Does Mormon doctrine support organic evolution?

[Snigmorder]

On 7/9/2017 at 2:59 PM, Carborendum said:

And?

You seem to be categorizing things in ways that I simply don't agree with.  Is energy incorporeal?  I'd agree with that categorization.  Is energy physical?  That's where you're going to have a problem with definitions and semantics.

My statement on this perspective was just that:  A perspective.  If you're an ancient (Biblical era) and someone described to you the concept of matter synthesis as I just described, the only way you could conceive of it is by thinking of it as "magically (or miraculously, if you prefer) creating out of nothing."  Yet, to us, it is not "out of nothing."  It is simply another form of "material" as Abraham calls it.

We tend to think of matter and energy as separate substances.  But with the understanding that they can convert from one to the other,  then they must both belong to a greater category of "stuff" that we don't have a word for.  Let us call it "Globb."  Matter is globb.  Energy is globb.  Spirit is globb.  Depending on how it is arranged or how it behaves, it is called matter, energy, or spirit (and perhaps more things that we're not aware of yet).

If I tell you that the manner of creation was to change energy into matter, you provide the question that you did while sectarians will call it ex-nihilo creation.  But if I say He changed "energy globb" into "matter globb", that satisfies the LDS narrative on creation.  Thus both beliefs are satisfied from a certain perspective.  And while it seems they are mutually exclusive, they are really hand-in-hand, or possibly different sides of the same coin.

 I like that term, globb. Sectarians assert that God and spirit is not constituted of any globb whatsoever and is transcendent to globb. You might call something which is incorporeal something which is not constituted of any globb.

Edited August 2, 2017 by Snigmorder

[Sunday21]

18 minutes ago, zil said:

No, fantasy.  In one particular universe, there are sentient beings whose natural form is loosely organized and amorphous.  Some of them choose to organize themselves (and have figured out how to organize matter) into more condensed forms.  I'm not sure how, but I think the idea of matter being highly organized energy may fit in there somehow.

Thanks for the links, @Carborendum!   Interesting reading.

How cool! Looking forward to reading!

[eddified]

Notice that evolution proponents often use the "mountains of evidence" talking point. If the evidence is so overwhelming, it would speak for itself. The mere utterance of "it's no longer a theory, it's a fact" and the assertion there is so much evidence assures me that the theory of evolution is not as sturdy as one might expect.

Many things in the Book of Mormon hint at evolution being untrue (see scripture quotes above in this thread). Also, please ponder one of my favorite scriptures from Moroni 7:

Quote

16 For behold, the Spirit of Christ is given to every man, that he may know good from evil; wherefore, I show unto you the way to judge; for every thing which inviteth to do good, and to persuade to believe in Christ, is sent forth by the power and gift of Christ; wherefore ye may know with a perfect knowledge it is of God.
17 But whatsoever thing persuadeth men to do evil, and believe not in Christ, and deny him, and serve not God, then ye may know with a perfect knowledge it is of the devil; for after this manner doth the devil work, for he persuadeth no man to do good, no, not one; neither do his angels; neither do they who subject themselves unto him.

And another scripture, from D&C 77:6 (emphasis added by me):

Quote

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.

Does the theory of evolution persuade men to believe in Christ, or does it do the opposite? Christians in general are losing believers to atheism, thanks to the theory of evolution. [1][2][3][4]. Do you really think a true doctrine would convince people to leave Christianity for atheism, contrary to what Moroni taught? When it comes to contradictions between something I have felt Spiritual confirmation of (Book of Mormon), and a theory of man (evolution), I'll take the former. If you wish to harmonize them (theistic evolution), that is your right, I have nothing against it. I do not find it distasteful when my parents tell me they believe in theistic evolution. I personally do not find the ability to make evolution and my religion compatible, yet I harbor no resentment to anyone that believes in evolution (theistic or atheistic).

Don't forget that the Church has leaders that believe evolution, and some that don't. Many wish to paint creationists (specifically the young earth version) as uninformed, stupid, unscientific, and unintelligent. There are many intelligent, informed, learned men which do not buy evolution, including inside the church and out, so recognize these types of attacks on creationists as just incarnations of the ad hominem fallacy [5].

Keep this in mind: if you profess a disbelief in evolution, be prepared to be in the minority, at least among the vocal people on the internet, including on this forum. You will be besieged by people opposing your viewpoint. This however shouldn't be a problem; we as LDS should be accustomed to being different. Why would the origins of the world be any different? Doesn't the adversary have an interest in deceiving us regarding origins of man and the earth? I'd argue that yes, he most assuredly does.

BYU scholars [all?] tend to believe in evolution. Here is an excellent resource by LDS apologetic scholars regarding the age of the earth https://www.fairmormon.org/answers/Mormonism_and_science/Age_of_the_Earth . The primary takeaway from this link is that belief in evolution is not critical to salvation. Is it a question in the temple recommend interview? No. Does it affect Jesus' teachings regarding how we should treat each other? Again, not really. The church doesn't take on official position on the issue. So, do your own study of the matter and follow the valid evidence where it leads. Do not let the massive number of people that believe in evolution sway you - you figure it out yourself, using your own study of the matter. Truth is not affected by popularity, of that I think we can all agree.

[1] http://www.faith.org.uk/article/god-and-evolution-the-fundamental-issue-today
[2] http://www.godofevolution.com/raised-by-theological-conspiracy-theorists-how-i-lost-my-fait/
[3] https://uncommondescent.com/education/evolution-was-the-key-in-joseph-campbells-loss-of-faith/
[4] http://biologos.org/blogs/archive/how-science-almost-ruined-my-faith
[5] example of an ad hominem attack on this forum, where it was stated that I as a Creationist don't know what I'm talking about: https://mormonhub.com/forums/topic/61159-science-and-religion/?page=2#comment-903019

Related, but perhaps not directly: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Expelled:_No_Intelligence_Allowed

[Larry Cotrell]

3 hours ago, Snigmorder said:

 Well, please do! What do you have to say about it?

Since you ask, here's Hebrews 11:3 "Through faith we understand that the worlds were framed by the word of God, so that things which are seen were not made of things which do appear." We understand the second part of this verse to rule out the possibility of Him using preexisting matter. Additionally Genesis 1 (and Moses 2) repeatedly say "God said 'Let there be ___' and there was ___." Genesis 1:9 says, "And God said, Let the waters under the heaven be gathered together unto one place, and let the dry land appear: and it was so." This explains that when He spoke it, it came into existence. This happens over and over in the creation account. He spoke the world into existence.

3 hours ago, Snigmorder said:

By the way, when sectarians read "In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth" they are reading it as the beginning of all things which exist physically, not just the earth.

Yes, but the key is that it says the heavens and the earth. Colossians 1:16-17 sheds some more light on the topic. Referring to Jesus it says, "For by him were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers: all things were created by him, and for him: And he is before all things, and by him all things consist." This means that Jesus 1) was present at creation 2) created "all things." The following part of the verse clarifies that this means all things including all things in heaven. This includes angels and even Lucifer (regardless of whether or not he was an angel). Some more passages on Jesus' role in creation include John 1, 1 Corinthians 8, and Hebrews 1.

I'd like to add that I say this only because I was asked and so that @Snigmorder can understand my opinion. I don't mean to be argumentative in any way.

Edited July 10, 2017 by Larry Cotrell

[Snigmorder]

Content

Edited July 10, 2017 by Snigmorder

[Vort]

3 hours ago, Snigmorder said:

Well, please do! What do you have to say about it?

This forum is LDS Gospel Discussion. Ex nihilo creationism is clearly false doctrine from an LDS standpoint. So what he has to say about it is not relevant in this forum.

[Larry Cotrell]

57 minutes ago, Vort said:

This forum is LDS Gospel Discussion. Ex nihilo creationism is clearly false doctrine from an LDS standpoint. So what he has to say about it is not relevant in this forum.

Fair enough, that's why I wasn't going to go into it. My apologies

Edited July 10, 2017 by Larry Cotrell

[Vort]

2 hours ago, Larry Cotrell said:

Fair enough, that's why I wasn't going to go into it. My apologies

No apologies necessary. Frankly, I think it's an interesting enough topic.

[MrShorty]

I don't know, which, I guess, means that, if there is a contradiction, I do not find the arguments that Rob and Joseph Fielding Smith and others have proposed against organic evolution compelling. I find it very interesting that, in the midst of all of the disagreements (going all the way back to Elder Roberts and Elder Talmage and Elder Smith), the First Presidency has never really taken a side on the issue (including when Joseph Fielding Smith became President of the Church). I guess that, considering the lack of clarity on the issue, all my uncertainties around cosmology as a whole (you can read through some of my thoughts here https://mormonhub.com/forums/topic/61190-what-is-the-scope-of-gods-creation/ ), my answer to the title question is, "Mormon doctrine seems ambivalent (neither supporting nor not supporting) towards organic evolution."

Certainly there are Mormons with opinions on both sides of the debate. Perhaps one interesting note. Back in the day when Elder Roberts and Elder Smith were debating the subject, the First Presidency asked them a few times (if my memory serves correctly) to cease the debate. 100 or so years later and we have not abandoned the debate. (Not that I am opposed to the discussion myself. My own views on cosmology and creation are so poorly formed that the never ending discussions sometimes add to my views on creation and cosmology).

 

[person0]

On 7/8/2017 at 10:54 PM, Snigmorder said:

Do you think that organic matter is uncreated and unoriginated the same way inanimate matter is?

 

Quote

Do you think that you could ever,

Through all eternity,

Find out the generation

Where Gods began to be?

Or see the grand beginning,

Where space did not extend?

Or view the last creation,

Where Gods and matter end?

Methinks the Spirit whispers,

“No man has found ‘pure space,’

Nor seen the outside curtains,

Where nothing has a place.”

 

(Hymnal: If You Could Hie to Kolob)

I interpret that in your use of the word organic your intended definition is that of a living soul: 'spirit and element combined'.  The spirit is that which gives life to the body.  There is no official doctrinal reference that would indicate to us if the combination of spirit and element is uncreated; however, from the lyrics presented above, it is clear that one could never find the beginning of Gods.   The term 'man' could also potentially be interpreted to include God since he is also man.  There is no official answer, but it will be a fun question to learn the answer to one of these days when my mind is ready to handle it.

On 7/8/2017 at 10:54 PM, Snigmorder said:

How else would something as complex as our bodies be formed if not incrementally?  Do you imagine Him causing dead matter to form all of the complex processes and materials of the body in one act of creation? In one moment?

How would you define 'dead matter?'  I think you mean inanimate matter as used before.  Either way, honestly, I don't really care if he did it all at once or over time, or if he used a super high-tech celestial 3D printer.  That said, Moses did use God's power to quickly trans-mutate a stick into a serpent; it kind of happened 'all at once'.  Unless Moses/Aaron actually just pulled a super fast slight of hand trick and swapped the snake out there.  

On 7/8/2017 at 10:54 PM, Snigmorder said:

Meaning God took a male and female Homosapien and placed into them the spirits of Adam and Eve. The mind of gods were made flesh. I'm not sure what I think of this theory.

I'd say this guy is way far out on the speculation train.  The way you have worded this postulation would mean that homo-sapiens did not have spirits, which in my understanding would mean they were not actual living beings, which to me doesn't sound like something rational within the scope of established doctrine.

On 7/8/2017 at 10:54 PM, Snigmorder said:

Lehi also tells us that there was no death before the fall. Some people have said that this means no death in the garden of Eden only, meaning there was a death outside the garden. But Lehi is very clear that there was no death among all the things which were created. Organisms outside the garden of Eden are among those things created.

I believe you are interpreting this correctly.  No death whatsoever before the fall.

On 7/8/2017 at 10:54 PM, Snigmorder said:

What do you think about evolution?

I have stated before in this forum that it is not necessarily an illogical position on either side.  Personally, however, I think that it is clear from the extant Church materials that evolution involving death is not within the scope of canonical doctrine.  I will teach my children not to accept the theories of evolution as truth, but to learn and understand them for purposes of knowledge and understanding as needed in the world.  I will also teach them that if one day we learn there is a truthful reconciliation between the accounts of the creation and the process of evolution then that will be wonderful, but until such occurs (if ever), the account of the creation we have through scriptures and modern prophetic revelations is the truth.

Edited July 10, 2017 by person0