Sign in to follow this  
Lakumi

The World and its Creation

Recommended Posts

Do you believe in Creationism, or do you believe in Evolution.

 

I believe in Evolution, though I think if there is a God, the moment our universe came into being was its doing, and everything perhaps that has transpired.
Evolution, dinosaurs, the dawn of man...I always felt creationism sort of made God look less divine, seemed like a primative human's explenation for creation when the reality was so much grander and much more worthy of a divine power, at least I think so.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I honestly do believe Heavenly Father used evolution to create man. He tells us that we were created from the dust of the earth. And 6 days? More like 6 creation periods that in all likelihood spanned hundreds of thousands of years. Maybe even millions. To me, it just makes sense that evolution was used, as well as some of the other explanations for how our universe came to be. Maybe not all, and maybe not entirely in their present form. We'll find out eventually, though.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree with Urstadt.  I do believe that Adam and Eve were literal people, though, who were somehow different than all who had gone before them.  I haven't quite decided what I think about the Garden of Eden as a literal place; but I think that the general outlines--Adam and Eve beginning in a state of innocence and enjoying frequent communion with God Himself, and then making a conscious decision to leave that state of innocence with Satan playing a role in that decision--are fundamentally correct.

Edited by Just_A_Guy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I believe the various accounts of creation that we have are focused on telling us the Who (God) and the Why(To fulfill his purposes) of the creation.

 

I think we are not on very solid ground when we try to figure out the How from those accounts because that is not what they were intended to teach (Beyond it being by God's power)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm inclined to agree with all the above sentiments. I would just add that a literal interpretation of the creation myth(s - there are two, in Genesis, and they are not completely consistent) of the Bible inevitably involves the notion of a 'trickster' God; a God who has given us the clues of the geological sciences, the fossil record, radio-carbon dating, dendro-chronology, etc, solely to mislead scientists who, whatever their beliefs, are essentially dedicated seekers only after His truth. I do not think that a God who deliberately misdirects decent people of high integrity can be a moral God, and if not moral, not good.

 

Best wishes, 2RM. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think there is a general consensus in this thread and I agree with it.

I only want to add, from a secular stand point. The main problem I have with our current scientific models as I understand them is the idea of a "Life soup". That all the chemicals to form life just happened to get together  in some salty water and by some process formed a massively complex molecule, like a protein molecule. That this process actually formed enough coherent molecules to create something that could reproduce itself and so forth.

It seems to me from the beginning of the earth to when we think life first formed, and the earth wasn't insanely toxic is a dang narrow window for that to happen. I am admittedly largely ignorant on the topic though.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm an evolutionist, straight up.  Unlike most here, though, I don't believe Adam and Eve were literal people.  At least not in the sense that all of the human race is descended from them.  I find it far more likely that Adam was the first prophet.  I also have very serious doubts about the whole Garden-of-Eden-in-Missouri thing.  Okay, I'm on the verge of outright rejecting it.  I also don't believe that Adam, Methuselah, and the others lived 900+ years, and I think the idea of a world wide flood is nonsense.

 

Yes, that opens a whole lot of fascinating questions.  I'd love to discuss them more, and I'm actually writing a blog post about it (and other traditional mormon beliefs I don't hold).  But that post won't go up for a while.  I'm working on a project that I want to implement in my ward and I'm going to need my bishop and stake president on my side to pull it off. So I'm on a hiatus from blogging until I get this project up and running (at least from blogging anything that might tick off my stake president).

 

But ultimately, I don't care if it was evolution or creation, or if Adam was real or not, or if the Garden of Eden was in Missouri or Somalia.  The key concepts in the story are that earth was made available to the human race, the human race was taught about the difference between right and wrong, and a Savior was provided to help us overcome our wrong-doings.  The truth of those principles are in no way dependent on any of those beliefs I've discussed.  Which is why I can both roll my eyes at creationists and hug them when I see them at church.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Noah's Ark story sounded dumb to me as a small child and I was shocked people would think it was real, I never believed in Santa, since I lived in an Appartment as a kid lol

I did and still do believe in faeries and spirits and dream interpretation, which I do know disagrees completely with my normally logical science-leaning beliefs.

I honestly have seen faeries and ghosts (and no not the tiny naked women with wings but they are like... floating orbs that dart around you rather quickly or twinkle around at the corner of your eye and vanish when you go to look at them). And if there is a logical, proper explenation for them and the ghosts I have seen I shall reject my previous thinking, since I was proven wrong.

 

I couldn't imagine what name you'd give to my belief system since it takes from so many things...I certainly don't properly fit into any church but I don't properly fit into anything and it would scare me if I did lol

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My concern with evolution as a possibility is the idea in scripture that "Adam was first flesh".  Would love to hear others take regarding the idea of first flesh, but flesh is required for evolution.

 

I don't discount the idea of evolution anymore, yet I don't accept it either, due to the lack of evidence.  The obvious evidence I see of evolution is my own children, and yet what evidence that is "common" as Immanuel Kant would describe -- I don't see any. 

 

Is it possible evolution is the way we were created, sure.  The First Presidency with Joseph F Smith as the Prophet would prescribe otherwise which also their talk was given in the 2009 Ensign.  The Origins of Men, I think is the title.  They pretty much hammer the concept of Man evolving from a lower species of intelligence. 

 

At this point, I would agree with the Frist Presidency in this regard.  Yet, I am open to truth, and witout physical empirical evidence I would need a spiritual confirmation and never have received one and only confusion enters my mind when I begin to think evolution would be accurate.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Noah's Ark story sounded dumb to me as a small child and I was shocked people would think it was real, I never believed in Santa, since I lived in an Appartment as a kid lol

I did and still do believe in faeries and spirits and dream interpretation, which I do know disagrees completely with my normally logical science-leaning beliefs.

I honestly have seen faeries and ghosts (and no not the tiny naked women with wings but they are like... floating orbs that dart around you rather quickly or twinkle around at the corner of your eye and vanish when you go to look at them). And if there is a logical, proper explenation for them and the ghosts I have seen I shall reject my previous thinking, since I was proven wrong.

 

I couldn't imagine what name you'd give to my belief system since it takes from so many things...I certainly don't properly fit into any church but I don't properly fit into anything and it would scare me if I did lol

 

You believe in fairies but have a hard time with the flood?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My concern with evolution as a possibility is the idea in scripture that "Adam was first flesh".  Would love to hear others take regarding the idea of first flesh, but flesh is required for evolution.

 

I don't discount the idea of evolution anymore, yet I don't accept it either, due to the lack of evidence.  The obvious evidence I see of evolution is my own children, and yet what evidence that is "common" as Immanuel Kant would describe -- I don't see any. 

 

Is it possible evolution is the way we were created, sure.  The First Presidency with Joseph F Smith as the Prophet would prescribe otherwise which also their talk was given in the 2009 Ensign.  The Origins of Men, I think is the title.  They pretty much hammer the concept of Man evolving from a lower species of intelligence. 

 

At this point, I would agree with the Frist Presidency in this regard.  Yet, I am open to truth, and witout physical empirical evidence I would need a spiritual confirmation and never have received one and only confusion enters my mind when I begin to think evolution would be accurate.

 

It's interesting to note that David O. McKay was the president of the church when Joseph F Smith published The Origin of Man.  McKay was kind of irritated with it.  McKay believed in evolution, along with others like James E. Talmage.  But McKay didn't say anything because he felt that there was no revealed word on the matter and that it would be inappropriate for him to state his personal views because his role as President of the Church would cause people to mistake his personal views as revelation.  A few years down the road, McConkie would publish Mormon Doctrine.  These two books seemed to disturb McKay enough (especially Mormon Doctrine) that he instituted the policy that no General Authority could publish a book without the First Presidency's permission.  That policy stands to this day.  (These events are documented David O. McKay and the Rise of Modern Mormonism)

 

Anyway, my point is that Joseph F. Smith was known to be less concerned about how his calling might influence people into acknowledging his opinions.  Looking through history, it would seem that the intellectuals were less prone to sharing their opinions than the anti-intellectuals, which has created an over-representation of the anti-intellectual views from church leaders. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's interesting to note that David O. McKay was the president of the church when Joseph F Smith published The Origin of Man.  McKay was kind of irritated with it.  McKay believed in evolution, along with others like James E. Talmage.  But McKay didn't say anything because he felt that there was no revealed word on the matter and that it would be inappropriate for him to state his personal views because his role as President of the Church would cause people to mistake his personal views as revelation.  A few years down the road, McConkie would publish Mormon Doctrine.  These two books seemed to disturb McKay enough (especially Mormon Doctrine) that he instituted the policy that no General Authority could publish a book without the First Presidency's permission.  That policy stands to this day.  (These events are documented David O. McKay and the Rise of Modern Mormonism)

 

Anyway, my point is that Joseph F. Smith was known to be less concerned about how his calling might influence people into acknowledging his opinions.  Looking through history, it would seem that the intellectuals were less prone to sharing their opinions than the anti-intellectuals, which has created an over-representation of the anti-intellectual views from church leaders. 

 

 

Joseph F. Smith would have been the prophet before David O Mckay.   The First Presidency message was published in 1909 -- https://www.lds.org/ensign/2002/02/the-origin-of-man?lang=eng, and again publised in our Ensign in the 2000s.

 

Long before David O McKay became President of the Church who took President in 1951.  Are you confusing Joseph Fielding Smith with his father?

Edited by Anddenex

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

To address other issues, I don't worry too much about things like "first flesh" because a lot of those issues rely on a fairly literal interpretation of the creation story as told by Moses (or by the authors purporting to be Moses).  But it isn't entirely clear that Moses intended it to be a strict interpretation.  Moses' creation story follows very closely to many of the existing creation stories told in other cultures.  And it has a lot of elements that more-or-less "explain" how things in the world came to be.  For instance, why women are the child bearers of the species.  

 

It also has other literary elements in the story, such as the 40 days and 40 nights of the flood.  Forty days was a way of saying "a really long time" in Hebrew literature, and so 40 days and 40 nights is kind of like saying "a really really long time."  It could also be interpreted as "before recorded history" and was a way that Moses bridge the gap between unrecorded and recorded history.

 

So if you assume that the creation story as told by Moses was meant to be taken literally, then you run into a lot of problems with things like Adam being the first flesh.  But if you take away that assumption, it opens up a lot of different interpretations.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Joseph F. Smith would have been the prophet before David O Mckay.   The First Presidency message was published in 1909 -- https://www.lds.org/ensign/2002/02/the-origin-of-man?lang=eng, and again publised in our Ensign in the 2000s.

 

Long before David O McKay became President of the Church who took President in 1951.  Are you confusing Joseph Fielding Smith with his father?

Yes, I am.  My apologies.

 

But I think my point still holds.

 

EDIT: In fact, it may even be enhanced by illustrating that prophets that followed each other disagreed with each other on the matter.

Edited by MarginOfError

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest

 

 

 I'm actually writing a blog post about it (and other traditional mormon beliefs I don't hold).  But that post won't go up for a while.  I'm working on a project that I want to implement in my ward and I'm going to need my bishop and stake president on my side to pull it off.

 

Wow. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm an evolutionist, straight up.  Unlike most here, though, I don't believe Adam and Eve were literal people.  At least not in the sense that all of the human race is descended from them.

 

The idea of Adam being a common ancestor of all humans alive today doesn't really bother me.  Seems to me I've read somewhere that due to migrations/intermarriage, if a person who was alive two thousand years ago has one living descendant alive today, then pretty much everyone alive today is also descended from that individual.  (Maybe you can debunk that using your mad statistical skills and/or some Google-fu?)  ;)

Edited by Just_A_Guy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You believe in fairies but have a hard time with the flood?

I refuse to believe in the flood because science has said such a thing never happened and laid out very well why. I explained what I saw and my mind (and neo pagan ideas at the time of seeing said lights) felt they were faeries, but that could easily and most likely is, some thing I just do not understand and have not figured out with logic and science so have given something I can understand to perhaps put aside the wondering.

It is not a faith thing, it is something I saw, like ghosts. Now does that mean I was simply seeing things? Quite possibly.

 

And how is there a lack of evidence for evolution?

Edited by Lakumi

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My concern with evolution as a possibility is the idea in scripture that "Adam was first flesh".  Would love to hear others take regarding the idea of first flesh, but flesh is required for evolution.

 

I don't discount the idea of evolution anymore, yet I don't accept it either, due to the lack of evidence.  The obvious evidence I see of evolution is my own children, and yet what evidence that is "common" as Immanuel Kant would describe -- I don't see any. 

 

Is it possible evolution is the way we were created, sure.  The First Presidency with Joseph F Smith as the Prophet would prescribe otherwise which also their talk was given in the 2009 Ensign.  The Origins of Men, I think is the title.  They pretty much hammer the concept of Man evolving from a lower species of intelligence. 

 

At this point, I would agree with the Frist Presidency in this regard.  Yet, I am open to truth, and witout physical empirical evidence I would need a spiritual confirmation and never have received one and only confusion enters my mind when I begin to think evolution would be accurate.

The scripture in Ether, I think you are refering to, states the first flesh is the first "living soul".  We are told that animals have souls but what is a "living soul"?  I think Joseph Fielding Smith's own words are appropriate since you referenced him, he stated animals do not have a conscience. They cannot sin and they cannot repent, for they have not the knowledge of right and wrong. (Man: His Origin and Destiny, Deseret Book Co., 1954, pp. 204–5.) -

And yet we are told that animals have souls.  But they don't have "living souls", souls with a conscience.

 

So, is it possible that the "first flesh" really only refers to man, meaning a living soul that has consciousness.

What is an animal?  Any flesh with a spirit that does not have a conscience.  That, to me, could include any shape or form of animal no matter how closely it resembles a human being that does not have a conscience.  People may call animals that closely resemble man, man's ancestors.  But as we know "man" is a spirit son or daughter placed into a body that resembles the form of God, then a non-spirit child placed in any body, whether it resembles the shape of God or not, is not "man".

 

From LDS.org the definition of man is; "Refers to all mankind, both male and female. All men and women are the literal, spiritual offspring of a Heavenly Father. When they are born into mortality, they receive physical, mortal bodies. These bodies were created in God’s image (Gen. 1:26–27). Men and women who are faithful in receiving the necessary ordinances, keeping their covenants, and obeying God’s commands will enter into their exaltation and become as God."

 

So, like animals, anything that recieved a spirit that is not the literal offspring of a Heavenly Father is not man and therefore cannot be the first flesh.  Adam was the first literal offspring of a Heavenly Father to be placed in a body that is in the form or image of God.  That, by itself, does not exclude the possibility of a spirit that is not a spirit child of God to be placed into a body that has a humanoid appearance. 

 

Of course there is the issue of not having death before Adam but we don't know how long it took for Adam to be removed from the Garden after the Fall.  How long does it take for a paradisiacal body to transform into a fallen mortal body?  Maybe a couple 100 thousand years?  I don't know.

Edited by Seminarysnoozer

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I refuse to believe in the flood because science has said such a thing never happened and laid out very well why. I explained what I saw and my mind (and neo pagan ideas at the time of seeing said lights) felt they were faeries, but that could easily and most likely is, some thing I just do not understand and have not figured out with logic and science so have given something I can understand to perhaps put aside the wondering.

It is not a faith thing, it is something I saw, like ghosts. Now does that mean I was simply seeing things? Quite possibly.

 

And how is there a lack of evidence for evolution?

 

 

Science is only good as according to the evidence and knowledge of the time.  Science hasn't disproven the flood, only the idea of what they understand the flood to be according to their limited knowledge and limited resources.

 

If you can provide me any evidence regarding macro evolution I would be welcomed to it.  There isn't any empirical evidence of a fish becoming anything else but a fish.  There isn't any evidence of an ape becoming anything but an ape.  There isn't any evidence of a human becoming (the change of alleles) anything but a human.

 

What evidence, common or empirical, is science able to provide regarding this? We have plenty of bacteria but all bacteria reproduce more bacteria.  What single celled organism do we have for evidence of becoming anything but a single celled organism when it reproduces?  

 

Edit: The only answer to this I receive, "It takes millions of years for a macro evolution to occur".  Isn't evidence then, but a supposition according to their understanding of what exists.

Edited by Anddenex

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And where do you get all this? Where do you get the whole there "isn't any empirical evidence of a fish becoming anything else but a fish"

do you have any like sources for that? I am on my desk top so give me a few moments to go on my laptop to gather some of my retorts.

Here's a site to read

http://evolutionfaq.com/articles/five-proofs-evolution

 

I have heard all that language and words before from Creationism believers and... I mean there's a reason the scientific community doesn't consider what they believe science.

I am no scientist but I do trust them about things like age of the world and evolution over clergymen and creationists.

Edited by Lakumi

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I refuse to believe in the flood because science has said such a thing never happened and laid out very well why. I explained what I saw and my mind (and neo pagan ideas at the time of seeing said lights) felt they were faeries, but that could easily and most likely is, some thing I just do not understand and have not figured out with logic and science so have given something I can understand to perhaps put aside the wondering.

It is not a faith thing, it is something I saw, like ghosts. Now does that mean I was simply seeing things? Quite possibly.

 

And how is there a lack of evidence for evolution?

Wait what? Archaeologists have proven there's never been any floods on the earth that covered a big area? I haven't heard that one before.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Science is only good as according to the evidence and knowledge of the time.  Science hasn't disproven the flood, only the idea of what they understand the flood to be according to their limited knowledge and limited resources.

 

If you can provide me any evidence regarding macro evolution I would be welcomed to it.  There isn't any empirical evidence of a fish becoming anything else but a fish.  There isn't any evidence of an ape becoming anything but an ape.  There isn't any evidence of a human becoming (the change of alleles) anything but a human.

 

What evidence, common or empirical, is science able to provide regarding this? We have plenty of bacteria but all bacteria reproduce more bacteria.  What single celled organism do we have for evidence of becoming anything but a single celled organism when it reproduces?  

 

Edit: The only answer to this I receive, "It takes millions of years for a macro evolution to occur".  Isn't evidence then, but a supposition according to their understanding of what exists.

We do have evidence of evolution occurring. I think this is best observed in viruses and bacteria, which can go many many generations in a small time frame. We have viruses which mutate into new viruses, we see bacteria and viruses become resistant to drugs.

Through dog's we see evidence of what sexual selection can do, although as far as I know we haven't gotten any new species out it yet, dog breeding has only been going on for a few hundred years.

Evolution occurs, as to whether it's the reason for speciation, I'm not sure we can quite prove that but it does seem to be the best explanation we have.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this