Evolution, The Gospel, Science


Snow
 Share

Do you agree w/ the statement? Man's body did [b]NOT[/b] evolve in any fashion from simpler species  

44 members have voted

  1. 1. Do you agree w/ the statement? Man's body did [b]NOT[/b] evolve in any fashion from simpler species

    • Yes
      11
    • No
      32


Recommended Posts

Having read Darwin's original writings, I am convinced evolution is a modern myth. Having said that, I have no qualms accepting that there are observable changes within a species.

This does not indicate that I firmly believe all the ID stuff either.

The scriptures were creatively obtuse on the matter, preferring to allow an individual to develop a relationship with God for answers.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 256
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Well, in this line of thinking there are clearly some gaps in understanding. I believe they were the first mortals on this Earth, and that they were born of parents.

Yes, I probably slept through too many seminary classes (thus, the name) to understand but in all the Sunday School classes and all the years of church I have gone to I have never heard it preached that Adam and Eve were born of parents (and I am assuming you are not talking spiritually born, otherwise you would have called him Michael).

I hear a lot of LDS say that but I don't know where that comes from. Who or where did you learn that Adam and Eve were born of parents? As opposed to their bodies being created and their spirits which were born being placed into those bodies.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As in Adam and Eve came in the same way as we did (ie being conceived and born)?

Yes.

Although I wouldn't personally consider conception and the maturation of a fetus to be 'evolution' necessarily, that just shows I know little about evolution itself. :P

So, if you would define evolution (in part, at least) as the process of maturation and growth that a newborn goes through prior to it's physical birth, then I could accept that.

When we observe myosis in a single living cell we will observe what scientist call differentiation as the cell begins to unwind its DNA and separate the cell into two parts. As this process continues the cell will eventually divide. When the division has taken place there will be two cells as different from each other as from the original cell. This is evolution and it takes place millions of times each day in every human. It is not just a theory but an observable event. Once the division is complete there are two possibilities, disassociation which results in the two new cells completely separating and going their separate ways as two new life forms that are children to the original. The second is integration; this is when the new cells form symbiosis relationships with each other which will define a higher single multi cell life form.

From a single cell of a single kind or type in the beginning of a human will come enormous numbers of different KINDS of cells for bones, eyes, heart, lungs, skin and every other part of a human being. This process is evolution pure and simple and it exists and can be observed by anyone willing to see it for themselves. It is evolutionary adaptation through regeneration of life. There is no evidence that there ever has been any other method for genesis of life that exists so abundantly. Every known living thing springs from this architecture. To deny evolution is to deny new life and creation. To say the evolution process exist to this, the arbitrary point defined by men as that of the species and then no longer occurs, is to me a mockery of what little knowledge the Almighty grants us. How silly are we to assume that the Almighty deceives us in what he shows us in nature or that we can make up in our own ignorant minds to a better understanding of that which he openly displays to all that will look upon his wonders.

Has the creator ceased to create and put an end to his creative power? Does evolution disprove a creator or what the scriptures tell us? If people of faith allow this to become a definition we make a serious mistake. Is understanding of a principal a denial of the Almighty? If we learn a thing - does that mean that the power of the Almighty is no longer active in that thing? Not to me - I believe we should acknowledge him for all his works, including what little we have learned, and then seek to learn more of him and his works.

The Traveler

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Orson Hyde said the following at General Conference on Ocober 6, 1854.

The world was peopled before the days of Adam, as much so as it was before the days of Noah. It was said that Noah became the Father of the new world, but it was the same old world still, and will continue to be, though it may pass through many changes. (JD 2:79)

Brigham Young came up to the pulpit after the sermon and stated that he didn't feel move to correct any of it.

"There were prophets before Adam, and Joseph has the spirit and power of all the prophets."

Hyrum Smith, Millennial Star from June 29, 1861

And here's Elder Talmage's article "Earth and Man" which the Church published in a pamphlet in 1931. Talmage's "The Earth and Man"

In it, he notes these points:

We believe that Adam was a real personage, who stands at the head of his race chronologically. To my mind Adam is a historic personage, not a prehistoric being, unidentified and uncertain....

This record of Adam and his posterity is the only scriptural account we have of the appearance of man upon the earth. But we have also a vast and ever-increasing volume of knowledge concerning man, his early habits and customs, his industries and works of art, his tools and implements, about which such scriptures as we have thus far received are entirely silent. Let us not try to wrest the scriptures in an attempt to explain away what we can not explain. The opening chapters of Genesis, and scriptures related thereto, were never intended as a text-book of geology, archaeology, earth-science or man-science. Holy Scripture will endure, while the conceptions of men change with new discoveries. We do not show reverence for the scriptures when we misapply them through faulty interpretation.

Elder James E. Talmage noted in his journal:

...Involved in this question is that of the beginning of life upon the earth, and as to whether there was death either of animal or plant before the fall of Adam, on which proposition Elder Smith was very pronounced in denial and Elder Roberts equally forceful in the affirmative. As to whether Preadamite races existed upon the earth there has been much discussion among some of our people of late. The decision reached by the First Presidency, and announced to this morning's assembly, was in answer to a specific question that obviously the doctrine of the existence of races of human beings upon the earth prior to the fall of Adam was not a doctrine of the Church; and, further, that the conception embodied in the belief of many to the effect that there were no such Preadamite races, and that there was no death upon the earth prior to Adam's fall is likewise declared to be no doctrine of the Church. I think the decision of the First Presidency is a wise one in the premises. This is one of the many things upon which we cannot preach with assurance and dogmatic assertions on either side are likely to do harm rather than good.

Here's a good article that shows the Church's longstanding thoughts on Pre-Adamites.

Mormonism and science/Pre-Adamites - FAIRMormon

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That was not the only thing Elder O. Hyde said that I would gladly so NO. Before someone state otherwise...don't worry, I will have that opportunity to speak to them in person soon.

However, being the earth is comprised of many dead worlds, this I can agree on. But, not our generation.

Edited by Hemidakota
Link to comment
Share on other sites

There are some things in the bible account of the origin of man that are incontrovertible.

One is that Adam nad Eve could not die in the garden of Eden because of the composition of their bodies. One can only assume that they were created by an immortal being, and not evolved. Had they been evolved, presumably they would have been subject to death.

It was only AFTER ingesting a forbidden fruit AND trangressing the law of God that their bodies underwent a change. One can only assume that the result of these two actions converted them to mortality.

It's my personal belief that God cannot create anything mortal. Mortality can only be introduced by something else that can be used by the agency of another. This was the case in the garden. Of course Adam was set up so to speak, but that was God's plan.

I'm with old James E. It's useless to speculate on pre-Adamic man. No one knows.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Here is Apostle Hyde's remark, before the reference and after.

Let us see what Abraham's works were. Abraham obtained promises. What promise have you obtained? What promise has the Christian world obtained? "Why," says one, "the Bible is all full of promises made to the people of God long ago." But what have the promises to the people of God long ago to do with us? Have we obtained promises to ourselves? There is the point. If our fathers obtained promises that they should be fed, and were fed, their eating and drinking does not satisfy my appetite. It satisfied them, but that has nothing to do with me, I want the same kind of substantial food myself. If Abraham obtained promises, I want to obtain promises also. "What! A man that has more than one wife obtain promises from God?" I tell you there were but few in olden times who ever did obtain promises from God, that had not more than one wife, if the Bible be true. There was David, and there was Solomon; there were the whole line of the kings of Israel. Says one, "That Old Bible was for the Jews, and has nothing to do with us; that is the Old Testament; and having more wives was according to their law, and according to their custom, but it does not apply to us; the Savior of the world is our great pattern, he is our great lawgiver."

And how is it with him? Let us Inquire. Did the Savior of the world consider it to be his duty to fulfill righteousness? You answer, yes. Even the simple ordinance of baptism he would not pass by, for the Lord commanded it, and therefore it was righteousness to obey what the Lord had commanded, and he would fulfil all righteousness. Upon this hypothesis I will go back to the beginning, and notice the commandment that was given to our first parents in the garden of Eden. The Lord said unto them, "Multiply and replenish the earth." I will digress here for a moment from the thread of the subject, and bring an idea that may perhaps have a bearing upon it.

The earth, you remember, was void and empty, until our first parents began at the garden of Eden. What does the term replenish mean? This word is derived from the Latin; "re" and "plenus;" "re" denotes repetition, iteration; and "plenus" signifies full, complete; then the meaning of the word replenish is, to refill, recomplete. If I were to go into a merchant's store, and find he had got a new stock of goods, I should say-"You have replenished your stock, that is, filled up your establishment, for it looks as it did before." "Now go forth," says the Lord, "and replenish the earth;" for it was covered with gloomy clouds of darkness, excluded from the light of heaven, and darkness brooded upon the face of the deep. The world was peopled before the days of Adam, as much so as it was before the days of Noah. It was said that Noah became the father of a new world, but it was the same old world still, and will continue to be, though it may pass through many changes.

When God said, Go forth and replenish the earth; it was to replenish the inhabitants of the human species, and make it as it was before. Our first parents, then, were commanded to multiply and replenish the earth; and if the Savior found it his duty to be baptized to fulfil all righteousness, a command of far less importance than that of multiplying his race, (if indeed there is any difference in the commandments of Jehovah, for they are all important, and all essential,) would he not find it his duty to join in with the rest of the faithful ones in replenishing the earth? "Mr. Hyde, do you really wish to imply that the immaculate Savior begat children? It is a blasphemous assertion against the purity of the Savior's life, to say the least of it. The holy aspirations that ever ascended from him to his Father would never allow him to have any such fleshly and carnal connexions, never, no never." This is the general idea; but the Savior never thought it beneath him to obey the mandate of his Father; he never thought this stooping beneath his dignity; he never despised what God had made; for they are bone of his bone, and flesh of his flesh; kindred spirits, that once basked in rays of immortality and eternal life. When he found them clothed upon and surrounded with the weaknesses of mortal flesh, would he despise them? No. It is true, I have seen men who became poor and miserable all at once, and then those who were their friends in the days of their prosperity turn from them, and scarcely deign to bestow them a look, it being too humiliating to associate with them in their poverty. But it was not so with the Savior; he associated with them in other spheres, and when they came here, descending below all things, he did not despise to associate with these same kindred spirits. "Then you really mean to hold to the doctrine that the Savior of the world was married; do you mean to be understood so? And if so, do you mean to be understood that he had more than one wife?" (Journal of Discourses, 26 vols., 2:, p.79-80) A Lecture by President Orson Hyde, delivered at the General Conference, in the Tabernacle, Great Salt Lake City, October 6, 1854.

Next speaker was President Brigham Young;

An Address by President Brigham Young, Delivered at the General Conference, in the Tabernacle, Great Salt Lake City, October 6, 1854.

I do not wish to eradicate any items from the lecture Elder Hyde has given us this evening, but simply to give you my views, in a few words, on the portion touching Bishops and Deacons.

In Paul's first epistle to Timothy, third chapter, he writes as follows-

"This is a true saying, If a man desire the office of a bishop, he desireth a good work. A bishop then must be blameless, the husband of one wife, vigilant, sober, of good behaviour, given to hospitality, apt to teach; not given to wine, no striker, not greedy of filthy lucre; but patient, not a brawler, not covetous; one that ruleth well his own house, having his children in subjection with all gravity; (for if a man know not how to rule his own house, how shall he take care of the Church of God?) Not a novice, lest being lifted up with pride he fall into the condemnation of the devil. Moreover he must have a good report of them which are without; lest he fall into reproach and the snare of the devil. Likewise must the deacons be grave, not double tongued, not given to much wine, not greedy of filthy lucre; holding the mystery of the faith in a pure conscience. And let these also first be proved; then let them use the office of a deacon, being found blameless. Even so must their wives be grave, not slanderers, sober, faithful in all things. Let the deacons be the husbands of one wife, ruling their children and their own houses well." (Journal of Discourses, 26 vols., 2:, p.88)

Using Noah's example, covered over is the key element here. However, it does violate the laws of resurrection if we imply pre-adamics. Last world failed at the animal kingdom, long before any humans showed up.

Both talks are dealing with marriages. More or less, let us not always trust one of our scholars [J. M. Sjodahl] to imply something that is not always the thought of the brethren.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited) · Hidden
Hidden

However, since scripture is neutral, I also acknowledge the possibility that Heavenly Father's omnipotence would allow him to snap his fingers, wiggle his nose, or simply 'think' us into being.

And then plant false and misleading evidence to contrary. Why would He do that - theoretically?

Now, to a different point, since our OP is so busy placing 'labels'. Which is greater? The power of Heavenly Father or the power of science? Evidence, based on observation and studying of the writings of the OP, suggest that he believes that science is greater than Heavenly Father.

Really dimwitted point.

Science, generally, is "knowledge attained through study or practice," or "knowledge covering general truths of the operation of general laws, esp. as obtained and tested through scientific method [and] concerned with the physical world." (Websters)

Science, in my view, is one of the ways that man comes to understand God and his doings. Besides getting my position COMPLETELY wrong, your science vs God scenario doesn't even make sense. Science is a way of knowing. God is the omnipotent creator and ruler of all that there is, including science.

Such a belief would appear dangerous to me, as it remove the omnipotence of Heavnly Father and suggests that he is bound by Science, making science a greater power in our lives.

Make something untrue up and then attack it... play nice Gator, k.

Further, continued observation of the OP indicates that science will trump the word of Heavenly Father, when it does not fit the OPs understanding of the world.

Another dopey point. You know full well that I never said any such thing. Don't make up things and attribute them to me.

Now, while these are all observeable and recorded indications through many posts and over a period of time, all they do is create a THEORY that the OP worships science over Heavenly Father. I will hope Heavenly Father is aware of a truth that the 'science' of observation does not bare out of the OP.

Did I mention that it's a really thick-witted, and completely false point?

Edited by Snow
Link to comment

Having read Darwin's original writings, I am convinced evolution is a modern myth. Having said that, I have no qualms accepting that there are observable changes within a species.

Would you care to state your background and training in biology and the sciences generally?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Having read Darwin's original writings, I am convinced evolution is a modern myth. Having said that, I have no qualms accepting that there are observable changes within a species.

...

The scriptures were creatively obtuse on the matter, preferring to allow an individual to develop a relationship with God for answers.

You disagree with Darwins findings, then? Mind if I read your own published claims explaining the observable changes within a species? "God did it" just doesn't cut it in the real world.. I'm interested in the how, not the why.

The scriptures were painfully blunt on the matter of creation. Especially on the creation of man. You can read about it in this link Genesis 1 - Passage Lookup - New International Version - BibleGateway.com

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"God did it" does not cut it in 'man's' world. But, just becuase it does not work for you does not make it real, or unreal. It simply means you do not accept it. Funny thing about reality, whether you accept it or not, whether you believe it or not, or whether you understand it or not, it is still reality. It just takes more time to find the truth, but, we believe that day will come.

You disagree with Darwins findings, then? Mind if I read your own published claims explaining the observable changes within a species? "God did it" just doesn't cut it in the real world.. I'm interested in the how, not the why.

The scriptures were painfully blunt on the matter of creation. Especially on the creation of man. You can read about it in this link Genesis 1 - Passage*Lookup - New International Version - BibleGateway.com

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You disagree with Darwins findings, then? Mind if I read your own published claims explaining the observable changes within a species? "God did it" just doesn't cut it in the real world.. I'm interested in the how, not the why.

The scriptures were painfully blunt on the matter of creation. Especially on the creation of man. You can read about it in this link Genesis 1 - Passage*Lookup - New International Version - BibleGateway.com

I do believe, the world will soon find out how to accomplish it now. This will only open a new world of science and undermined those of the past to correct the many fables that was written. Species cannot perpetuate from a lower to a higher form of life, without outside interference. ^_^ Stem cell cloning have proven this is the case.

Like I said before, we are entering a phase of mortality of ‘eye opening’ technology and knowledge.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Godless

Having read Darwin's original writings, I am convinced evolution is a modern myth. Having said that, I have no qualms accepting that there are observable changes within a species.

Basing your opinion of evolution on Darwin's writings is like basing you opinion of germ theory on Louis Pasteur's writings. Yes, it's informative, but it's also horribly outdated. Modern technology and advances in the fields of genetics, microbiology, and anthropology (among many other fields) have expanded our knowledge in ways that Darwin could never have imagined. I suggest you read some of the more modern work on the subject and reevaluate your position.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Because we may have an exception, the rule is,

These are a literal decent.

. . .

Luke 3:37 Which was the son of Mathusala, which was the son of

Enoch, which was the son of Jared, which was the son of Maleleel,

which was the son of Cainan,

Luke 3:38 Which was the son of Enos, which was the son of Seth,

which was the son of Adam, which was the son of God.

You are proposing there are two begotten children of God then?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You are proposing there are two begotten children of God then?

One of the things I am not sure of :P

(add that one to the list),

But

Yeah, Could be:mellow:

That is what a very serious part of Scripture reports in a literal geneology.

Yeah, I know, the discrepancy.

But it would be hard to get that statement wrong.

Even Joseph Smith did not see fit to correct that one - for a reason I am sure.

Could it be that it is true?

We are God's children?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

One of the things I am not sure of :P

(add that one to the list),

But

Yeah, Could be:mellow:

That is what a very serious part of Scripture reports in a literal geneology.

Yeah, I know, the discrepancy.

But it would be hard to get that statement wrong.

Even Joseph Smith did not see fit to correct that one - for a reason I am sure.

Could it be that it is true?

We are God's children?

To me, that lineage is given to show that Adam did not have parents, that he is the first one, as all that can be said about him is that he is a son of God. But, I don't think that should be interpreted that he was begotten of God.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Because the laws against such things were given many years later.

But yes, I believe it was with sisters and brothers.

Hope they got along well at home, otherwise the girl over in West Nod would seem much more appealing. Much less snickering at the home coming dance.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

To me, that lineage is given to show that Adam did not have parents, that he is the first one, as all that can be said about him is that he is a son of God. But, I don't think that should be interpreted that he was begotten of God.

Again you can interpret it any way you choose. It is a free country in most places today.

But it is inserted in a literal list of decent.

But that's OK.

To make up your own rules in the list that follows another rule to suit your own views is a popular practice.

But even under your rule, Adam is the first man.

I like that.:)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hope they got along well at home, otherwise the girl over in West Nod would seem much more appealing. Much less snickering at the home coming dance.

I have come to believe that the children grew up,

moved away from home and spread out over the land.:mellow:

In time got to know each other differently and formed families of couples.:mellow:

In time, Nature took it's coarse.^_^

Again, there was no taboo against it.:cool:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share