Adam and Eve and Evolution


zlllch
 Share

Recommended Posts

30 minutes ago, Rob Osborn said:

What? You would have to explain how its possible for God, who is immortal, to have hair then.

Huh? God has hair because he was once a mortal man who grew hair (presumably through the death of cells) while in mortality,,  who later died, and his hair survived his death. I thought this was made obvious by my last statement.

Thus the question again remains:: So, prior to the fall there was no hair or finger and toe nails?

Quote

If God is immortal and has hair then its logical that before the fall Adam would be immortal and have hair also.

That might be logical if immortality were a function of hair, or if it could be demonstrated that all immortals, of any sort, have hair. The former is absurd and the later begs the very question. So, no, what you suggest is not logical.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, wenglund said:

Huh? God has hair because he was once a mortal man who grew hair (presumably through the death of cells) while in mortality,,  who later died, and his hair survived his death. I thought this was made obvious by my last statement.

Thus the question again remains:: So, prior to the fall there was no hair or finger and toe nails?

That might be logical if immortality were a function of hair, or if it could be demonstrated that all immortals, of any sort, have hair. The former is absurd and the later begs the very question. So, no, what you suggest is not logical.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

This is ridiculous. We both do not know what immortal hair is like and how it functions. Its kind of the same with immortals and eating.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, Rob Osborn said:

There was no "billions of years" beforehand. Thats the whole point. Your billions of years would have to fit into the temporal age of the earth as "years" are specifically part of being temporal.

One of points you made was that Moses saw the universe. How old was it when he saw it? You must agree that lots happened with the existence of other temporal settings long before Moses came on the scene within the 7,000 years of God's economy for this earth.

Let's look even more closely at D&C 77:6.

"We are to understand that [the book which John saw, which was sealed on the back with seven seals] 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."

Note that it states, "continuance." There are two ways of looking at "continuance." One definition is it is the state of remaining in existence or operation. If the earth remained in its temporal existence for 7,000 years, it had also been in a temporal existence or operation before that, just as the rest of the universe Moses saw. The chronology described in the scriptures demonstrate that the 7,000 years of God's economy began with Adam's entrance into the fallen telestial world, which is when he began to age. A second definition is it is a postponement or adjournment (deferment, stay, etc.). The scriptures teach that this life -- that is, this world for anyone living in it within the 7,000 years of God's economy -- is a probationary state; a time to prepare to meet God (note the significance of Alma 42:5, wherein Adam was kept from the tree of life, how long it does not say!).

You err in saying that there was no temporal existence for the earth before the 7,000 period! Even the time before the fall was measured in "days," just according to God's time and context and not according to Adam's mortal reckoning, which could not possibly apply because it did not exist until he came into the fallen world from Eden. After the fall, there was no human reckoning until Adam came into the fallen world from Eden. Because time and events between Adam's fall and his arrival upon the fallen earth were not scriptural accounted for, you cannot rightly use the Flood to say they did not happen -- it makes no sense whatsoever!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

40 minutes ago, CV75 said:

One of points you made was that Moses saw the universe. How old was it when he saw it? You must agree that lots happened with the existence of other temporal settings long before Moses came on the scene within the 7,000 years of God's economy for this earth.

Let's look even more closely at D&C 77:6.

"We are to understand that [the book which John saw, which was sealed on the back with seven seals] 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."

Note that it states, "continuance." There are two ways of looking at "continuance." One definition is it is the state of remaining in existence or operation. If the earth remained in its temporal existence for 7,000 years, it had also been in a temporal existence or operation before that, just as the rest of the universe Moses saw. The chronology described in the scriptures demonstrate that the 7,000 years of God's economy began with Adam's entrance into the fallen telestial world, which is when he began to age. A second definition is it is a postponement or adjournment (deferment, stay, etc.). The scriptures teach that this life -- that is, this world for anyone living in it within the 7,000 years of God's economy -- is a probationary state; a time to prepare to meet God (note the significance of Alma 42:5, wherein Adam was kept from the tree of life, how long it does not say!).

You err in saying that there was no temporal existence for the earth before the 7,000 period! Even the time before the fall was measured in "days," just according to God's time and context and not according to Adam's mortal reckoning, which could not possibly apply because it did not exist until he came into the fallen world from Eden. After the fall, there was no human reckoning until Adam came into the fallen world from Eden. Because time and events between Adam's fall and his arrival upon the fallen earth were not scriptural accounted for, you cannot rightly use the Flood to say they did not happen -- it makes no sense whatsoever!

I dont know how else to say it but there are two fundamental LDS doctrines that must be taken into account. The first is that there was no death of any of Gods creations on this earth before the fall. The second is that the temporal age refers to the age when aging and death were a part of the earth. There just isnt room to add billions of years of death in there. It doesnt fit in LDS doctrine.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 hours ago, Anddenex said:

I could not agree more with the first sentence that the Bible testifies of the Plan of Salvation. I understand, in this case, that you believe it is improper to think "species" is implied by the word kind, and if "kind" means more than what it appears to mean then it means more.

However, the implied meaning of kind appears to be given in scripture in these verses from Genesis:

Emphasis added to make point. The fowl is specifically stating that they multiply after their kind. The waters clearly speak of their own kind. The beast after their kind, and then the kicker, "cattle after their kind."

What do you think is meant by the "cattle after his kind" and the "fowl after his kind"? The cattle is a mammal and we are specifically told that cattle multiplies after its kind. This isn't a general statement of "all" mammals as kind, but specific to a particular mammal - his kind.

I don't see how it is improper to see that "cattle" multiplied and brought forth young after their kind -- cattle is the kind. A horse after his kind. The whales and fish of the sea after their kind. A fish isn't a mammal, and yet, in the theory of evolution some sort of fish is the "grandpa" of the mammals on land, which is not its kind. Take this diagram for example, often something similar to evolution:

main-qimg-27c510e28256e25456733b8672b335

 

Notice the "kind" then in this picture produced not just "mammals" (horse as the example) but the "kind" also produced amphibians, reptiles, fish, and others. So, with evolution the "kind" becomes much more broad then simply "mammals" as mammals and reptiles are not the same "kind," but the diagram is saying they all share a common ancestor not of their kind.

 

Here is a thought for you – why would G-d command living things to reproduce after their own kind?  Could that mean that prior to that specific commandment that evolution was taking place to produce all the varieties of “kinds”? 

 

The Traveler

Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 minutes ago, Traveler said:

 

Here is a thought for you – why would G-d command living things to reproduce after their own kind?  Could that mean that prior to that specific commandment that evolution was taking place to produce all the varieties of “kinds”? 

 

The Traveler

I believe the simple answer to this question is the same command given to Adam and Eve, "Multiply and replenish the earth." They were commanded to multiply and replenish the earth, and "after his kind" is descriptive for us knowing that cattle would produce cattle, whales would produce whales, fish would produce fish, humans would produce humans, and so on. I am not seeing a command to produce after their kind. I am seeing a command to multiply and replenish the earth.

Now, if we take your question, it would lead to further speculation. Evolution was taking place within kinds (we have multiple varieties of horses and cattle -- their kind). Now as to producing multiple varieties coming from a common ancestor as shown in the diagram covering evolution -- theory of men -- nothing solid. We can't observe anything with regards to a variety of kinds coming from a "common" ancestor. It is speculation, suppositions, with what we can observe. So this question, although ponderous, is within the sphere of many questions in the gospel that do not have any sound example from scripture.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

48 minutes ago, Anddenex said:

I believe the simple answer to this question is the same command given to Adam and Eve, "Multiply and replenish the earth." They were commanded to multiply and replenish the earth, and "after his kind" is descriptive for us knowing that cattle would produce cattle, whales would produce whales, fish would produce fish, humans would produce humans, and so on. I am not seeing a command to produce after their kind. I am seeing a command to multiply and replenish the earth.

Now, if we take your question, it would lead to further speculation. Evolution was taking place within kinds (we have multiple varieties of horses and cattle -- their kind). Now as to producing multiple varieties coming from a common ancestor as shown in the diagram covering evolution -- theory of men -- nothing solid. We can't observe anything with regards to a variety of kinds coming from a "common" ancestor. It is speculation, suppositions, with what we can observe. So this question, although ponderous, is within the sphere of many questions in the gospel that do not have any sound example from scripture.

 

Thanks for your response.

BTW another thought.  Adam and Eve were given the commandment to multiple and “replenish” the earth before The Fall.  Interestingly this was something they could not do until after the fall – but this is a whole different discussion.  The only thing I have been able to conclude is that the scriptural account and the Eden epoch of Adam and Eve are vague and incomplete. This almost requires speculation to come to any actual understanding.

 

The Traveler

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Traveler said:

 

Thanks for your response.

BTW another thought.  Adam and Eve were given the commandment to multiple and “replenish” the earth before The Fall.  Interestingly this was something they could not do until after the fall – but this is a whole different discussion.  The only thing I have been able to conclude is that the scriptural account and the Eden epoch of Adam and Eve are vague and incomplete. This almost requires speculation to come to any actual understanding.

 

The Traveler

And, when you take into account the book of Abraham in the Pearl of Great Price, the command to multiply isnt given until after the Gods come down on the seventh day to form man. On day six they only counseled they would give the command after they would form them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Rob Osborn said:

I dont know how else to say it but there are two fundamental LDS doctrines that must be taken into account. The first is that there was no death of any of Gods creations on this earth before the fall. The second is that the temporal age refers to the age when aging and death were a part of the earth. There just isnt room to add billions of years of death in there. It doesnt fit in LDS doctrine.

You keep saying that and dodging my question: where did I say there was death on this earth before the fall?

"Temporal age"? CFR from the scriptures on that term. "Age" is not the same as "existence" or "continuance," which are scriptural terms and used in D&C 77:6. Do you really think the question, "What is your temporal age/lifespan" means the same as "What is your temporal existence?" or, "What is your continuance?" Think about it a bit more, please.

If you are unable or unwilling to have a straightforward discussion, you've made your point! :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, CV75 said:

You keep saying that and dodging my question: where did I say there was death on this earth before the fall?

"Temporal age"? CFR from the scriptures on that term. "Age" is not the same as "existence" or "continuance," which are scriptural terms and used in D&C 77:6. Do you really think the question, "What is your temporal age/lifespan" means the same as "What is your temporal existence?" or, "What is your continuance?" Think about it a bit more, please.

If you are unable or unwilling to have a straightforward discussion, you've made your point! :)

Im having a hard time trying to figure out exactly when you are accounting the addition of billions of years. Is it after the fall?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, Rob Osborn said:

Im having a hard time trying to figure out exactly when you are accounting the addition of billions of years. Is it after the fall?

I am suggesting that it makes sense that it is after the Fall and before the opening of the first seal that marked the commencement of the 7,000 years of God's economy concerning the earth's temporal existence. These are years as measured by Adam's reckoning, and neither the 7,000 year economy nor Adam's reckoning commenced before Adam became mortal. The earth's temporal existence could therefore span billions of years, just as paradise could have, while mortal Adam and his posterity could only exist and therefore receive God's will, mysteries and works in the flesh within the 7,000 year economy, which is the only probationary state we have after Adam partook of the forbidden fruit.

 

Edited by CV75
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, CV75 said:

I am suggesting that it makes sense that it is after the Fall and before the opening of the first seal that marked the commencement of the 7,000 years of God's economy concerning the earth's temporal existence. These are years as measured by Adam's reckoning, and neither the 7,000 year economy nor Adam's reckoning commenced before Adam became mortal. The earth's temporal existence could therefore span billions of years, just as paradise could have, while mortal Adam and his posterity could only exist and therefore receive God's will, mysteries and works in the flesh within the 7,000 year economy.

 

So, are you suggesting that the earth has two separate temporal existences-one for Adam and another for the creation?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

24 minutes ago, Rob Osborn said:

So, are you suggesting that the earth has two separate temporal existences-one for Adam and another for the creation?

I don't understand the question; I didn't bring up the creation except in terms of God referring to "days". There are different temporal reckonings, however: D&C 130:4, 5. You've got to get off the notion that the scriptures speak to the age of the earth. They don't.

Edited by CV75
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Rob Osborn said:

Okay, so you believe in this weird stage of the earth that wasnt part of the "earths" temporal existence but yet during this period of time things lived and died on the earth for billions of years. Is that right?

please re-read the post. I edited it evidently while you were responding to it.

P.S. I understand this question even less! :)

Edited by CV75
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, Traveler said:

 

Thanks for your response.

BTW another thought.  Adam and Eve were given the commandment to multiple and “replenish” the earth before The Fall.  Interestingly this was something they could not do until after the fall – but this is a whole different discussion.  The only thing I have been able to conclude is that the scriptural account and the Eden epoch of Adam and Eve are vague and incomplete. This almost requires speculation to come to any actual understanding.

 

The Traveler

This is one of the most interesting aspects (at least to me) regarding the creation of Adam and Eve before they partook of the fruit. They could not have had children, at least according to the Book of Mormon, until they partook of the fruit even though they were commanded to multiply and replenish the earth. Without this commandment though, Adam may have never partaken of the fruit, leaving him a lone man in the garden.

True, the story we have now of Adam and Eve is vague. I wonder how the posterity of Adam and Eve were told about Adam and Eve's creation and experience in the garden. I wonder how different our story is to the story they received. Anything outside of scripture requires "speculation" or "theory" in order to learn more. I think the important part is that we are, ourselves, will to admit our own speculation. This is why I really like these scriptures:

Quote

 

Teach ye diligently and my grace shall attend you, that you may be instructed more perfectly in theory, in principle, in doctrine, in the law of the gospel, in all things that pertain unto the kingdom of God, that are expedient for you to understand; (source)

That they may be perfected in the understanding of their ministry, in theory, in principle, and in doctrine, in all things pertaining to the kingdom of God on the earth, the keys of which kingdom have been conferred upon you. (source)

 

We are to be instructed more perfectly "in theory" as well as principle, doctrine, and law; however, I truly wish God would provide a more accurate explanation via our prophets regarding the Fall. BUT, as he (God) is more wise than myself he obviously has his purpose (which I know not). Imagine if our gospel doctrine classes also allowed more perfect instruction in theory (possibilities that are not as yet confirmed by the Spirit of Truth), and that we as members could enjoy these without taking it too far.

I was once told that Joseph Smith could have provided a full Doctrine and Covenants size book on Doctrine and Covenants section 76 (I would like to read this quote myself but have never found it), and if so, why was it not revealed? I wonder if it has to do with the current faith of God's children, and it is better that certain things are not revealed so that people do not turn away from the gospel because they can't handle meat.

EDIT: Quote was given in a different topic, "Both Joseph and Sidney gazed into heaven for “about an hour.” Furthermore, it is apparent that Joseph did not impart all that he saw in vision, for he later said, "I could explain a hundred fold more than I ever have of the glories of the kingdoms manifested to me in the vision, were I permitted, and were the people prepared to receive them." (Source: TPJS, p. 305)."

Edited by Anddenex
Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, CV75 said:

I don't understand the question; I didn't bring up the creation except in terms of God referring to "days". There are different temporal reckonings, however: D&C 130:4, 5. You've got to get off the notion that the scriptures speak to the age of the earth. They don't.

You keep wanting there to be a period of mortality on the earth for billions of years to allow for evolution but the scriptures state otherwise.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, Rob Osborn said:

You keep wanting there to be a period of mortality on the earth for billions of years to allow for evolution but the scriptures state otherwise.

I don't see a question here. It's like me saying you want there to be no period of mortality when Adam was not on the earth but the scriptures state otherwise. It doesn't matter what I want, and you have to go by what the scriptures say, not by what they don't say. Hint: there was mortality on the earth when Adam wasn't -- he's been dead for 5,000 years and mortal life went on!

Do you disagree that there are separate temporal reckonings? Where do the scriptures speak to the age of the earth? D&C 77:6 is about the Lord's economy during 7,000 years which fall within the broader span of the earth's continuance and temporal existence. Do you disagree that the earth continued from earlier spiritual and paradisaical stages, and will have a continuance and temporal existence after the 7,000 period?

Edited by CV75
Link to comment
Share on other sites

@Rob Osborn

Rather than have a confusing edit, here are some follow-up questions:

The earth existed as a spiritual creation, a paradisiacal creation; it now exists as a fallen creation; it will exist as a millennial creation and ultimately as a celestial creation.

Was time measured in each of these stages, and if so, how?

Was the reckoning or measurement of time the same between iterations and stages, or even within a single iteration? Can time be measured for mankind if there is no man to reckon? Can God reveal an economy according to mortal mankind’s reckoning for his salvation if there is no mortal mankind to reveal or apply it to?

Does the measuring of time by any reckoning translate into a temporal existence?

How long did the earth exist, or will she exist, in any of her iterations or created forms? How much time passed or will pass between iterations; how long did or will each take to assume a new iteration? How was time measured, and who measured it, when there was no mortal man upon the earth?

Do you have some questions for me?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, zlllch said:

I already did earlier, it's "the wicked." Maybe "the wicked" in this case were members of the Catholic Church, but that doesn't mean it's referring to the entire Catholic Church, or the church as an organization. I'll replace "that abominable church, which is the mother of harlots" with "the wicked" to illustrate my point. The interpretation makes perfect sense in this context.

This is a very interesting argument, and I agree with you about the nature of “types.” But is this really a “type?” Does it really at different times refer to the wicked, the Catholic Church, and non-LDS religions? Every scripture I have studied which uses the terms “great and abominable church,” “church of the devil,” “mother of harlots,” and “whore of all the earth,” seems to be referring to the same thing, and that is the wicked. Different “types” of wicked people, members of different religions, at different times and in different places, but always wicked people. Hence my definition that all these terms are symbols for the wicked. It is the only interpretation that is a suitable answer (at least in my understanding) for all the scriptures I have found. I've "whittled down" each scripture individually, and come to the same conclusion for all of them. Even the ones in 1 Nephi 13. At least to me, this symbol seems to have the same solid definition each time it is used, and that is: the wicked. Again, different wicked people each time, but always the wicked. Sometimes it's wicked members of one specific church, sometimes it's wicked members of all other churches, but I think it is always referring to the members, not to the churches themselves.

The above verse is one of a few that are listed in the Index to the Triple Combination under "Church of the Devil." Notice how God says he will disturb "they who do not fear me," and not the churches they have built up. This verse reinforces my claim that the "church of the devil" refers to people, not to their churches.

The only instances that I can find where another interpretation seems as though it might be suitable, are in 1 Nephi 13. Can you identify any other instances where the Catholic Church is potentially a suitable interpretation for the term’s usage? And can you identify any instances where all non-LDS religions (or any one specific non-LDS religion), might be suitable? Perhaps there are certain specific religions which are suitable, but I don't think it's our place to ascertain which ones, even if they do exist.

This is why I'm so reluctant to label any specific church (or all non-LDS churches) as the "church of the devil." I think this is why God commanded us to "contend against no church, save it be the church of the devil," and why we shouldn't try to identify the "church of the devil" as one specific church. What if we are wrong? Should we really go around contending against other churches because we think they are the "church of the devil?"

My argument hinges on a static definition for the "church of the devil." Solely for the sake of discussion, I will accept your argument that the definition is not static, although I disagree with it. So if you would be so kind as to list all of the specific instances where you think that the “church of the devil” could reasonably be interpreted as one specific church, or all non-LDS churches, we can discuss each of them individually. Thanks.

I'm going to let this one slide at this point.  I think we have both put a lot of effort into this and I see where you are coming from and you probably see where I am coming from.  I feel badly for thread jacking this entropy bound Adam and Eve evolution thread which is violating the Laws of Biogenesis by its very sustainment.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 minutes ago, brlenox said:

I'm going to let this one slide at this point.  I think we have both put a lot of effort into this and I see where you are coming from and you probably see where I am coming from.  I feel badly for thread jacking this entropy bound Adam and Eve evolution thread which is violating the Laws of Biogenesis by its very sustainment.

Alright sounds good. I think both of us have learned something from each other, so thanks for going back and forth with me for a while! 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, CV75 said:

I don't see a question here. It's like me saying you want there to be no period of mortality when Adam was not on the earth but the scriptures state otherwise. It doesn't matter what I want, and you have to go by what the scriptures say, not by what they don't say. Hint: there was mortality on the earth when Adam wasn't -- he's been dead for 5,000 years and mortal life went on!

Do you disagree that there are separate temporal reckonings? Where do the scriptures speak to the age of the earth? D&C 77:6 is about the Lord's economy during 7,000 years which fall within the broader span of the earth's continuance and temporal existence. Do you disagree that the earth continued from earlier spiritual and paradisaical stages, and will have a continuance and temporal existence after the 7,000 period?

Of course there are different periods that the earth has passed through and will continue to in eternity. None of that is of importance as the fall is what started both man and all creations to enter that period where death began. Thats the period relating to the earths temporal existence. There was no death taking place on the earth until that temporal existence started.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 12/18/2017 at 4:57 PM, zlllch said:

Here's a source from lds.org that affirms the church's neutral position:

"The Church has no official position on the theory of evolution. Organic evolution, or changes to species’ inherited traits over time, is a matter for scientific study. Nothing has been revealed concerning evolution." (https://www.lds.org/new-era/2016/10/to-the-point/what-does-the-church-believe-about-evolution?lang=eng)

Irregardless of the official church doctrine, I intended for this thread to be centered around what you think about evolution. Let's keep the discussion civil as we express our opinions on the subject. Thanks.

My understanding of the point of the theory of evolution is that a species 'evolves' to better suit it's climate and environment.  Therefore, in my opinion, I don't think evolution applies to humans at all.  We are not suited to this environment, we need extra things to survive that animals and even primates do not need.  We need clothes, shoes, we burn in the sun, we freeze in the cold, we don't 'fit in' on this planet, everything we do as a species takes us further away from being natural, all we evolve is our technology, which hurts and will eventually kill the planet.  We are not natural inhabitants of this earth, we don't belong here. If we were 'evolving' surely we would at least become more suited to the environment.  

Probably not the point of view of most of you but a valid point of view none the less.

This line of thought does not diminish my faith in God, it actually strengthens it, we couldn't be like we are naturally so someone must have done something for us to be here.

Edited by Blossom76
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Blossom76 said:

My understanding of the point of the theory of evolution is that a species 'evolves' to better suit it's climate and environment.  Therefore, in my opinion, I don't think evolution applies to humans at all.  We are not suited to this environment, we need extra things to survive that animals and even primates do not need.  We need clothes, shoes, we burn in the sun, we freeze in the cold, we don't 'fit in' on this planet, everything we do as a species takes us further away from being natural, all we evolve is our technology, which hurts and will eventually kill the planet.  We are not natural inhabitants of this earth, we don't belong here. If we were 'evolving' surely we would at least become more suited to the environment.  

Probably not the point of view of most of you but a valid point of view none the less.

This line of thought does not diminish my faith in God, it actually strengthens it, we couldn't be like we are naturally so someone must have done something for us to be here.

I try not to think about stuff like this, it makes things too confusing for me.  But I do find your ideas interesting

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share