Doctrine confusion

[scholasticspastic]

The bishop is called to lead his congregation in the truths of the gospel. He does so, to the best of his ability. Maybe he sees evolution as a stand-in for all the ungodly influences of the world; even those who accept evolution must admit that it has often been invoked in unclean, even criminal, activity, and not just to explain but to exculpate. "That's just how my body is evolved!" is not a sufficient explanation to dismiss homosexual behavior, beating up your neighbor because he made you mad, committing adultery with an intern, ravaging yourself with drugs, or many of the other things people seek to excuse themselves over by pinning it all on their animalistic origins. Maybe this is what your bishop is responding to, and why he tries to caution his ward members not to fall into such faulty patterns of thinking.

This is bizarre. In what way would being an evolved organism justify anti-social behavior in a social organism? Anyone trying to make this sort of claim is 1) an idiot. 2) ignorant of biology. and 3) some other insult I'm too lazy to come up with. Because that sort of person earns at least three insults.

I'm going to leave the homosexuality stuff alone. I'm not gay, so it doesn't apply to me. That's as close as I can get to agreeing with you there.

[Vort]

This is bizarre. In what way would being an evolved organism justify anti-social behavior in a social organism? Anyone trying to make this sort of claim is 1) an idiot. 2) ignorant of biology. and 3) some other insult I'm too lazy to come up with. Because that sort of person earns at least three insults.

Whatever your political leanings, surely you remember the justifications associated with President Clinton's extramarital escapades fifteen years ago: "He's the alpha male! Of course he's going to 'spread the love' around! That's what he's supposed to do! Any other man in that situation would do the same thing!"

The point is not to attack Clinton, but to point out that many of his defenders based their defense on the animalistic origins of the human body -- arguing in effect that people are just another kind of animal, and therefore you should not fault someone for acting like what he is.

I'm going to leave the homosexuality stuff alone. I'm not gay, so it doesn't apply to me. That's as close as I can get to agreeing with you there.

Again, the point is not to condemn homosexuals, but to point out that many people defend homosexuality based on the idea that, hey, we're all just animals anyway, and homosexual behavior is normative among many animals, so therefore there cannot be anything wrong with it.

[scholasticspastic]

Whatever your political leanings, surely you remember the justifications associated with President Clinton's extramarital escapades fifteen years ago: "He's the alpha male! Of course he's going to 'spread the love' around! That's what he's supposed to do! Any other man in that situation would do the same thing!"

The point is not to attack Clinton, but to point out that many of his defenders based their defense on the animalistic origins of the human body -- arguing in effect that people are just another kind of animal, and therefore you should not fault someone for acting like what he is.

Attack Clinton all you like. I make it a point to attack all elected officials regardless of the cartoon animal they're represented by.

The "alpha male" nonsense is a fantastic example of ignorance of actual biology or animal behavior. There are many ways animal societies can be structured. "Alphas" were observed under terribly artificial circumstances: apes in zoos. Basing our understanding of animal behavior on how they behave in zoos makes about as much sense as deciding what normal human behavior looks like by observing prison inmates.

On top of that, there's no reason to assume that any species of ape will share a social structure with another species of ape. We can find loads of evidence that ape species each have their own social structures. So even allowing for descent from an ape species, there still isn't any basis for assuming that human behavior should resemble that of a particular ape species.

Again, the point is not to condemn homosexuals, but to point out that many people defend homosexuality based on the idea that, hey, we're all just animals anyway, and homosexual behavior is normative among many animals, so therefore there cannot be anything wrong with it.

I'm going to continue to leave this alone. The reasoning you're pointing out is faulty. I also disagree with your conclusion.

[scholasticspastic]

Speaking of BYU:

The Darwin Seminar at BYU

I particularly enjoyed this part:

We came to few firm conclusions. But by the end everyone that I was aware off, came to see that evolution was no threat to our faith. We also came to the conclusion that we understand very little about things like the Creation and the Fall and that new interpretations must be entertained some that fundamentalisms and literalisms that became popular in the 50s disavow. We also realized that Mormonism and evolution are compatible in surprising ways—perhaps more so than any other religion. That we do not believe in an ex nihilo creation, that we believe that this earth and its inhabitants will be saved and indeed this is our place of final destiny, all speak to a hope that the two are complementary. There are sticking points of course. There are problems that will have to be sorted out by further revelation, closer and more open readings of scripture, and a humility that any interpretation of our scriptures is tentative and subject to further revelation from prophets or the book of nature.

(underscore mine)

[Vort]

The "alpha male" nonsense is a fantastic example of ignorance of actual biology or animal behavior...On top of that, there's no reason to assume that any species of ape will share a social structure with another species of ape. We can find loads of evidence that ape species each have their own social structures. So even allowing for descent from an ape species, there still isn't any basis for assuming that human behavior should resemble that of a particular ape species.

Agreed on both counts.

I also disagree with your conclusion.

Which conclusion did you think I drew that you disagree with? The only conclusion I am aware of drawing is that their argument ("Homosexual activity is observed in nature, and is therefore acceptable for human beings") is nonsense. Do you disagree and think their argument is actually sensible? To me, it looks almost exactly the same as the alpha ape argument above that you rejected.

[Forget-Me-Not]

Just some thoughts as per speculating on evolutionary processes in the creation process. The scriptures tell us, for example, that God formed man out of the dust of the ground. But what does that mean? Does it literally mean the dust we would see the wind pick up when blowing across a dry field of soil?

Or might it mean basic life building chemical elements and compounds, which I guess (not being a scientist) would also be found in soil that has not been depleted? I don't know, but the scriptures don't explain what the dust of the ground is. They also do not explain how the forming was done, what processes were employed, or how long these processes took.

Scripture tells us there were six "days" (Genesis account) and six "times" (Book of Abraham account) of creation. Six phases, if you will, but they don't tell us what processes were used to complete each phase, nor do they tell us how long each of those phases took, according to our reckoning of time. There are likely those LDS who believe in a literal 24 day period for each "day" mentioned, though I think most LDS probably do not take that view.

But, given what the scriptures say, and do not say, I can easily see a vast spectrum of thought on the creation of the earth and heavens, of animal and plant life, as well as the creation of man from members of the Church, without conflict where belief and faith in God, scripture, and Christ as Savior are concerned.

[Mamas_Girl]

As one in your shoes let me ask a few questions.

I've toyed over the last few years between being LDS, agnostic, or atheist. I had fallen away from the church for a while and couldn't decide which of the three I was. The one thing I did learn was one cannot be LDS and agnostic or LDS and atheist at the same time. You need to pick one and do it right.

Having lived with an agnostic husband for about 15 years (now an atheist for about 5 years), I have to ask, You said, "I cannot ever be more than agnostic about God in this life." And yet you're considering marrying this girl in the temple. So my questions:

Does your girlfriend love you just the way you are, right now? Is she okay with your being an atheist? Would she marry you even if you didn't convert to being LDS?

You said you love her enough you don't want her to give up anything "especially something as doctrinally important as being sealed in the temple- to be with me." What is her take on this? Does she want you to do something you don't believe in? Will she feel guilt about this in the future?

The reason people want to be married in the temple is that they're sealed for time and all eternity. The problem is, if one is either agnostic or atheist then they're not going to be going to the highest level of the celestial kingdom, which is where you're girlfriend wants to be with you.

Others can correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't it required to enter the temple for men to be holders of the Melchizedek Priesthood? Your wife would probably expect you to bless your children when they're infants, and give blessings when they're ill.

What if you're given a calling? Will you serve?

As I said, I'm LDS and my husband is atheist. When we were married my testimony was less, and he was agnostic. Now I'm stronger in the church than I've ever been and he's gone the extreme too, he's now atheist. We loved each other for who we were before we got married. We didn't expect either one to change for the other. If it happened great, if not well... that was fine too, and here we are still married after all these years.

The point is, there's a lot more serious stuff that you need to think about than just how science fits into the LDS church. What's gonna happen when years down the road the "logical fallacies" just become too much and the "honey do" era is over? Are you going to remain strong in the church? If not, how's that going to effect your wife and now children?

I don't mean to sound like I'm rude, but you're in a "honey do" phase right now where she can do no wrong, and all you wanna do is "do" things for her. I respect that, but these are questions you're gonna have to consider before making the jump.

Converting from atheism to Mormonism doesn't represent any special loss of spiritual belief as atheists don't have spiritual beliefs

Ah, but it does. You'll be giving up your freedom to just be you. If you're anything less than a believer you're living a lie, and there goes your freedom. Most atheists don't really like religious people to pray for them, but I have a feeling that you want us to, so I will.

I hope something out of all this helps, but I'd just be careful that you understand what it is that she wants. Converting for someone else seldom lasts, so to thine own self be true!

[BenRaines]

Here is a link to information on an LDS scientist.

Mormon Scientist: The Life and Faith of Henry Eyring

Good luck in your search.

Ben Raines

[Dravin]

The "alpha male" nonsense is a fantastic example of ignorance of actual biology or animal behavior.

Heh, you would have enjoyed this side discussion: http://www.lds.net/forums/introduce-yourself/43961-lds-muslim-perspective.html#post640478

[JudoMinja]

Man cannot mate with any other species of animal. If we're using "Man" to mean "human" as in the human species, then you've got me very confused, indeed. I don't see this as helping to clarify.... well, anything, really.

You seem to be saying that there were evolved humans. Then Adam was literally created. Then Adam's descendents mated with the evolved humans.

Wouldn't it be a lot easier to simply say there were humans before Adam and Adam was the first of them to have some sort of interaction with God? Why is it acceptable that the other animals are evolved, yet we have to get all complicated when it comes to ourselves?

Exactly what defines a "species" is debatable. Ask any zoologist how many species of animals there are and you will not get the same answer, because some will categorize some animals as separate species that another scientist will say is the same species. This is because the lines of evolutionary differentiation are not so easy to draw, but there has to be a point where it becomes clear that species are different and this tends to happen when there is a physical separation that causes their genetic differences to become large enough as to prevent the production of viable offspring through mating.

And all this lengthy explanation is only meant to point out that what we define as "human" is also debatable. You go back through our evolutionary history and look at the different "evolved" stages of man, scientists do not all agree on what point it was where man was considered truly "human". Was homo erectus human too? Or are we only human if we are a part of homo sapiens? And where do we draw the line? And are we evolving even further? Will we eventually see a homo ____ species among our ranks? The line isn't as clear as you are trying to make it out to be.

It is my personal opinion that Adam was created separately in the "perfect" image of God, and that producing offspring with the "lower forms" of humans, homo sapiens "evolved". As the evolutionary path started from simple single celled organisms, there is an increase in the complexity of life, and with that increase in compexity comes an equal increase of "intelligence" or abilty to reason and understand things. I think that "intelligence" is a portion of "God-like" essence that fueled the "intelligent design" and eventually led to a point where our level of intelligence was enough for humanity to enter the mix.

But again, you do not have to believe my take on things any more than Vort or Forget-Me-Not or anyone else on this board has to believe my personal take. It is just what makes the most sense to me, and I will end up revising and correcting my belief as I gain further knoweldge and understanding in both the realms of science and religion. I merely provided my take on the matter for you to get a glimpse of how a fellow "biologist" puts the two together.

As you said, there are many "ways" to be a Mormon. There are not very many strict limitations on what we believe, because we admit that we do not know or have the answers to everything. Our leaders allow and even encourage the members to study, learn, speculate, and seek out truth and learning from many sources- to increase our knowledge in whatever areas we choose. Some members will be strict creationists like your parents. I actually tutor a couple homeschooled boys in my ward in science because their mother did not want them to go to school and be taught the "falsehoods" of evolution. So I have to avoid the topic and try to teach them what I can from a "creation" standpoint. Other members will view things like I do, or have their own speculations and explanations for how they think science and religion either clash or go hand-in-hand.

We are all free-thinkers and very different in our thinking. Our church does not seek to have a long list of detailed things that we must believe to be true or false in order to be Mormon. Our doctrine is very simple, basic, and fundamental. We believe in God. We believe in Christ. We believe Joseph Smith was visited by both, and that the Bible and Book of Mormon are both scriptural accounts of Christ's earthly ministry. We believe that the church is organized in a manner to prevent confusion, with a living prophet on the earth today that can speak for God. We believe that God makes and keeps covenants with his people and that we will be blessed for our efforts to endure. And that's really all there is to it. Ask any Mormon if they believe any of these things and they will answer "yes", even if they have to quibble over wording or details or specifiics. This is the basic fundamental "foundation" of "what makes a Mormon".

Science does not need to be a sticking point, because the church does not take a definitive stance on anything to do with science. That is why I can be a believer in evolution and be a Mormon. My friend and your parents can be creationists and be Mormon. Others can have no definitive opinion on the matter and be Mormon. Because the question about creation/evolution really does not matter when it comes to our faith. I turn to science to explain the "how" and to religion to explain the "why", and try my best to understand how they can come together. In many instances, I find that what I learn in science supports my religious beliefs and vice versa. And when things just don't make sense, I don't worry about it- because I know my understanding is limited, "man's" understanding is limited, and we will eventually have the truth of all things revealed unto us.

[scholasticspastic]

As one in your shoes let me ask a few questions.

I've toyed over the last few years between being LDS, agnostic, or atheist. I had fallen away from the church for a while and couldn't decide which of the three I was. The one thing I did learn was one cannot be LDS and agnostic or LDS and atheist at the same time. You need to pick one and do it right.

Having lived with an agnostic husband for about 15 years (now an atheist for about 5 years), I have to ask, You said, "I cannot ever be more than agnostic about God in this life."

Actually, in context, I said:

By the standards of evidence I employ as a scientist, I can never know that scripture is true, or that there is a God. Because the sort of experience which is taken as evidence in religious circles isn't admissible as any sort of evidence in scientific thinking. Feelings are far too subjective and difficult to communicate or calibrate for them to be used in science. So from that perspective, if I wish to be consistent in how I apply standards for evidence, I cannot ever be more than agnostic about God in this life.

I can never be more than scientifically agnostic about God in this life. I allow for the possibility that positive, empirical evidence for the existence of God would be available in the next life, which would allow me to be more than scientifically agnostic about God.

Evidence which is sufficient for me will not always be evidence which is sufficient for others. I am convinced that I am in love with my girlfriend. There is no evidence I could present to you that would convince you that I am in love with my girlfriend. I am not personally agnostic about the love I feel, but I'm willing to be scientifically agnostic about it. It's simply a matter of disparate standards of evidence. I know the love exists but cannot demonstrate it exists.

And yet you're considering marrying this girl in the temple. So my questions:

Does your girlfriend love you just the way you are, right now? Is she okay with your being an atheist? Would she marry you even if you didn't convert to being LDS?

My girlfriend knows that I'm an atheist. She knows that I've struggled with matters of doctrine and that I'm trying to find a way to read scripture which works for me. She loves me. When I asked her if she'd consider, at this time in her life, marrying someone she couldn't be sealed to in the temple, she said yes.

You said you love her enough you don't want her to give up anything "especially something as doctrinally important as being sealed in the temple- to be with me." What is her take on this? Does she want you to do something you don't believe in? Will she feel guilt about this in the future?

My girlfriend has spent all her life expecting to be sealed in the temple and raise LDS children. Regardless of whether I can truly convert to the LDS church, we've agreed that were we to get married any kids who came along would be raised LDS. We also agree that if I cannot truly come to faith it would be wrong to get baptized or participate in any of the covenants of the LDS faith. She knows that I will not lie. She understands that trying to come to faith is not a promise that I'll come to faith- though she remains understandably hopeful that things will turn out that way.

The fact that she loves me enough to give up being sealed in the temple is a huge factor in my wanting to do my best so she doesn't have to. I understand how big that is.

The reason people want to be married in the temple is that they're sealed for time and all eternity. The problem is, if one is either agnostic or atheist then they're not going to be going to the highest level of the celestial kingdom, which is where you're girlfriend wants to be with you.

If I'm married in the temple I will not be agnostic or atheist.

Others can correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't it required to enter the temple for men to be holders of the Melchizedek Priesthood? Your wife would probably expect you to bless your children when they're infants, and give blessings when they're ill.

This may or may not be the case (the temple bit). I look forward to seeing this clarified. But if I come to faith sufficiently to be baptized and married in the temple, I'll have come to faith sufficiently to hold the priesthood. So this is another non-issue.

What if you're given a calling? Will you serve?

If I'm baptized, I understand that's part of the commitment. I understand that the effect of working to be baptized without actually believing in the LDS faith would pervert the act from one of love to a farce. It would be an act of disrespect to the church and to the woman I love. It isn't something I would consider.

As I said, I'm LDS and my husband is atheist. When we were married my testimony was less, and he was agnostic. Now I'm stronger in the church than I've ever been and he's gone the extreme too, he's now atheist. We loved each other for who we were before we got married. We didn't expect either one to change for the other. If it happened great, if not well... that was fine too, and here we are still married after all these years.

The point is, there's a lot more serious stuff that you need to think about than just how science fits into the LDS church. What's gonna happen when years down the road the "logical fallacies" just become too much and the "honey do" era is over? Are you going to remain strong in the church? If not, how's that going to effect your wife and now children?

If I am baptized, it will mean everything it's supposed to mean. Which includes a personal testimony and a commitment on my part to maintain that testimony for the rest of my existence. I am not so puerile as to think lying to someone I love is in any way okay.

I don't mean to sound like I'm rude, but you're in a "honey do" phase right now where she can do no wrong, and all you wanna do is "do" things for her. I respect that, but these are questions you're gonna have to consider before making the jump.

Ah, but it does. You'll be giving up your freedom to just be you. If you're anything less than a believer you're living a lie, and there goes your freedom. Most atheists don't really like religious people to pray for them, but I have a feeling that you want us to, so I will.

I hope something out of all this helps, but I'd just be careful that you understand what it is that she wants. Converting for someone else seldom lasts, so to thine own self be true!

I agree that these are important questions. Couple that with my aversion to dishonesty and you can see why I'm not running around claiming to have converted right now. I will have faith if I can. I hope to retain her love if I can't.

Because I have been in love before, but never like this. It's.... Well, you know I can't say what it is. Because it's love. And coming up with words which are sufficient for that doesn't seem to be something anyone's managed so far.

[Mamas_Girl]

Thanks, all good answers.

[Snow]

I'm doing my very best to accept the doctrine of the LDS church and become a member. Unfortunately, I come from an atheist background and I work as a scientist, so I tend to deal poorly with logical inconsistency.

Must I believe in a literal Garden of Eden and a literal Adam and Eve to be LDS? Because, being a biologist, that would be a deal-breaker.

I don't (at least not as depicted in scripture) and I'm Mormon. Mankind was in existence all over the place for 100-200 thousand years before the time of the Fall.

[Snow]

Social science has shown that religious people are happier, more content, and less fearful than the unbeliever.Book of Mormon.

I guess... but I think statistics also show that atheists are incarcerated with less frequency than believers.

[Vort]

I'm doing my very best to accept the doctrine of the LDS church and become a member. Unfortunately, I come from an atheist background and I work as a scientist, so I tend to deal poorly with logical inconsistency.

Must I believe in a literal Garden of Eden and a literal Adam and Eve to be LDS? Because, being a biologist, that would be a deal-breaker.

I only just decided to review this thread from the start. Can you tell me what it is about the mere existence of a literal garden of Eden or a literal Adam and Eve that offends your biologist's sensibilities? I am not understanding how either of those is a biology issue.

[sister_in_faith]

Spastic,

I want to say how happy I am for you, first that you have found love, and second that you are investigating the church! I can only imagine how it would feel to go from not believing that there is a God, to feeling the influence of the Holy Spirit, and developing a relationship with Heavenly Father.

I like you and I hope you stick around the forum! I'm praying for you, and hope that you find the truth you are looking for!

[Justice]

My girlfriend is intelligent, gracious, and generally exemplifies everything I would look for in a good person in addition to being a very spiritual woman, so she should probably be more than enough of a counter-example to my family.

I once heard a wise man say that if you want to love someone, don't look for a list of qualities you want in another person, but live the qualities you want in another person and you will attract a person with those very qualities.

The best advice I can give you is that your journey will begin with the Book of Mormon... and it may very well end there as well.

[scholasticspastic]

I only just decided to review this thread from the start. Can you tell me what it is about the mere existence of a literal garden of Eden or a literal Adam and Eve that offends your biologist's sensibilities? I am not understanding how either of those is a biology issue.

I'm struggling with a few concerns here:

1st: I'm lazy and there are a lot of ways a literal interpretation of scripture regarding Adam and Eve and the Garden of Eden fails to jive with biology. Just for example: Am I to understand that Adam and Eve didn't have blood? How is that supposed to even work? Show me an organism the size of a human with complex organs that lacks a circulatory system! I'll be happy to go through the reasons we need a circulatory system so we don't die. I'll give you a hint: Some of this is physics. It wouldn't matter whether we had superhuman cells. Adam and Eve literally ate at least once. So they would have needed to breath. So, that one issue aside, I'm reticent to begin listing things because it's actually a very large time commitment.

2nd: Spinning off a long laundry list of personal issues concerning something that many people do believe to be literally true will undoubtedly result in someone feeling personally attacked, though that is not my intention.

3rd: This is a many-layered answer, depending upon starting conditions. There are already many ways people have parsed those scriptures into literal vs. metaphorical passages. Any answer would doubtless result in an endless series of what-ifs concerning how things might work out if I were to go with a different distribution of literal vs. metaphorical passages.

4th: Quite a few of my objections concern the entailments of what sort of a God would warp everything the way it is, such that, for instance, there are more parasitic species of life than there are non-parasitic species of life (a situation which is almost as yucky as it is cruel)? If we allow for evolution then parasites and diseases can be things which were allowed by God rather than intentionally created by God. He becomes a much nicer person. We don't have to deal with self-righteous prigs assuming someone's been a sinner every time they get sick. This is listed as a set of issues here because there was no disease in the literal Garden of Eden and disease is often attributed to the Fall. It doesn't matter whether Adam and Eve brought it on themselves, the consequences in the literal situation were designed in by God.

So these are my categorical objections to a literal Adam and Eve and Garden of Eden. These categories are not exhaustive and each category can be expanded to many potential pages of examples.

[scholasticspastic]

Heh, you would have enjoyed this side discussion: http://www.lds.net/forums/introduce-yourself/43961-lds-muslim-perspective.html#post640478

Are you sure we use the same definition of "enjoyed?" I guess sometimes I enjoy wincing....

[Traveler]

I've fallen in love with an LDS woman and would like to think someday we could get married. Converting from atheism to Mormonism doesn't represent any special loss of spiritual belief as atheists don't have spiritual beliefs. I love her enough that I don't want her to ever need to feel as if she's given anything up- especially something as doctrinally important as being sealed in the temple- to be with me.

As an engineer and scientist I have yet to find a problem with LDS doctrine. I do believe problems can and do arise with how many interpret doctrine. For example. Adam was the first man - but was he the first humanoid?

There was a time when death was not part of the ecosystem on earth. That time period may have only lasted a few days or possibly years. If it was a rather short time - the effects would very easily have been lost in time as foot prints in a beach by the ocean.

Genetic engineering can seriously alter evolution. Manipulating DNA could seriously alter "natural" or perceived courses or evolution that could effect the overall genetic make up of humans. It should not be anymore difficult to believe that a G-d could be manipulating human development and evolution as any more far fetched than the seeds of human evolution having possible extra terrestrial origins.

The Traveler

[scholasticspastic]

As an engineer and scientist I have yet to find a problem with LDS doctrine. I do believe problems can and do arise with how many interpret doctrine. For example. Adam was the first man - but was he the first humanoid?

I think I could adopt the interpretation forwarded in which he was the first man to believe in God. But evolution really doesn't allow for the sort of sharp demarcations between forms you seem to be implying. Adam's children should have looked no more or less human compared to Adam than any offspring you have would look compared to you. Similarly, if we allow for evolution working for all life on Earth, Adam would have looked no more or less human compared to his biological parents than your children look compared to you.

There was a time when death was not part of the ecosystem on earth. That time period may have only lasted a few days or possibly years. If it was a rather short time - the effects would very easily have been lost in time as foot prints in a beach by the ocean.

Bacteria become a problem here. I would be fearful of the idea of an Earth after one hour sans bacterial death. The idea of an Earth after a full day without bacterial death is fantastically bizarre. Those buggers can have doubling times measured in less than an hour. Most bacteria are not disease organisms, but rather constitute essential components of the ecosystem. Without bacteria there would be no plants, no animals, no humans.

So, no, the idea of any time in the history of life on Earth when nothing died makes no sense to me because bacteria.

Genetic engineering can seriously alter evolution. Manipulating DNA could seriously alter "natural" or perceived courses or evolution that could effect the overall genetic make up of humans. It should not be anymore difficult to believe that a G-d could be manipulating human development and evolution as any more far fetched than the seeds of human evolution having possible extra terrestrial origins.

The Traveler

Genetic engineering does nothing to evolution. Evolution is a process, not a pathway. So I'm probably missing your point here.

[Vort]

I'm struggling with a few concerns here:

1st: I'm lazy and there are a lot of ways a literal interpretation of scripture regarding Adam and Eve and the Garden of Eden fails to jive with biology.

In fact, there is an infinite number of ways of interpreting the scriptures, or for that matter a history text, that do not jive with biology. Interpretations that clearly defy known laws are explained either as a bad interpretation or as an interpretation with insufficient knowledge.

The fact that some of your interpretations seem not to make sense may say more about the interpretations than it does about the scriptures themselves. That said, while Adam and Eve are literal persons and the garden of Eden a literal place, the story of the Fall of Adam and Eve seems (to me) clearly a figurative representation of an actual occurrence. For example, Satan was never a talking snake, and I see no compelling reason to believe the "tree of knowledge of good and evil" was an actual tree that bore fruit eaten by Eve and then Adam -- though I also freely admit that I don't know exactly what it does refer to.

Just for example: Am I to understand that Adam and Eve didn't have blood? How is that supposed to even work?

Does this come from the Bible rendition? I know nothing about the Bible story, or any other rendition of Adam and Eve, that says they "didn't have blood".

That said, blood is not the only exchange medium imaginable. I could posit a "more perfect" exchange medium for nutrient and gas transfer that might take the place of blood. This idea of "artificial blood" has been worked on for years, and some progress is being made. So while I am not sure where you got this "no blood" idea, I also don't see that it violates any biological principle per se.

Show me an organism the size of a human with complex organs that lacks a circulatory system!

As I noted above, no blood != no circulatory system.

So, that one issue aside, I'm reticent to begin listing things because it's actually a very large time commitment.

I can appreciate that, but we cannot address unasked questions.

2nd: Spinning off a long laundry list of personal issues concerning something that many people do believe to be literally true will undoubtedly result in someone feeling personally attacked, though that is not my intention.

Possibly, but I think you underestimate us. As long as you're not saying, "Anyone who believes <whatever you are talking about> is a raving idiot not worth the air he breathes" -- which, yes, might ruffle a few feathers -- I expect you would find that we're actually quite tolerant of other ideas or even disbelief. We might not agree, and would certainly take pains to try to point out why you are mistaken in such a belief, but the mere fact that you don't believe Doctrine X probably won't threaten us too badly.

3rd: This is a many-layered answer, depending upon starting conditions. There are already many ways people have parsed those scriptures into literal vs. metaphorical passages. Any answer would doubtless result in an endless series of what-ifs concerning how things might work out if I were to go with a different distribution of literal vs. metaphorical passages.

Possibly true. But I would differentiate between metaphorical interpretations and figurative interpretations. A "metaphorical" interpretation of the garden of Eden story might, for example, discount the very existence of Adam, Eve, and even Satan (and God, for that matter). A "figurative" interpretation might instead admit the real existence of those players and the reality of the Fall, but suggest that the story is being told in a way that we can grasp its underlying important meaning without getting bogged down in details of the mechanics of the drama -- or perhaps avoiding the necessity of explaining something that cannot be explained to us because we lack the experience and knowledge to understand it properly.

4th: Quite a few of my objections concern the entailments of what sort of a God would warp everything the way it is, such that, for instance, there are more parasitic species of life than there are non-parasitic species of life (a situation which is almost as yucky as it is cruel)?

This objection is philosophical, not biological, and is easily addressed. You do not know the mind of God and are in no possible position to judge cruelty. What looks cruel to you might, in the wisdom of God, be an act of great mercy. When my dog had thorns in his hide, he doubtless thought me terribly cruel for pulling them out and dressing the wounds. But it allowed him to heal.

If we allow for evolution then parasites and diseases can be things which were allowed by God rather than intentionally created by God.

If you imbue your concept of God with any degree of foreknowledge that would reasonably be necessary for him to have, you immediately disallow the possibility that icky bugs could evolve without God knowing about it. Again, this is a philosophical concern, not a biological concern, and cannot survive scrutiny.

[jayanna]

HI, Spastic,

I have been reading this read and thought a couple of interesting things I would like to point out

1) It is completely illogical for you to love someone. That her expectations and emotional needs should have such and effect on you as to cause you to change your own identity is illogical, unreasonable, and therefore must not based on intellect.

2) If #1 is true then you must be making the decision to consider religion based solely on emotion, which is new to you, or it could mean that your brain is no longer functioning normally.

3) IF #1 is false, then you are leading this woman on a wild goose chase, which is an anti-social behavior in a social species.

4) It is my opinion that if you choose to marry this woman without overcoming this issue, there is a great risk you will eventually lose respect for her intellectually, as well as any children you have with her due to the premise that decisions based on intuition, emotion, or stirrings other than the scientific method of determining beliefs to be unreasonable and close-minded.

Your fear and anxiety are causing you to overlook key elements in your study of our faith. For example, the very page that you linked earlier Church History In The Fulness Of Times Student Manual Chapter Thirty-Seven: Moving Forward into the New Century concludes with this at the end of the section discussing evolution:

"In reaching the conclusion that evolution would be best left out of discussions in our Church schools we are deciding a question of propriety and are not undertaking to say how much of evolution is true, or how much is false. The Church itself has no philosophy about the modus operandi employed by the Lord in His creation of the world."

My experience in the church suggests this is true, despite your recent discussions with members in your area.

For another example, you have been given a list previously in this thread of the questions you will be answering to determine your preparedness in regard to baptism and becoming an actual member of the church. None of those questions cover the topic of evolution. It is obviously not a requirement to disavow your previous beliefs concerning the matter, your current vaccillating on this issue I believe is born of anxiety rather than calm reasoning.

Evolution is not an issue in your possible membership. In fact, the principle of exultation itself suggests that we have not only the capacity, but the expectation to evolve in every way into a being of much higher intelligence and physical perfection.

To further your studies I would suggest seeking out a personal revelation. It is a difficult thing for some to accept intelligence granted to us unexpectedly from an outside source. It is a humbling idea, especially when considering the loss of respect you have for those in your family that have disappointed you in their lack of abstract thinking.

I appreciate that you are taking this responsibility to your possible future wife and children so seriously. However, I would suggest that you stop waiting for the deal-breaker, only to move past it due to love that you feel for her. There will be days that you are not so fond of her, will that cause you to rethink your conversion? Your faith cannot be based on rational alone, it must be something more. Starting out with a desire to believe is a good start, but eventually it must be much more and exclusive of feelings for another individual.

I suggest you read the Book of Mormon, a little every day. Continue to pray humbly. Seek out a personal relationship with your Heavenly Father, for the instruction you can recieve from Him is far superior to that conjecture you can get on your own, and via an internet site.

Best Wishes

[scholasticspastic]

Does this come from the Bible rendition? I know nothing about the Bible story, or any other rendition of Adam and Eve, that says they "didn't have blood".

I'm going to have to admit to having been wrong here. :) The bit about not having blood is not contained anywhere in the Bible or the Book of Mormon or any other scriptural reference to the Garden of Eden. I presumed it to have scriptural roots somewhere because it was included on lds.org, but apparently they're comfortable including a lot of things which have no scriptural roots. Having gone back and searched every reference I can find to Adam, Eve, and the Garden of Eden, I can honestly say that nothing in the story of the Garden need necessarily conflict with biology.

Now if I were to treat all the world as if it were, for a time, the Garden of Eden, then we'd run into trouble. But there is nothing in scriptural references to the Garden which disallows life going on as usual outside the Garden. So it's even possible that there needn't have been any death within the Garden while outside it things could have been living and dying as one would expect on a world with evolution. There needn't be any resultant evidential record remaining for such a relatively small place.

Similarly, I can't see any reason to object on biological grounds to the literal existence of Adam and Eve. I still object to their literal creation, however. There is far too much fossil, genetic, and physiological evidence for human evolution for me to feel comfortable ignoring it based on a few lines in any book written back when nobody had sufficient access to the tools which would have been required to understand evolution. It's reasonable to expect that an entity trying to talk to people in such a time would have run into difficulties if they tried to express anything in terms of evolution.

I do reject a literal understanding of death, diseases and infirmities resulting from the Fall. Again, there is too much support from fossil, genetic and physiological evidence to discount the idea that many diseases and infirmities are the result of evolutionary processes and predate any modern organisms, especially human kind. There would be no pre-human fossil record at all if death didn't predate humans and proto-humans on Earth. We can say that Adam and Eve were exposed to disease because they were forced to leave the disease-free oasis that was the Garden of Eden and I won't object to it. However, blaming disease and death throughout the whole of the Earth on the Fall stretches credulity to its breaking point.

Again, I have no idea whether scriptures actually blame disease and infirmities on the Fall. I know that's a claim made in the same resource which says Adam and Eve didn't have blood. The idea that disease and infirmities are the result of the Fall might have been transmitted to me by people who had read that book.

I freely admit that I haven't read most of the scriptures yet. I will readily admit when I am wrong about them. This is one of those times.

[Snow]

As an engineer and scientist I have yet to find a problem with LDS doctrine. I do believe problems can and do arise with how many interpret doctrine. For example. Adam was the first man - but was he the first humanoid?

If Adam was the first man, how do you explain all the other other men that existed during the last 200k years?