Useless Body Parts

[Timpman]

The problem is that people believe their leaders are infallible when they speak, even though the leaders have told them they are not. Thus when President xyz says the story of Adam and Eve was literal - that just ain't necessarily so.

Adam and Eve were real people and the general story is a fact. Of course, we don't know all the details.

Fall of Adam. The process by which mankind became mortal on this earth. The event is recorded in Gen. 2, 3, 4; and Moses 3, 4. The fall of Adam is one of the most important occurrences in the history of man....

Latter-day revelation supports the biblical account of the fall, showing that it was a historical event that literally occurred in the history of man. Fall of Adam

[Seminarysnoozer]

Well, nothing makes sense now. Actually this goes beyond not making sense. It makes me doubt EVERYTHING about my life. Bla bla bla. Don't know what else to say about it.

Please explain why it makes you doubt EVERYTHING about your life.

[Seminarysnoozer]

Timpman, I do not regard seminarysnoozers comment to be doctrine at all. It is a theory. One of many.

So what does make sense for you? Your theory has as much chance of being true as most any other theory.

Have you read the Pearl of Great Price lately? A lot of this is explained there a lot better than in Genesis. It doesnt explain everything but it does help. Dont let this affect your testimony. They are things that really dont need to be known. Hope, faith, repentance, gift of the Holy Ghost. Those are the things that matter.

The hope, faith, and repentance you speak of, I assume, is that same description of Paul and of King Benjamin and of Joseph Smith which all point towards Christ. Christ is necessary because of the Fall. To say that this is not necessary, I think, is a bit simple minded. It is best to complete the sentence as opposed to leaving it open ended that way. We have hope in our Savior, that we can be saved from our fallen state. We have faith in Christ, that his teachings are the pathway to salvation from our fallen state. We know that repentance is the method to bring the value of the atonement of Christ into our lives, which is the atonement needed from the result of our fallen state.

If his theory (which may not be, but that is the way it came across) is that God created corruption, that theory is wrong. I think it is important for you to know that too. God did not create corruption, He did not create our bodies and the state that we are in this way. He created a paradisaical state, that is not "my" theory, it is the gospel.

Mosiah 3:19 " 19 For the natural man is an enemy to God, and has been from the fall of Adam, and will be, forever and ever, unless he yields to the enticings of the Holy Spirit, and putteth off the natural man and becometh a saint through the atonement of Christ the Lord, and becometh as a child, submissive, meek, humble, patient, full of love, willing to submit to all things which the Lord seeth fit to inflict upon him, even as a child doth submit to his father."

We enter this world in a fallen state, unless we put off that fallen state we would remain in it. The process of faith and hope and repentance through Christ is the way out.

Elder Bednar said; "The grand objective of the Savior’s gospel was summarized succinctly by President David O. McKay (1873–1970): “The purpose of the gospel is … to make bad men good and good men better, and to change human nature.”

He then goes on to say (talking about Mosiah 3:19) "I draw your attention to two specific phrases. First—“putteth off the natural man.” The journey from bad to good is the process of putting off the natural man or the natural woman in each of us. In mortality we all are tempted by the flesh. The very elements out of which our bodies were created are by nature fallen and ever subject to the pull of sin, corruption, and death. But we can increase our capacity to overcome the desires of the flesh and temptations “through the atonement of Christ.” When we make mistakes, as we transgress and sin, we can repent and become clean through the redeeming power of the Atonement of Jesus Christ."

The purpose of the gospel is to change human nature from the fallen corrupted state we ALL are tempted by. ... not my theory.

[Timpman]

I agree that God didn't create the corruption. I posited that perhaps God inserted Adam and Eve at the right time. They could have been placed in the Garden of Eden with their uncorrupted bodies even though those bodies came through evolution. It could all be rubbish. I don't know.

[Timpman]

I have been doubting EVERYTHING because my rock, my foundation, is the Redeemer. If the coccyx and plantaris muscle prove that humans evolved from other primates, then a serious shadow is cast on the account of the Creation and Fall. That leads to doubt of the whole Church and Plan of Salvation.

[Desertknight]

I have been doubting EVERYTHING because my rock, my foundation, is the Redeemer. If the coccyx and plantaris muscle prove that humans evolved from other primates, then a serious shadow is cast on the account of the Creation and Fall. That leads to doubt of the whole Church and Plan of Salvation.

My 2 cents: We are primates. That is not exclusive of a literal Adam & Eve, however. I think you are creating a false dilemma for yourself, brother.

[Timpman]

I grew up ignoring evolution or thinking it's all rubbish. Then I realized that evolution is a reality among animals, but held that man is completely separate and different. I have believed that evolution of other species does not necessarily mean that man descended from another species. Now I'm just confused.

[Seminarysnoozer]

I have been doubting EVERYTHING because my rock, my foundation, is the Redeemer. If the coccyx and plantaris muscle prove that humans evolved from other primates, then a serious shadow is cast on the account of the Creation and Fall. That leads to doubt of the whole Church and Plan of Salvation.

Oh, I see. So, your view is not different from mine as annewandering was trying to say.

I am not sure though how you are jumping from the fact that human bodies have these "useless body parts" as proof that there is evolution. Especially, if you are okay with the possibility that God did not create the bodies we have now, the Fall did. I am not seeing that concern. It may very well be, but I am not seeing how that fact alone "proves" there is evolution.

[Timpman]

I am not sure though how you are jumping from the fact that human bodies have these "useless body parts" as proof that there is evolution. Especially, if you are okay with the possibility that God did not create the bodies we have now, the Fall did. I am not seeing that concern. It may very well be, but I am not seeing how that fact alone "proves" there is evolution.

I am not actually sure that the coccyx and plantaris muscle prove human evolution. They are just quite convincing to me. I DO believe that God created the bodies of Adam of Eve. They were terrestrial bodies, but turned telestial through the Fall.

[Desertknight]

I grew up ignoring evolution or thinking it's all rubbish. Then I realized that evolution is a reality among animals, but held that man is completely separate and different. I have believed that evolution of other species does not necessarily mean that man descended from another species. Now I'm just confused.

I'm not familiar enough with nor qualified to comment, as to how this issue relates to LDS doctrine, so just take my post for what it is as a Catholic, and one that is just my own opinion and not that of my Church. As a Catholic, I am not required to hold to any opinion on the theory of evolution one way or another, but as truth is an absolute, no accurate scientific theory will conflict with God's truth. One idea is that while man may have descended from earlier primates, that does not mean that those earlier ancestors were necessarily "man". Adam & Eve in this theory, would have been the first two beings down the line of this evolution, that was given by God, true human nature. One would accept that when Genesis speaks of "days", it clearly is using it as a literary device as the sun was not even created until the forth "day", so how were there 24 hour days before then? As I said, that is just an opinion. There are other theories that may help explain it as well. Of course, I always accept that some things may continue to be a mystery. It does not affect my faith, however.

[Finrock]

When this topic comes up I think a very common mistake in reasoning that is made by many people is to assume that there is a dichotomy here and reality must either be evolution or not. There are many false dichotomies that people present when the reality is that there is no theory (and I mean scientific theory, not layman theory) that has sufficient data behind it to say that we now have sufficient answers and this is almost certainly the truth. We also have the scriptures and what they say about the creation of man. We ought not to reject scripture due to science (or due to anything, for that matter) but at the same time, we need to be careful that we don't add or take away from scripture just to support our own pet theory or to bolster up our own beliefs.

I guess my point is that in the end, true science and true religion will always be in agreement. This is the part where we must have faith.

Regards,

Finrock

Edited May 21, 2012 by Finrock
Clarified intended meaning with a phrase.

[Timpman]

When this topic comes up I think a very common mistake in reasoning that is made by many people is to assume that there is a dichotomy here and reality must either be evolution or not.

Yes, I believe I have made that mistake. I was raised believing as Joseph Fielding did. Now I know that:

Joseph Fielding Smith as an Apostle offered many views in support of young earth theories and wrote an influential book on the topic, Man, His Origin and Destiny, which some LDS people may have mistaken for LDS doctrine and not just one man's views. These views were not representative of all leaders of the Church, and were opposed by other Apostles and General Authorities such as B.H. Roberts. Joseph Fielding Smith's views had been largely influenced by the writings of George McCready Price, a Seventh-Day Adventist and self-made "scientist" who was seriously out of touch with real science, and took a fundamentalist position on Genesis. Elder Smith, lacking training in science, understandably could be more easily influenced by the seemingly impressive Price than could men like Elders Roberts and Talmage....

After taking a position of neutrality, the First Presidency asked that the topic of evolution be dropped from public discourse by the General Authorities. Unfortunately, Joseph Fielding Smith's book had already been published, without the opportunity to be balanced by a work that was being prepared by B.H. Roberts. Members of the Church often assumed that the Church was officially against the theory of evolution, based on what Joseph Fielding Smith had written.

Mormon Answers (LDS FAQ): Questions about Science and Mormon Views (Mormonism)

[Seminarysnoozer]

I am not actually sure that the coccyx and plantaris muscle prove human evolution. They are just quite convincing to me. I DO believe that God created the bodies of Adam of Eve. They were terrestrial bodies, but turned telestial through the Fall.

The condition we are in now is worse than what will be in the Telestial Kingdom. The true telestial body will not deteriorate or die. It also won't be subject to the buffetings of Satan. I think I have seen these metaphoric comparisons but I believe the state in which the bodies of Adam and Eve were created was pretty unique to that situation and most often described as paradisaical.

The change from the garden of Eden to the current is about as far (but somewhat less) as the effect the resurrection will have on the body, as it is described as a restoration, a return to the original. So, if the Resurrection is barely a change than so was the Fall. If the resurrection will be a dramatic change then so was the Fall. In other words, one's view of the Fall kinda depends on how dramatic one thinks the gift of resurrection will be.

[BenRaines]

I often wonder why so many with brains fail to use them. Evolution I guess.

Ben Raines

[Seminarysnoozer]

I often wonder why so many with brains fail to use them. Evolution I guess.

Ben Raines

I wonder why so many with spirits fail to use them. Evolution I guess.

[Francisco_d-Anconia]

Well, on the one hand, there is overwhelming evidence for evolution that has taken place over the last several hundred million years and an earth that is billions of years old. (Based on the evidence, scientists think the earth is about 4.6 billion years old, and that life has been evolving for 3.8 billion years.) For example, scientists have carbon-14 dated some remains of physically modern humans to over 30,000 years old. The oldest cave paintings have been dated to 32,000 years ago. The fossil remains of dinosaurs and mammals show the transitional forms one would expect from evolution, enabling archeologists to construct a tree of evolutionary relationships (with varying levels of confidence.) Et cetera.

Based on all this evidence, many LDS, including many here, believe in evolution and an earth that is billions of years old.

On the other hand, there is D&C 77:6:

Q. What are we to understand by the book which John saw, which was sealed on the back with seven seals?

A. We are to understand that it contains the revealed will, mysteries, and the works of God; the hidden things of his economy concerning this earth during the seven thousand years of its continuance, or its temporal existence.

This, we should note, is not supposed to be Joseph Smith's personal theory. According to Joseph Smith, this is a direct revelation.

So, according to this, the earth has seven thousand years of "temporal existence" (presumably including The Millennium.) Thus, if the earth existed prior to 6,000 years ago, it had to be in an "eternal state." This would mean that nothing could change or die. Yet evolution is change, and natural selection requires death.

Anyway, that's my two cents. Does that help clarify anything?

[Jamie123]

So, according to this, the earth has seven thousand years of "temporal existence" (presumably including The Millennium.) Thus, if the earth existed prior to 6,000 years ago, it had to be in an "eternal state." This would mean that nothing could change or die. Yet evolution is change, and natural selection requires death.

Maybe he was referring to a particular 7,000 year period of interest within the Earth's lifetime.

[rameumptom]

So, according to this (D&C 77), the earth has seven thousand years of "temporal existence" (presumably including The Millennium.) Thus, if the earth existed prior to 6,000 years ago, it had to be in an "eternal state." This would mean that nothing could change or die. Yet evolution is change, and natural selection requires death.

There are other ways to consider this. The earth did not have to be in an "eternal state" as you assume. The earth could have gone through a series of Creation/Destruction cycles prior to this final time. Each cycle would end with a destruction event, such as the great destructions 250Million and 65Million years ago, or the Great Ice Age 10,000 years ago.

Each of these marks a point when massive change occurred in the type of animals living on earth.

As for Adam being first man, that could mean many things. It could mean he was the first man with the fullness of the gospel and the priesthood, for example. That's how I view it.

[Seminarysnoozer]

This would mean that nothing could change or die. Yet evolution is change, and natural selection requires death.

And death, at least in the sense it is used in the scriptures requires first having a spirit body connected to a physical body. Then, that kind of death can take place.

[Julianna]

I have found absolutely no evidence to suggest that the Biblical account of creation and evolution are at odds with each other. Presumably if God created the Earth, He either used the laws of nature to do so or created the laws of nature. Either way, it doesn't go into detail HOW He created people, only that He did, and that it happened after the creation of all the other living critters. There is a very plausible argument that the creation of mankind actually took generations of evolution to complete, and that it was only when the physical bodies had evolved to a satisfactory point that spirits were put into them. Additionally I remember there being alternate translations to the term "day" used in modern translations of the scriptures, and that a more literal translation would have been "a period of time" which is consistent with the teaching that a day to God isn't the same measurement of time as a day to man.

What does all this mean for me?

Science doesn't have to create a crisis of faith for me because from my perspective science only confirms/suggests methodology the wisdom and specific requirements needed in order to make our Earth how it needed to be.

[Francisco_d-Anconia]

I have found absolutely no evidence to suggest that the Biblical account of creation and evolution are at odds with each other. Presumably if God created the Earth, He either used the laws of nature to do so or created the laws of nature. Either way, it doesn't go into detail HOW He created people, only that He did, and that it happened after the creation of all the other living critters. There is a very plausible argument that the creation of mankind actually took generations of evolution to complete, and that it was only when the physical bodies had evolved to a satisfactory point that spirits were put into them. Additionally I remember there being alternate translations to the term "day" used in modern translations of the scriptures, and that a more literal translation would have been "a period of time" which is consistent with the teaching that a day to God isn't the same measurement of time as a day to man.

What does all this mean for me?

Science doesn't have to create a crisis of faith for me because from my perspective science only confirms/suggests methodology the wisdom and specific requirements needed in order to make our Earth how it needed to be.

Well, that is only the Genesis 1 version. The Genesis 2 version goes: earth/heavens, man, plants, animals, woman from Adam's rib. So the Biblical creation story, as written, doesn't even need evolution to conflict with; it already conflicts with itself.

I can assure you that the vast majority of scientists don't share this perspective. As far as they are concerned, this is what separates science from belief based on faith: not presuming the conclusion to be reached prior to--or indepedently of--the evidence. If the purpose of science had been merely to rationalize the Bible's stories, rather than testing beliefs based on evidence, where do you think we would be now in terms of scientific knowledge and technology?

[FunkyTown]

Well, that is only the Genesis 1 version. The Genesis 2 version goes: earth/heavens, man, plants, animals, woman from Adam's rib. So the Biblical creation story, as written, doesn't even need evolution to conflict with; it already conflicts with itself.

It really doesn't. I invite you to read 'Commentary on the Torah' by Richard Elliot Friedman for the specifics of why this description is used, and then changed in the very next chapter.

[bcguy]

Who was the author of genesis? Sorry if I do not know, but I am sure in that period of time of earth, there was no geologist, palaeontologist, archeologist around to contest genisys.

I do not have a problem knowing, that my ancient ancestors were a branch from a long ago biped.

If you want to study this more, google "lucy and ardi" and learn more.

[Julianna]

The Biblical accounts of creation are nonspecific enough that it could have happened almost any way imaginable. Science is consistent only in that it constantly changes. Look at what was accepted science hundreds of years ago vs. today. The more we learn, the broader our perspective is, and that doesn't do anything to disprove God or the creation, only provides a little more understanding about how it could have happened (though we may learn something in the future that totally discredits current accepted scientific wisdom).

To me, it's no different than me telling my kids that I physically created them without going into detail--ever--about the specifics of their conception. It's enough for them to know I"m their parent. They have enough to focus on right now without knowing the minute little details. I would imagine that if we somehow manage to master our adolescent understanding of the gospel and perfect our ability to follow God, and still have a burning desire to know exactly how he started us all, we will find out then. Until then, for applicability in my own personal life, how God got to the point where humans were considered "created" isn't a burning priority. First, I have to get to a point where I have nothing more pressing to work on.

[Wingnut]

Who was the author of genesis? Sorry if I do not know, but I am sure in that period of time of earth, there was no geologist, palaeontologist, archeologist around to contest genisys.

I've always understood that it was likely Moses.