Has anyone prayed about Evolution?

[PrinceofLight2000]

It is not a matter if the jury is out and what applies to us in this fabrication of evolution, whether we truly understand how it was done by the GOD(s) through various accounts that are written. A key that could aid any person here regarding evolution, is "progression of intelligence" - from previous intelligence form will only give credence to how it is done.

I'm ever so slightly confused as to what you're trying to say.

[Hemidakota]

If you spend more time in studying the accounts of creation from various first-hand witnesses and then adding other scholars viewpoint, after formulating your own answer, ask GOD for whether or not that it is correct. You have the ability to know more than Darwin will ever know. This includes his stay in the spirit world (prison). This information is still not given to those who reside in that sphere. You now have a greater opportunity than him.

Let you know, I have spent endless amount of energy to seek out what is truth and what is fabrication, the shocker of which, Darwin was partially correct in a sense but not close how and why it happened. The closes person in writing and talk, who I can endorse, is the work of W. Cleon concerning the atonement. In it reveals a lot or truth most will never understand but if you apply your time with the aid of the Spirit, you will find your answer. It does coincide with the statement of being with GOD in the beginning, which was stated in the Book of Abraham.

[PrinceofLight2000]

If you spend more time in studying the accounts of creation from various first-hand witnesses and then adding other scholars viewpoint, after formulating your own answer, ask GOD for whether or not that it is correct. You have the ability to know more than Darwin will ever know. This includes his stay in the spirit world (prison). This information is still not given to those who reside in that sphere. You now have a greater opportunity than him.

Let you know, I have spent endless amount of energy to seek out what is truth and what is fabrication, the shocker of which, Darwin was partially correct in a sense but not close how and why it happened. The closes person in writing and talk, who I can endorse, is the work of W. Cleon concerning the atonement. In it reveals a lot or truth most will never understand but if you apply your time with the aid of the Spirit, you will find your answer. It does coincide with the statement of being with GOD in the beginning, which was stated in the Book of Abraham.

I know that I could find the answers through Heavenly Father if my heart so desired, but it's rather irrelevant to my salvation and isn't causing any tension in the relationship I have with Him. It's nothing I need to understand right now, though this would be awesome to learn about correctly and truthfully in the afterlife.

Additionally, I never accepted the idea that Darwin was entirely correct. His premise hinges upon randomly occurring genetic mutations. My opinion is that each genetic change was not random or a mutation, but necessary and guided by Heavenly Father. Mutations occur because we live in a fallen world. Such mutations bring various forms of disease.

[Traveler]

Charles Darwin wasn't an atheist scientist, and many of his contemporaries like George Gordon were actually ministers.

Something interesting to me is the parallel of Charles Darwin and Joseph Smith as to providing the world with "new" information" that many in traditional Christian religions were not willing to consider for a number of reasons - all of which involve a fear that the truth would create confusion with their understanding of religious principles.

The Traveler

[Elgama]

I am not advocate of his work, nor endorse it at any level, or, seeing what was his true motive of publishing such during the time when three other men that cause a great deal of world's agony. Was it really for truth or 'five seconds' of fame? However, anything that was written and claimed as science, will be rewritten and corrected when the Lord returns.

p

He was not an atheist, you don't have to be Christian to believe in God. That he doubted the bible as history and believed organised religion to be wrong does not mean he didn't believe in God. His lack of fear of death seems to indicate a man secure in his life. He believed God created the laws that govern the universe and our life. He had moments of doubt but given the work he accomplished very few. He classed himself as agnostic later in life.

He had taken a journety of thousands of milles in uncomfortable circumstances for a man who was a bit of a wimpy hypocondriac it was one heck of a sacrifice. The one thing that comes through from his writings is a terribly honest conflicted man. He was interested and eager to learn like many men of his time. Why shouldn't he be the one of the men concerned to release the information he had put in the hours and the graft. I am not so convinced that modern science has the same drive or honesty or sacrifice behind it that men of Darwin's generation put into it.

People have built on his work, and we benefit from greater understanding of the world around him, Mendel was rediscovered in the 20th Century, the genetics study has given us Watson and Crick and DNA, I find nothing more spiritual than a display of DNA. We have gained a lot from that. His work has also played a part in people questioning the mainstream churches.

He came out of the same mentality that allowed the missionaries to baptise thousands upon thousands of people in the UK during the 1800s, and his work will have contributed towards some people being brave enough to ask questions from their religion.

Edited August 9, 2010 by Elgama

[Hemidakota]

He was not an atheist, you don't have to be Christian to believe in God. That he doubted the bible as history and believed organised religion to be wrong does not mean he didn't believe in God. His lack of fear of death seems to indicate a man secure in his life. He believed God created the laws that govern the universe and our life. He had moments of doubt but given the work he accomplished very few. He classed himself as agnostic later in life.

He had taken a journety of thousands of milles in uncomfortable circumstances for a man who was a bit of a wimpy hypocondriac it was one heck of a sacrifice. The one thing that comes through from his writings is a terribly honest conflicted man. He was interested and eager to learn like many men of his time. Why shouldn't he be the one of the men concerned to release the information he had put in the hours and the graft. I am not so convinced that modern science has the same drive or honesty or sacrifice behind it that men of Darwin's generation put into it.

People have built on his work, and we benefit from greater understanding of the world around him, Mendel was rediscovered in the 20th Century, the genetics study has given us Watson and Crick and DNA, I find nothing more spiritual than a display of DNA. We have gained a lot from that. His work has also played a part in people questioning the mainstream churches.

He came out of the same mentality that allowed the missionaries to baptise thousands upon thousands of people in the UK during the 1800s, and his work will have contributed towards some people being brave enough to ask questions from their religion.

First, go back to read an earlier post concerning my research revealed he was a Christian. He was not naive to the principles of what was being taught by his own church during his youth. He simply didn’t accept the poor uneducated clergy of that era or his parents teaching concerning genesis of the earth or its habitants.

Sorry, this is where we differ. As too crediting him to others work, and additional credited him with LDS baptism, that is pure speculation. We actually gain nothing but need to go back and correct this poor fabric of creative science. I do accredit Joseph Smith giving us more understanding what is truth than this man.

[Hemidakota]

I know that I could find the answers through Heavenly Father if my heart so desired, but it's rather irrelevant to my salvation and isn't causing any tension in the relationship I have with Him. It's nothing I need to understand right now, though this would be awesome to learn about correctly and truthfully in the afterlife.

Additionally, I never accepted the idea that Darwin was entirely correct. His premise hinges upon randomly occurring genetic mutations. My opinion is that each genetic change was not random or a mutation, but necessary and guided by Heavenly Father. Mutations occur because we live in a fallen world. Such mutations bring various forms of disease.

Even if we cross the veil, on a selected few that will inherit the highest kingdom will have this knowledge.

[Vanhin]

Well, I got to point #1 and couldn't read any further without commenting. You do realize that the connection between monkeys and humans is that we simply share a common ancestor. Monkeys didn't "magically" turn into humans. It's demonstrated in the picture below. Notice the closest point between humans and 'monkeys', we share an ancestor.. cousins, so to speak.

That diagram is funny. Reminds me of old Sesame Street - "One of these things just doesn't belong here". Can you pick which one?

Regards,

Vanhin

Edited August 10, 2010 by Vanhin

[PrinceofLight2000]

Even if we cross the veil, on a selected few that will inherit the highest kingdom will have this knowledge.

Then I'll make sure I inherit the highest kingdom.

[Vanhin]

The Church does not have an official position on how the first man on this Earth, Adam, was created. The details of Adam's creation have not been revealed to us yet, and thus are not found in our canon. But there are some theories we know to be false. For example, can any latter-day saint disagree with the statement that "Adam was not created into existence out of nothing (ex nihilo)"? No, because we know from the scriptures that both spirit and physical element is eternal (D&C 93:29, 33). So, we can agree on the falseness of some theories, without knowing exactly how Adam came to be.

That said, the Church has made it's position clear that man did not "develop from lower orders of animal creation", calling those ideas "the theories of men" being in opposition to things we do know from scripture.

It is held by some that Adam was not the first man upon this earth and that the original human being was a development from lower orders of the animal creation. These, however, are the theories of men. The word of the Lord declared that Adam was “the first man of all men” (Moses 1:34), and we are therefore in duty bound to regard him as the primal parent of our race. It was shown to the brother of Jared that all men were created in the beginning after the image of God; whether we take this to mean the spirit or the body, or both, it commits us to the same conclusion: Man began life as a human being, in the likeness of our Heavenly Father. (LDS.org - Ensign Article - The Origin of Man)

A premise in that statement is that Adam was the first man. If Adam was a development of lower orders of animal creation, then he cannot be considered the "first man" - rendering the scriptures false. That is the main point of that statement in the document authored by the First Presidency in 1909, and reaffirmed in 2002 by the following statement.

In the early 1900s, questions concerning the Creation of the earth and the theories of evolution became the subject of much public discussion. In the midst of these controversies, the First Presidency issued the following in 1909, which expresses the Church’s doctrinal position on these matters. A reprinting of this important First Presidency statement will be helpful as members of the Church study the Old Testament this year. (LDS.org - Ensign Article - The Origin of Man)

It cannot be said by FairLDS, or anyone else that the Church has no position on the matter, when they clearly do by way of official proclamation. Also, it is consistently taught in scriptures and in Church publication that Adam was the first man, and that he did not develop from lower orders of animal creation.

Where the Church does not have an official position is in the question of "How did God create the first man on earth, if not by organic evolution?" We simply do not know yet, officially.

However, I do believe that God answers prayers, and that by the Holy Ghost we can know the truth of all things. I can produce scripture after scripture to back that up. So, to the OP, I say continue to seek truth from God on matters, even such as this, and be willing to accept the answers and timeframe that the Lord provides, and don't discount what the Lord has already revealed to us through modern prophets.

Regards,

Vanhin

Edited August 10, 2010 by Vanhin