Adam and Eve and Evolution

[Rob Osborn]

1 hour ago, brlenox said:

My favorite is the Book of Moses observation of worlds without number.  A theological statement that has been held in derision until the past few decades, while there have been fringe folks who could see the potential for such, the first mainstream observation I have found was not until 1989 with consensus achieved with Kepler 1.

And someday mainstream science may even come to conclude that the book of Abraham in Pearl of Great price concerning time and relativity coincides with physics.

[Traveler]

1 hour ago, brlenox said:

Your final sentence is the thought I would like to respond to.  The theology which falls under the LDS banner can sometimes be found to be outside the banner of church doctrine.  Mother in Heaven is a classic example. However, I think that the issue is one of inherent responsibility.  The church as an organization has an umbrella of doctrine that is generally reflective of a fundamental level of understanding and responsibility to carry the gospel to the world. The church fosters the basics of doctrine that each must know to build upon as a foundation but the church does not promulgate as it's own many "doctrines" that find reference in the Journal of Discourses or less widespread delivery such as talks given in select places.

That said the church also has an objective to lead you and I to the point of establishing the Holy Ghost as our guide.  Once there we are left to be tutored and taught and often things not part of the official doctrinal cannon which are true.  Thus we each develop personal doctrine which the church is under no obligation to sustain as it is outside of it's official purview. This split level of doctrine is a unique and wonderful aspect of LDS theology for those who are spiritually mature.  We find the foundation in the church doctrines and then we have the opportunity to move forward in knowledge wisdom and understanding of areas far beyond if we take the Holy Spirit as our guide. For those who feel bound to remain within the constraints of official doctrine it is a safe place, but true growth in the gospel individually insists that we explore beyond the official stance to finds the Lord's insight, else Alma 12:9 (it is given many to understand the mysteries of God) serves no purpose. 

 

May I add something to what I think is your thought?  It is the purpose and destiny of divine revelation (the church and kingdom of G-d) to bring to and instruct mankind in the laws, ordinances and covenants associated with the Plan of Salvation.  I personally do not know why there is a discussion concerning creation periods at the beginning of divine instruction to teach mankind about our everlasting covenant deeply seeded in the Plan of Salvation.   I am inclined to wonder that there is something symbolic in the scriptural and temple rendition of creation that is missing.  As I wonder, I am led to believe that such symbolism will only be revealed and understood through the “Gift of the Holy Ghost” and obedience to our covenant with G-d.

We LDS ought to be light years ahead of traditional religions in understanding such symbols and knowing how science comprehends the empirical “things” G-d and provided for our mortal experience.  I believe that most dispersions of LDS thinking come from problems.  One is keeping the commandments and the second is studying things in our minds and hearts and asking G-d what is true.  It would seem that with each new empirical discovery and any new revelation that we become more divided when we should be becoming more united.

 

The Traveler

[Rob Osborn]

The greatest heresy of modern times is the witness of secularists who claim we have no evidence of God our Creator. They have been greatly successful in this grand lie even to the point to grind the faces and testimonies of prophets, ancient and modern, into the ground in rather spectacular fashion. Their day is ending though and the truth will rise again. We shall find that most of ancient secular history is false and that the bible and Book of Mormon are true, even to the extent that there was a literal creation and that all life forms came originally from their own kind including the human race being the direct offspring of the great master Creator.

[brlenox]

1 minute ago, Rob Osborn said:

And someday mainstream science may even come to conclude that the book of Abraham in Pearl of Great price concerning time and relativity coincides with physics.

While it could never be acknowledged, I have determined to my own satisfaction that the greatest theory of our time, the theory of relativity can find it's roots in the Pearl of Great price.  In fact I have felt that John A Widtsoes observations are very meritorious:

Quote

Joseph Smith, the Mormon Prophet, did not use the language of science; which is evidence that he did not know the science of his day. Yet…the teachings of Joseph were in full harmony with the most advanced scientific thought, and…he anticipated the world of science in the statement of fundamental facts and theories of physics, chemistry, astronomy and biology. (John A. Widtsoe, Joseph Smith as Scientist: A Contribution to Mormon Philosophy, 1964], introduction.)

My own thoughts have been that prior to the restoration the Biblical account was adequate to sustain the scientific advancements of the time.  However, God gave us the Book of Abraham, Pearl of Great Price, certain sections of the Doctrine and Covenants such as section 88 as part of the restoration, specifically to anticipate to where science would expand and to exceed and speak to areas far ahead of mankind's ability to even acknowledge what already was so eloquently referenced in the revelations of God. 

 

 

[zlllch]

22 minutes ago, Rob Osborn said:

The greatest heresy of modern times is the witness of secularists who claim we have no evidence of God our Creator. They have been greatly successful in this grand lie even to the point to grind the faces and testimonies of prophets, ancient and modern, into the ground in rather spectacular fashion. Their day is ending though and the truth will rise again. We shall find that most of ancient secular history is false and that the bible and Book of Mormon are true, even to the extent that there was a literal creation and that all life forms came originally from their own kind including the human race being the direct offspring of the great master Creator.

So you think science will one day come around and prove the truthfulness of scripture? Although science and religion will be fully reconciled in the end, I don't think science will ever conclusively prove or disprove religion, at least in mortality. If it did, our faith would be destroyed. 

Edited December 20, 2017 by zlllch

[brlenox]

1 hour ago, Traveler said:

 

May I add something to what I think is your thought?  It is the purpose and destiny of divine revelation (the church and kingdom of G-d) to bring to and instruct mankind in the laws, ordinances and covenants associated with the Plan of Salvation.  I personally do not know why there is a discussion concerning creation periods at the beginning of divine instruction to teach mankind about our everlasting covenant deeply seeded in the Plan of Salvation.   I am inclined to wonder that there is something symbolic in the scriptural and temple rendition of creation that is missing.  As I wonder, I am led to believe that such symbolism will only be revealed and understood through the “Gift of the Holy Ghost” and obedience to our covenant with G-d.

We LDS ought to be light years ahead of traditional religions in understanding such symbols and knowing how science comprehends the empirical “things” G-d and provided for our mortal experience.  I believe that most dispersions of LDS thinking come from problems.  One is keeping the commandments and the second is studying things in our minds and hearts and asking G-d what is true.  It would seem that with each new empirical discovery and any new revelation that we become more divided when we should be becoming more united.

 

The Traveler

Over the years I have studied far and wide, which for me means to write and chronicle the process of growing in spiritual understanding to the point that I maintain thousands of pages of material that I have invested much time, prayer and diligent research in coming to greater understandings.  However in that process, I have also invested in certain rules of engagement which I hope have protected me from spinning out of control into Satan's efforts to prevent such growth.  Failure to sustain these rules is why we observe so many who begin to advance in spiritual understandings and then learn their way out of the church. 

1.) The gospel is the standard. There are no truths to be found that cannot be in some way correlated to the tenants of the gospel of Jesus Christ.  Maintaining the Gospel as the standard prevents a subtle switch of allegiances which I have observed many times over the years - Kerry Shirts being one that many are familiar with. 

2.) Tie everything to the Atonement and of course Jesus Christ and at the point you can find the connection then you are approaching understandings of merit. This comes from one of the most profound observations I have ever encountered:

Quote

 

I have not, to my knowledge, in my ministry said anything more important. I intend to talk about the Lord, Jesus Christ, about what He really did—and why it matters now….Through Him mercy can be fully extended to each of us without offending the eternal law of justice….

This truth [The Atonement of Christ] is the very root of Christian doctrine. You may know much about the gospel as it branches out from there, but if you only know the branches and those branches do not touch that root, if they have been cut free from that truth, there will be no life nor substance nor redemption in them. (Packer, Boyd K., The Mediator, Ensign, May 1977, p. 56)

 

The challenge with this endeavor is that once you have accomplished the task you have insight into gospel principles that few can manage or sadly grasp.  The lines upon lines and precepts upon precepts required to reach this level of understanding seem to require that most travel the road with the spirit so that it can build the foundation individually with them. On occasion a thought can be shared but for the most part it is a lonely road. 

3.) Learning of the Jews. Combining the stick of Judah and the Stick of Ephraim, for me has become much more than a physical process of placing the two records side by side between leather covers.  While they excelled in looking beyond the mark, their methodologies and understandings of scriptural interpretation are invaluable to understanding how to interpret scripture properly. As long as I hold strongly to the Gospel as the standard then I have placed the boundaries of understanding their material at the forefront.  We respect the scientists of the various disciplines, but I think few realize that the Jews are the true scientists of theology.   

4.) I am never self affirming. Again the Jews teach us there are rules for understanding and interpretation.  While most in the church have a sense of some measure of private interpretation, I am convinced that there are patterns and types that guide the way to proper understandings. Thus If I learn something new in the spirit, I am obligated to find the scriptural or prophetic or apostolic source which points to my new understandings.  I can never stand alone as the source of a particular understanding and I find, In patience I can always find second and third witnesses for anything thus far that the spirit has taught me.  I nearly always have a quote or scripture to foundation my perspectives as I feel it is not safe to advance ideas and theology one does not have witnesses to confirm.  The prophets are always right in my mind.  I may not understand something that they have stated but I never discount or place my ability to discern truth above theirs. So many fail in this.

5.) Ask the Lord to teach me from His perspective and not mine. This has been profound.  The things I have determined about the atonement and other such challenging doctrines can become very evident when we work to change our egocentric wanderings to placing God at the center. Often there is understanding where so many will say, we cannot understand this or that.  Whatever it is that we cannot understand there is a wealth of material that we can understand if we quite focusing on that we do not understand.

I have several other standards, proving contraries, law of opposition etc that I find great use of in discovery but the point of this listing is in describing a priority of thought processes I think that are mandatory if one is to truly grow in revelationary experiences.

It is evident that you are a thoughtful student and so perhaps much of what I outline here is in some form addressed in your efforts.  In your response to which I am addressing you inquire as to why a creative discussion leads out from the first pages of the Bible.  Surely there are layers upon layers of revelation that could be had upon a diligent study of such but it does seem appropriate for myself that some of symbolism of the creation narratives is in the acts of faith of God which he patterns in the creative cycles is the pattern of all creation - even our own as we set out trying to understand how do we become as one who can act in the exercise of the remarkable levels of faith that create and sustain worlds in orbits, and galaxies in their eternal revolutions.  It is faith that drives all of these efforts of God's and men if we are to become like him.  He could tell us more and render some of the creative processes into areas of greater knowledge but that is not what it takes "In the beginning".  Every single process in which we will engage will necessitate a starting point of faith and trusting in the word of God. Hence Christ's question to the Brother of Jared, Believest thou the words which I shall speak is not a question of knowledge and what all he knows, which is evident to the Lord by the very circumstance they are engaged in.  No it is a question of will you have faith in something which is future to this moment in which We stand, will you trust God in all things.   Of course there are many other aspects but for me that is one of the most fundamental. I tend to think there is enough material in the temple and scriptural discussions on the creation to advance our understandings but agree wholeheartedly it will be revelation based.  

In your observations that "we LDS ought to be", is the implied response "but we are not". Perhaps that is not what you intended but I have learned that the quest for knowledge is not simply an academic style pursuit but is instead an endeavor fraught with risks which is why I outlined some of my rules for seeking knowledge above. The rules are to keep me from succumbing to the common failures of men.  I have found this observation to be very true:

Quote

Joseph then related some of his own experience, in many contests he had had with the evil one, and said: "The nearer a person approaches the Lord, a greater power will be manifested by the adversary to prevent the accomplishment of His purposes." An answer this, for the unbelieving and sophistical, who argue, with the shallow reasoning of Job's comforters, that they have sinned most who suffer most, and are ever ready to ascribe spiritual manifestations, good or evil, to madness, drunkenness or imbecility. (Joseph Smith as quoted in "Life of Heber C. Kimball," by Orson F. Whitney, p. 132) 

So every step of the way there are forces seeking to prevent the next step. Those making their way with any success eventually learn that spiritual truths have to be learned in a certain way as they cannot be explained into understanding but require the spirit to convey them to our heart and minds. So even if they try they most likely will not be able to teach.  Seldom is it that you meet anyone capable of engaging in certain levels of conversation because of the rules of "heed and diligence" required in obtaining the knowledge. I do not perhaps share your perspectives that science and empirical knowledge should be uniting us, in fact perhaps I am on the other side of the fence entirely as I am pretty comfortable stating that it will ever be our faith that unites us.  I see you provide for that in the consideration of new revelations that you mention but for myself, I do not see anything sourced from the empirical as having the necessary requirement of the investment of faith to perpetuate the unity of a common hope in God.  

Edited December 20, 2017 by brlenox

[Rob Osborn]

1 hour ago, zlllch said:

So you think science will one day come around and prove the truthfulness of scripture? Although science and religion will be fully reconciled in the end, I don't think science will ever conclusively prove or disprove religion, at least in mortality. If it did, our faith would be destroyed. 

I guess it depends on how one defines "science" and "religion". There are already professionally trained scientists who have come to grand conclusions with evidence proving an intelligent Creator. Others have done extensive work to show evidence for a global flood. Other historians have uncovered biblical evidences. Of course though, "mainstream scien e" is secular in its principles has never accepted truth that points towards a God. But, I believe that will change, is changing, it just takes time.

[Traveler]

2 hours ago, CV75 said:

Huh? While I agree with that statement, it is not a scientific principle, which is what i was asking for The point I'm making is that religious truth encompasses scientific truth, but science does not reciprocate.

What scientific principle do you know that sets an boundry to evolution?  Or what that has been scientifically proven to be possible; but is impossible to intelligently engineer if resources are available?

The Traveler

Edited December 20, 2017 by Traveler

[zlllch]

20 minutes ago, Rob Osborn said:

I guess it depends on how one defines "science" and "religion". There are already professionally trained scientists who have come to grand conclusions with evidence proving an intelligent Creator. Others have done extensive work to show evidence for a global flood. Other historians have uncovered biblical evidences. Of course though, "mainstream scien e" is secular in its principles has never accepted truth that points towards a God. But, I believe that will change, is changing, it just takes time.

Ok what are the "grand conclusions" that prove an intelligent Creator but haven't been accepted by mainstream science then? 

[CV75]

12 minutes ago, Traveler said:

What scientific principle do you know that sets an boundry to evolution?  Or what that has been scientifically proven to be possible; but is impossible to intelligently engineer if resources are available?

The Traveler

That "man can "evolve" without some pre-determined limit" is a scientific principle, but becoming a G-d is not. If you have a reference, that would be ...

[Traveler]

3 hours ago, Rob Osborn said:

This reminds me of this story

"A man was patching a pitched roof of a tall building when he began sliding off. As he neared the edge of the roof he prayed, "Save me, Lord, and I'll go to church every Sunday, I'll give up drinking, I'll be the best man this city has ever known."
As he finished his prayer, a nail snagged onto his overalls and saved him. The man looked up to the sky and shouted, "Never mind, God. I took care of it myself."

So quick are we to pat ourselves on the back for great acclaim in all our indeavors including advancements in medicine, engineering, etc. The truth is that God is behind all truth and helps man in all aspects of our lives even guiding the very hand of the skilled surgeon. Secularism is the paradigm of actions void of God or the intentional dismissing of God. All I can say is good luck with all that. Empirical evidence is a funny thing because many would claim such empirical evidence as a means for acceptance when in reality, by unbiased standards, their "empirical evidence" is anything but that! Such is the case when it comes to human evolution. There is supposedly this "empirical evidence" proving how humans are the end product of life originating from nothing billions of years ago. Just because they can find a fossil jawbone of some ape-like creature doesnt equate to "empirical evidence". Thats not exhaustive verification. Similarities in DNA also isnt empirical evidence either. The differences even between us and chimps are so extensive on the DNA level that there just isnt a viable pathway that could allow for such vast changes even in small portions (in DNA that "small" equates to billions of bits of specified information) of the sequences. One of the principles involved in Darwinian evolution is that change cant be guided by or preceded by an intelligent process. This is why, under close scrutiny, that flys do not gain new intelligent information when copy errors happen and natural selection acts upon those changes. If anything, empirical evidence is mounting to uphold this enigma that man did not, nor could have originated from animals.

I think it would genuinely surprise us at just how extensive Gods hand is in all things. In fact, all things are supposed to manifest of Christ our creator. He has given us his word and it still remains to be overturned. In time secularism will bury themselves in all their folly.

 

I am not sure how one can declare there are advances in medicine, engineering and other sciences to be divinely inspired with one breath and then in the next breath declare advances in medicine, engineering and other sciences as flawed and full of folly what will eventually bury itself. 

This all reminds me of an engineer I once worked with that could never accomplish anything on his own and yet would claim anything his team accomplished as 100% his input and any failure of his team – as 100% because they lever listened to him.

I personally do not believe that G-d created things one way and then created false evidence to be discovered that would mislead anyone that seriously studied empirical evidence.  It is my personal belief that someone that cannot evaluate empirical that can be verified by everybody – how can they be trusted with spiritual things than must be taken only by faith.

 

The Traveler

[zlllch]

56 minutes ago, brlenox said:

The prophets are always right in my mind.  I may not understand something that they have stated but I never discount or place my ability to discern truth above theirs. So many fail in this.

Just to clarify, are you saying that every word spoken by a prophet is and has been correct?

[wenglund]

2 hours ago, Rob Osborn said:

Sounds like you just described how secularism operates.

Assuming our ancient ancestors were fairy land dreamers is a great mistake. But, as you say, it does pave the way to dismiss the Book of Mormon entirely because no one that ancient could have built ships to cross oceans to get to the Americas. For them their only logical reality is the bearing stait ice bridge. And that based off of a complete lack of belief that our ancestors were just as smart as us. Yeah, we think we know it all with our modern western intelligence. 

Does  "Lehi's Dream" ring a bell?

The Bible is filled with dreams (see HERE) In fact, try reading the Book of Revelation like a science text book (the gold standard for secularism)and see how far it gets you.

To be clear, nothing I have said may rightly be interpreted as a denial of the historicity of any of the LDS books of scripture or the prophets and people contained therein. I believe they are historical, though not written as history. They did exist, and literally experienced what they claimed. This includes the creation and garden stories.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[Traveler]

17 minutes ago, CV75 said:

That "man can "evolve" without some pre-determined limit" is a scientific principle, but becoming a G-d is not. If you have a reference, that would be ...

G-d is a religious definition – I think on that we agree.  The concept of unbounded evolving intelligence is a scientifically synonymous statement to the religious term - “eternal progression”.

 

The Traveler

[zlllch]

4 hours ago, zlllch said:

Well said, thanks for this insight!

Edit: Although, I have to mention, anything outside the realm of official church doctrine is speculation. Sometimes we are right in our speculations, and sometimes we are wrong. It is unwise and prideful to give too much credence to our speculations, we always must be humble enough to abandon them completely and fall back on official church doctrine if it turns out we were wrong.

I'm quoting this edit cause I think it's important and I don't want it to get lost in the shuffle.

Also I remembered this scripture which provides a perfect example of falling back on basic truths:

1 Nephi 11

16 And he said unto me: Knowest thou the condescension of God?
17 And I said unto him: I know that he loveth his children; nevertheless, I do not know the meaning of all things.

I just love how Nephi clings to the simple truth that God loves his children. There's a profound lesson to be learned here.

Edited December 21, 2017 by zlllch

[CV75]

20 minutes ago, Traveler said:

G-d is a religious definition – I think on that we agree.  The concept of unbounded evolving intelligence is a scientifically synonymous statement to the religious term - “eternal progression”.

 

The Traveler

Sorry, I don't think that is a scientific concept either... if so, that would be verrry interesting indeed! I believe in God and eternal progression, and my appreciation for science does not get in the way of that, but I don't see it being appreciated as a scientific principle.

[Rob Osborn]

1 hour ago, wenglund said:

Does  "Lehi's Dream" ring a bell?

The Bible is filled with dreams (see HERE) In fact, try reading the Book of Revelation like a science text book (the gold standard for secularism)and see how far it gets you.

To be clear, nothing I have said may rightly be interpreted as a denial of the historicity of any of the LDS books of scripture or the prophets and people contained therein. I believe they are historical, though not written as history. They did exist, and literally experienced what they claimed. This includes the creation and garden stories.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Not sure what you are getting at. For starters, do you believe the book of Mormon to be historical?

[Rob Osborn]

6 hours ago, zlllch said:

Ok what are the "grand conclusions" that prove an intelligent Creator but haven't been accepted by mainstream science then? 

Just look into intelligent design.

http://vedicsciences.net/articles/intelligent-design.html

[zlllch]

2 hours ago, Rob Osborn said:

Just look into intelligent design.

http://vedicsciences.net/articles/intelligent-design.html

This is interesting, what I've read so far is cool, but I think this just goes along with the "all things denote there is a God" principle. When I say science will never conclusively prove God's existence, I mean there's never going to be repeatable empirical recordable evidence that someone can take and say "we did this experiment, and then this happened, so we can conclude there is a God, and here's the evidence." Intelligent design is cool, and when you and I read it we think "yeah, evidence of a Creator right there," but someone else could look at the same complexities and miracles and easily come up with a completely different explanation than the existence a Creator. 

Edit: I read a little further, for me the idea of evolution actually strengthens my testimony of an intelligent Creator because it is so unlikely and seemingly impossible, and yet scientific research consistently seems to show us that that's exactly what happened. I can't see how evolution is even remotely possible without God's guiding hand, so when science finds more and more evidence for the theory of evolution, and how perfectly certain conditions needed to be met for it to occur, I only become more sure in my conviction that God is the one who's behind it all.

I know you disagree with me on this, I just wanted to share my perspective and opinion. 

Edited December 21, 2017 by zlllch

[wenglund]

6 hours ago, Rob Osborn said:

Not sure what you are getting at. For starters, do you believe the book of Mormon to be historical?

Yes, including Lehi's dream, alhough what was depicted in the dream was not historical but symbolic. The scriptures are full of symbolism, conveyed not just through dreams, but also by way of allegories and parables. Even many of the real life historical events had symbolic overtones, and were types and shadows of things to come.

The point being that what I described earlier is deeply religious and anything but secular. The ancient prophets  were dreamers of the first order. So, you managed to get it exactly backwards.

That is okay. Symbolic thinking isn't for everyone, though I can't imagine how the temple experience could be in depth without it. 

To each their own.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[Guest]

15 hours ago, CV75 said:

Sorry, I don't think that is a scientific concept either... if so, that would be verrry interesting indeed! I believe in God and eternal progression, and my appreciation for science does not get in the way of that, but I don't see it being appreciated as a scientific principle.

I think we'd agree that the concepts of evolution and eternal progression are analogous, but not equal.  The difference is that evolution requires death, allowing each successive generation to surpass the previous generation.  Eternal progression requires immortality, allowing each previous generation to grow exponentially.

[Anddenex]

20 hours ago, zlllch said:

Edit: Although, I have to mention, anything outside the realm of official church doctrine is speculation. Sometimes we are right in our speculations, and sometimes we are wrong. It is unwise and prideful to give too much credence to our speculations, we always must be humble enough to abandon them completely and fall back on official church doctrine if it turns out we were wrong.

This isn't necessarily true, that "anything outside the realm of official church doctrine is speculation." Otherwise we would have to accept that "all" witness from the Holy Ghost is speculation. When a person learns truth, even not yet revealed doctrine, it isn't speculation; however, in saying this, if a person has received truth that has not yet been revealed by the Holy Ghost it is wise to keep it to him/herself until a prophet reveals it. As it isn't our place to reveal new truth, and we technically step the bounds of our stewardship when we reveal truth not yet revealed (except in matters of prophecy which the Spirit may direct the heart and mind to bear witness of).

Here is a perfect example from the life of Lorenzo Snow, "

Quote

 

President Snow later recalled, “the Spirit of the Lord rested mightily upon me—the eyes of my understanding were opened, and I saw as clear as the sun at noonday, with wonder and astonishment, the pathway of God and man. I formed the following couplet which expresses the revelation, as it was shown me. …

“As man now is, God once was:

“As God now is, man may be.”1

Feeling that he had received “a sacred communication” that he should guard carefully, Lorenzo Snow did not teach the doctrine publicly until he knew that the Prophet Joseph Smith had taught it. Once he knew the doctrine was public knowledge, he testified of it frequently. (emphasis added)

 

Lorenzo Snow was not speculating. He knew exactly what the Spirit taught him, and he guarded it reverently and with respect. Should we teach anything outside of revealed doctrine, we must remember that people can say that we are speculating as that is their right (and is often wise), as they have not yet received witness and it is not coming from the keys of those who are able to reveal knew doctrine to the Church as a whole.

[CV75]

1 hour ago, Carborendum said:

I think we'd agree that the concepts of evolution and eternal progression are analogous, but not equal.  The difference is that evolution requires death, allowing each successive generation to surpass the previous generation.  Eternal progression requires immortality, allowing each previous generation to grow exponentially.

Yes, and they are a lot more different than that, enough for us to use the term "eternal progression" and not "eternal evolution" -- imagine spirit children mutating (or otherwise changing), entering mortality as such and then resurrecting, the gods evolving into different beings from their ancestor gods! There is a very fundamental difference between continuation of the seed ("species") and "origin of the species"!

Edited December 21, 2017 by CV75

[Anddenex]

1 hour ago, Carborendum said:

I think we'd agree that the concepts of evolution and eternal progression are analogous, but not equal.  The difference is that evolution requires death, allowing each successive generation to surpass the previous generation.  Eternal progression requires immortality, allowing each previous generation to grow exponentially.

Might I add one thing to the last statement, "Eternal progression requires [mortality and] immortality, allowing each previous generation to grow exponentially."

[Rob Osborn]

8 hours ago, zlllch said:

This is interesting, what I've read so far is cool, but I think this just goes along with the "all things denote there is a God" principle. When I say science will never conclusively prove God's existence, I mean there's never going to be repeatable empirical recordable evidence that someone can take and say "we did this experiment, and then this happened, so we can conclude there is a God, and here's the evidence." Intelligent design is cool, and when you and I read it we think "yeah, evidence of a Creator right there," but someone else could look at the same complexities and miracles and easily come up with a completely different explanation than the existence a Creator. 

Edit: I read a little further, for me the idea of evolution actually strengthens my testimony of an intelligent Creator because it is so unlikely and seemingly impossible, and yet scientific research consistently seems to show us that that's exactly what happened. I can't see how evolution is even remotely possible without God's guiding hand, so when science finds more and more evidence for the theory of evolution, and how perfectly certain conditions needed to be met for it to occur, I only become more sure in my conviction that God is the one who's behind it all.

I know you disagree with me on this, I just wanted to share my perspective and opinion. 

Fair enough. I see intelligent design as proof there is a God and also that Darwinian evolution is false.

I guess the thing of utmost importance though is being able to acknowledge Gods hands in the creation. I know that when I used to dialogue with Steven Peck at BYU he wasn't sure how God fit into his own creation and supposed that God himself was a product of nature.