received such wide circulation.’…A second, revised edition of Mormon Doctrine appeared several years later, although almost no changes were made to mitigate the book’s views on evolution.” Gary James Bergera and Ronald Priddis: “Organic Evolution Controversy”, Signature Books, 1985

[bytor2112]

It's worth noting about Elder McConkie's book Mormon Doctrine which spoke derisively about evolution... the Apostles Marrion Romney and Mark Peterson were asked to review the book:

"“Almost a full year later, the First Presidency met with Apostles Petersen and Romney, who had been asked to carefully review Mormon Doctrine. Both reported that the book had not been cleared for publication by the church’s reading committee. Elder Petersen remarked that he had located more than 1,000 doctrinal ‘errors,’ while Elder Romney reported that he had identified nearly forty problem areas, including the treatment of ‘evolution,’ ‘evolutionists,’ ‘pre-Adamites,’ ‘status of animals and plants in the Garden of Eden,’ and the ‘meaning of the various accounts of creation’. The First Presidency concluded that the book ‘[was] full of errors and misstatements, and [that] it [was] most unfortunate that it [had] received such wide circulation.’…A second, revised edition of Mormon Doctrine appeared several years later, although almost no changes were made to mitigate the book’s views on evolution.” Gary James Bergera and Ronald Priddis: “Organic Evolution Controversy”, Signature Books, 1985

Yet, in 1966, President McKay invited Elder McConkie to his office and gave approval for Mormon Doctrine to reprinted if appropriate changes were made and approved. Elder Spencer Kimball was assigned to work with Elder McConkie in making the changes. The Second edition softened the tone and eliminated some controversial aspects of the first edition.....suggestions made by Elder Kimball. Things like denouncing various Christian heresies...primarily associated with the Catholic Church. No doctrinal changes were made, but, the language was softened regarding the standards expected by true Latter Day Saints. Examples...card playing was described as "apostasy and rebellion" and birth control as " gross wickedness and rebellion against God". The section on evolution remained the same other than a couple of softening phrases like, "scrubby and groveling" changed to "weak and puerile" and the statement that President Taylor's views reflected the official doctrine of the Church was dropped.

Edited May 7, 2010 by bytor2112

[Finrock]

Evening Snow!

There are many posts that I'm trying to respond to. I've provided proof for my perspective, even though you claim that I have not. I think the claim that I have not demonstrated my point is unfair. You may not accept my proof, but I have not simply made assertions without providing the supporting data. Now, you have provided some quotes that challenge my claim that Church doctrine teaches that Adam did not develop from lower orders of the animal creation. Not all of them have I addressed. Most of them I will not address because they are irrelevant to my point. That is because most of your rebuttals are talking how the Church is neutral on evolution even though I do not claim otherwise. My post is not about evolution but about the origin of man. Your posts seem to equate the two as corralaries, however, your posts and those of others, seem to have misunderstood what evolution actually addresses.

All of you who have objected to my post on the grounds that my position denies evolution, seem to be confusing abiogenesis with evolution. "Abiogenesis...or biopoesis is the theory of how life on Earth could have arisen from inanimate matter. It should not be confused with evolution, which is the study of how groups of already living things change over time..." (Source; emphasis added). In other words, evolution doesn't speak to the origin of any living thing. Evolution only attempts to describe the variation of living things on the planet. In fact, neither evolution or science can explain the origin of any creature, including man. This is why it doesn't make any sense to associate a denial of evolution with my claims or to persist with the claim that the "evolution of man" and "the origin of man" are synonymous. They are not synonymous. There is a mixing of these two concepts going on in this discussion that is causing all sorts of complications and misunderstandings. Understanding the difference should now clear up some other points, I would hope.

Now, I am in the process of investigating the quotes you provided that are actually relevant to my claim. I want to read them from the source, if possible, so that they can be read in their complete context. I've already found a couple of your quotes that mean something quite different when read in context. Once I'm done and when I have time, I'll respond to your counter claims. I do have a life outside of the forum. I only state this because don't think that because I haven't responded yet to a particular point that I haven't read it or that I don't intend to consider it.

Regards,

Finrock

[Finrock]

Evening Moksha! I hope you are happy. :)

Finrock, I can respect the position that Adam was a young man sent by extraterrestrial means to a planet inhabited by other people just like him, who had developed through an evolutionary process, and that once on the planet Earth he was maintained in a garden and was devoid of any information. However, due to the inquisitiveness of his mate, he was able to obtain and consume an organic substance that furnished him an understanding equivalent to that of the native species of that planet which he and his mate identically resembled.

That is an interesting hypothesis.

Regards,

Finrock

[JohnnyRudick]

I'm sure you know - actually I not sure but I say it that way to deftly segue to the point - that the less educated one is the more likely they are to believe in evolution and the more educated one is, the more likely they are to accept it.

Just so people know what you mean when you say you accept the plain statement of Joseph Joseph F. Smith and Bruce R. McConkie speak for you:

Joseph F. Smith said that the Church “not undertaking to say how much of evolution is true, or how much is false” and that “the Church itself has no philosophy about the modus operandi employed by the Lord in His creation of the world.”

He further said: "Man was born of woman; Christ, the Savior, was born of woman and God, the Father, was born of woman. Adam, our earthly parent, was also born of woman into this world, the same as Jesus and you and I."

On the other hand, Bruce R. McConkie said that “Those educational philosophies, which deny Christ and the divine origin of man as an off- spring of God (meaning especially the theories of organic evolution), are spawned and sponsored by Satan.”

and: "There are those who say that revealed religion and organic evolution can be harmonized. This is both false and devilish."

So may we assume that you believe that I, a believer in evolution as well as the millions of Mormons that also so believe as well as the numerous apostles and prophets who are open to the idea, are all in collusion of with The Prince of Darkness? . . .

. . .

I do not believe Elder McConkie felt that way about his brothers and sisters in Christ any more then I do.

I believe that he felt the same way you appear to that me and several million LDS Sisters and Elders are living in the dark ages and deluded with and by superstition.

I fully believe in adaptation I just do not believe in jumping the lines between the species.

There fore I cannot accept the evolution of the humanoid pulling his own bootstraps up from the slime pit or the salt bath.

It just ain't in the Scripture as far as I can tell.

[Guest Godless]

However, I have to say that your statement "Partial acceptance of a theory is simply illogical. Either you accept the conclusion drawn from the evidence or you don't" is simply wrong and contradicts the scientific method. Scientists regular accept parts of theories, while rejecting other parts that aren't useful in explaining the observed phenomena and so develop and advance new or improved theories. Straight Darwinian evolution is no longer the latest thinking on the matter. The theory has been improved over the years.

Now, you make another interesting claim in your post. Apparently you believe that one must either completely accept or completely reject a theory, or otherwise one is being illogical. I'm not sure your logic follows. I mean, you seem to be using the statement, "Partial acceptance of a theory is simply illogical", as an axiom. Such a notion doesn't seem obviously true to me. Hypothetically speaking, if the actual evidence or lack of evidence justifies it, then partial acceptance of a theory seems perfectly reasonable to me. Accepting a theory completely, regardless of sufficient reason to question parts of it, seems unreasonable to me.

You're both right. That was a poor choice of words on my part. Snow, the point I was trying to make is that throwing exceptions into science based on scripture doesn't make sense, which is what you were getting at if I'm not mistaken. And you're right. An Adam-figure who existed outside of evolutionary law would be an unjustifiable anomaly. There is no reasonable basis for claiming that he didn't evolve from lower species, especially considering that we are all supposed to have descended from him. So if he wasn't the product of evolution, then none of us are.

Anyway, I'm having trouble articulating my point. I hope I haven't confused you further.

Edited May 6, 2010 by Godless

[JohnnyRudick]

. . .There is no reasonable basis for claiming that he didn't evolve from lower species, especially considering that we are all supposed to have descended from him. So if he didn't evolve, then none of us did.

Anyway, I'm having trouble articulating my point. I hope I haven't confused you further.

And if you think I'm confused you aught to see me:D

[Moksha]

Evening Moksha! I hope you are happy. :)

That is an interesting hypothesis.

Regards,

Finrock

It's now afternoon, and I am in my computer chair of power. Thanks.

I thought I was giving you support on the position you were advancing. Whatever position you or everyone else takes is fine by me, since it adds both to our uniqueness and diversity.

Peace and Moon Rocks,

Moksha

[Snow]

Signs of Neanderthals Mating With Humans

[mrmarklin]

Haven't looked at this thread since the first few posts!!! Lot's of controversy.

It seems that due to the fact that we are created in God's image, evolution would be precluded. Many eminent future modern day prophets have voiced this point of view before they were prophets.

It does seem significant however, that the Church has no official evolution doctrine, unlike most of our Christian counterparts.

I personally don't buy into evolution. If you think you evolved from a monkey that's OK by me. But I'm a child of God. YMMV