Adam and Eve and Evolution

[Traveler]

We know how men are created.  I will review this process because it requires gender.  A sperm from a male will penetrate the egg of a female and human life begins as a lower creature of a single cell called a zygote.   This single cell will evolve through a process and a lower form creature will become more and more complex.  If this evolutionary process is successful the recognizable form of a human will be born as an infant child – but evolution is not through yet.  Before a child becomes a man, evolution will continue.

As well as I understand scripture even Jesus was “conceived” as a lower form creature of a single cell and over the course normal for the gestation of a single cell to evolve into an infant human.

The scriptures giving an account of “creation” tell us that the “first” human evolved from “dust”.  There is no creature alive today that has any lower origin.

I thought I would tell a little story.  There was this young boy that came to his father and asked, “Father, where did all the people come from?”  The father told the boy that a long time ago there was a man named Adam who had a wife named Eve.  They lived in a garden and did something that got them kicked out of the garden.  After being kicked out they had children and the children had children and so on and so on – and that is where all the people came from.

About an hour later the boy returned to the father and said that the father had lied.  The boy had asked his mother and the mother said that all the people evolved from monkeys and apes.   The father looked lovingly at the boy and said, “Son, I did not lie to you and neither did your mom – she was just describing her side of the family.”

 

The Traveler

Edited December 19, 2017 by Traveler

[Shath]

1 hour ago, Vort said:

Please simply point out exactly where this idea "has been declared false", as you claim. Just cite the exact words saying, "This here teaching is false." Please. Just cite it. Very simple.

I don't know why some of you have a problem understanding these guys.  They were pretty clear.  Only a dunce couldn't understand what they said.  I don't think people here are dunces, but I think some may be mean.  It seems clear to me that the Mormons officially do not believe Adam was a product of evolution from Apes.

That isn't bad to me.  He posted the words that they said, and they said that Adam was not from evolution.  I think you know this, so why are you picking at this?

I think it is also clear that a lot of Mormons also believe in evolution.  I think many Mormons believe Adam was a product of evolution.  I think the Mormon prophet does not.

I think we can both see everyone's point and agree to get along instead of fighting about this.

18 minutes ago, zlllch said:

Ok so you have a very literal understanding of the creation story, which many people do. Can you quote the specific verses or church teachings you're referring to that say Adam is the literal physical son of God? All I can find is church teachings that say only Jesus Christ is the literal son of God, the Only Begotten of the Father. 

"He was the Only Begotten Son of our Heavenly Father in the flesh—the only child whose mortal body was begotten by our Heavenly Father." --Ezra Taft Benson 

I do not know.  I think that some Mormons take Luke 3 literally.  That means many things.  It does not mean Adam is begotten, but it says he was a son.

I think some Mormons do not take it literally.  They are like other Christians like that. 

Biology teaches me about evolution in school.  Our teacher also believes in Genesis.  I'm not sure he was supposed to tell us that.  He doesn't see a problem.  I think some Mormons are like him.  I think other Mormons are not like him.  I think some Mormons are like creationists.  I don't know what I think yet.  I don't think it's very important.

I think Jesus is more important.  I think Jesus is what we should think about and focus on.  His teachings are what are important in our lives.  We should follow his example. 

[zlllch]

41 minutes ago, Anddenex said:

Just a side note, that 1909 statement was reiterated in 2011 with the published book, "Teachings of the President of the Church: Joseph F. Smith," which would have been accepted by the apostles and prophets as this was Church curriculum. This should give us a longer and more in-depth look as to how many times this proclamation from 1909 has been reiterated by the Church.

This is my mind and heart, whatever is truth is truth. At this moment, it seems pretty clear the stance of the Church regarding human evolution; however, I don't have any problem with people believing as they want to believe. Here is one quote from this same teaching of the prophets, "True it is that the body of man enters upon its career as a tiny germ or embryo, which becomes an infant, quickened at a certain stage by the spirit whose tabernacle it is, and the child, after being born, develops into a man. There is nothing in this, however, to indicate that the original man, the first of our race, began life as anything less than a man, or less than the human germ or embryo that becomes a man."

And here is one of the questions proposed, "How does revealed truth about the origin of mankind differ from the theories of men on this subject?"

Yes, on this forum there are many great minds, very intelligent people who are read and provide great insight to many things with multiple thoughts. It is what attracted me here not so long ago.

And if an official statement came out, although I doubt it, that human evolution is true -- it wouldn't shake my testimony, and I would be similar to other members who then say, "Well, I was wrong." And move along.

 

 

I think Gordon B. Hinckley sums up my understanding of church doctrine  clearly and succinctly in this quote:

"What the church requires is only belief 'that Adam was the first man of what we would call the human race.' Scientists can speculate on the rest."

Thanks for civilly agreeing to disagree with me haha. Either of us could easily be wrong, and that's totally ok. 

(Side note, "The Earth and Man" by James E. Talmage is a more thorough read containing a positive view of evolution held by a church leader if you're interested)

Edited December 19, 2017 by zlllch
Font was huge, made it smaller

[zlllch]

56 minutes ago, Rob Osborn said:

We couldnt really be the "seed" of God if he didnt use his literal seed to create us.

You forget that there are two parts to the creation, spiritual and physical. We are God's spirit children in a literal sense. Only Jesus is a physical child of God, the Only Begotten of the Father in the flesh. 

[Anddenex]

18 minutes ago, zlllch said:

 (Side note, "The Earth and Man" by James E. Talmage is a more thorough read containing a positive view of evolution held by a church leader if you're interested)

 

 

Thank you. I am enjoying what I am reading thus far.

[zlllch]

22 minutes ago, Shath said:

I think Jesus is more important.  I think Jesus is what we should think about and focus on.  His teachings are what are important in our lives.  We should follow his example. 

Yep. I'm sure all of us can agree with that.

[Rob Osborn]

7 hours ago, zlllch said:

Ok so you have a very literal understanding of the creation story, which many people do. Can you quote the specific verses or church teachings you're referring to that say Adam is the literal physical son of God? All I can find is church teachings that say only Jesus Christ is the literal son of God, the Only Begotten of the Father. 

"He was the Only Begotten Son of our Heavenly Father in the flesh—the only child whose mortal body was begotten by our Heavenly Father." --Ezra Taft Benson 

In Luke ch. 3 it gives the physical geneology-

"38 Which was the son of Enos, which was the son of Seth, which was the son of Adam, which was the son of God"

As LDS we have further clarification in the book of Moses ch. 6-

 

"22 And this is the genealogy of the sons of Adam, who was the son of God, with whom God, himself, conversed"

You are correct in that Jesus was the only begotten into mortality for this earth. "Mortality" was after the fall of Adam and Eve. Before the fall Adam and Eve were immortal beings. Adam and Eve are the literal physical children of God. They were begat by the Gods the same way we are begat by our parents.

[zlllch]

5 minutes ago, Rob Osborn said:

In Luke ch. 3 it gives the physical geneology-

"38 Which was the son of Enos, which was the son of Seth, which was the son of Adam, which was the son of God"

As LDS we have further clarification in the book of Moses ch. 6-

 

"22 And this is the genealogy of the sons of Adam, who was the son of God, with whom God, himself, conversed"

You are correct in that Jesus was the only begotten into mortality for this earth. "Mortality" was after the fall of Adam and Eve. Before the fall Adam and Eve were immortal beings. Adam and Eve are the literal physical children of God. They were begat by the Gods the same way we are begat by our parents.

These verses say Adam was a "son of God." They don't say he was a literal physical son of God. You're wresting the scriptures here. Adam and Eve are the literal spiritual children of God. They were begat by the Gods the same we we were begat by our parents spiritually. 

On LDS.org under Gospel Topics is an entry titled "Spirit Children of Heavenly Parents." (Note that it's not titled "Physical Children of Heavenly Parents") The first paragraph reads:

"God is not only our Ruler and Creator; He is also our Heavenly Father. All men and women are literally the sons and daughters of God. “Man, as a spirit, was begotten and born of heavenly parents, and reared to maturity in the eternal mansions of the Father, prior to coming upon the earth in a temporal [physical] body” (Teachings of Presidents of the Church: Joseph F. Smith [1998], 335)."

[Rob Osborn]

11 minutes ago, zlllch said:

These verses say Adam was a "son of God." They don't say he was a literal physical son of God. You're wresting the scriptures here. Adam and Eve are the literal spiritual children of God. They were begat by the Gods the same we we were begat by our parents spiritually. 

On LDS.org under Gospel Topics is an entry titled "Spirit Children of Heavenly Parents." (Note that it's not titled "Physical Children of Heavenly Parents") The first paragraph reads:

"God is not only our Ruler and Creator; He is also our Heavenly Father. All men and women are literally the sons and daughters of God. “Man, as a spirit, was begotten and born of heavenly parents, and reared to maturity in the eternal mansions of the Father, prior to coming upon the earth in a temporal [physical] body” (Teachings of Presidents of the Church: Joseph F. Smith [1998], 335)."

Im not really sure how you say I am wresting scripture here. The scriptures give the physical geneology of man to God himself. Theres no beating around the bush here. Its the literal physical geneology. 

Let me ask- why is it so difficult to try to understand that Adam and Eve are the literal physical offspring of deity? Do you believe that God is incapable of procreation?

[zlllch]

8 minutes ago, Rob Osborn said:

Im not really sure how you say I am wresting scripture here. The scriptures give the physical geneology of man to God himself. Theres no beating around the bush here. Its the literal physical geneology. 

Let me ask- why is it so difficult to try to understand that Adam and Eve are the literal physical offspring of deity? Do you believe that God is incapable of procreation?

Alright I'm done arguing with you. The official church doctrine is that we are the literal spiritual —not physical— children of God. It was clearly stated in my quotation from lds.org. Find me a quote from an official church publication that says "we are literal physical children of God" and then we'll talk. If not, I'm done.

[Rob Osborn]

3 minutes ago, zlllch said:

Alright I'm done arguing with you. The official church doctrine is that we are the literal spiritual —not physical— children of God. It was clearly stated in my quotation from lds.org. Find me a quote from an official church publication that says "we are literal physical children of God" and then we'll talk. If not, I'm done.

"The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, basing its belief on divine revelation, ancient and modern, proclaims man to be the direct and lineal offspring of Deity. " 

Not sure how more literal we can get. 

[Rob Osborn]

Also, to place the above in context, it refers here to mans physical body.

[zlllch]

15 minutes ago, Rob Osborn said:

"The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, basing its belief on divine revelation, ancient and modern, proclaims man to be the direct and lineal offspring of Deity. " 

Not sure how more literal we can get. 

Yeah, literal, direct, and lineal. Not physical. Where is the word physical?

[zlllch]

16 minutes ago, Rob Osborn said:

Also, to place the above in context, it refers here to mans physical body.

Oh also you forgot to include the previous paragraph which actually places this statement in it's true context. 

"Adam, our great progenitor, "the first man," was, like Christ, a pre-existent spirit, and, like Christ, he took upon him an appropriate body, the body of a man, and so became a "living soul." The doctrine of pre-existence pours wonderful flood of light upon the otherwise mysterious problem of man's origin. It shows that man, as a spirit, was begotten and born of heavenly parents, and reared to maturity in the eternal mansions of the Father, prior to coming upon the earth in a temporal body to undergo an experience in mortality.

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, basing its belief on divine revelation, ancient and modern, proclaims man to be the direct and lineal offspring of Deity. By his Almighty power God organized the earth, and all that it contains, from spirit and element, which exist co-eternally with himself."

Edited December 19, 2017 by zlllch

[anatess2]

@Anddenex, @Vort

Okay, let me chime in.  Vort is right.  There is nothing in any of those teachings that says organic evolution is false.  Remember, saying - THIS is true does not necessarily mean THAT is false if the THIS and the THAT are not the exact same thing.

For example - THIS apple is red does NOT mean that THAT apple is not green because we're not talking  about the same apple.

Adam is the first man.  Man, in Church teaching, refers to the SPIRITUAL man.  The mortal body is not Man unless the spirit resides in it.  It's just... a bunch of cells, and that's why we don't consider abortion automatically an act of murder.

So, Adam being the first man and did not evolve from spiritual apes is a true statement but it does NOT mean that non-spiritual humanoids did not evolve out of something or even into a mortal body that is then entered into by the spirit of Adam.  No prophet has ever defined the scientific process by which dust became a mortal body that became the vessel by which the pre-mortal Adam was "breathed into".  The prophets simply declared that pre-mortal Man did not start off his mortal life in anything other than the human body.

Edited December 19, 2017 by anatess2

[Anddenex]

22 minutes ago, anatess2 said:

@Anddenex, @Vort

Okay, let me chime in.  Vort is right.  There is nothing in any of those teachings that says organic evolution is false.  Remember, saying - THIS is true does not necessarily mean THAT is false if the THIS and the THAT are not the exact same thing.

For example - THIS apple is red does NOT mean that THAT apple is not green because we're not talking  about the same apple.

Adam is the first man.  Man, in Church teaching, refers to the SPIRITUAL man.  The mortal body is not Man unless the spirit resides in it.  It's just... a bunch of cells, and that's why we don't consider abortion automatically an act of murder.

So, Adam being the first man and did not evolve from spiritual apes is a true statement but it does NOT mean that non-spiritual humanoids did not evolve out of something or even into a mortal body that is then entered into by the spirit of Adam.  No prophet has ever defined the scientific process by which dust became a mortal body that became the vessel by which the pre-mortal Adam was "breathed into".  The prophets simply declared that pre-mortal Man did not start off his mortal life in anything other than the human body.

I will share with you Anatess what I shared with Vort:

Quote

 

EDIT - Also, now that you are misquoting me, I never said "organic evolution" is false. You are being disingenuous with this statement. I clearly stated, "As pertaining to our parentage, we did not evolve from a lower order of species -- this is clear -- and has been reiterated by the Church."  Note the quote is specific to Adam and Eve not evolving from a lower order of specious/animal as was given here, ""It is held by some that Adam was not the first man upon this earth and that the original human being was a development from lower orders of the animal creation. These, however, are the theories of men. The word of the Lord declared that Adam was “the first man of all men” (Moses 1:34), and we are therefore in duty bound to regard him as the primal parent of our race." Pretty clear statement regarding Adam and Eve not developing (evolving) from a lower order of the animal creation. Not sure how that is missed, but that is just me.

I also clearly stated, "As to the theory of evolution, I can totally see the evolution within kinds..." So your attempt to say I said that the First Presidency said, "The idea of organic evolution is false," is disingenuous, as I said no such thing. Again the irony of someone saying "Don't play games" and is the person playing games.

 

So no, Vort is not right, as no one here made the claim that the statements made declared "organic" evolution is false. READ the whole statement, not what Vort made it into, and now what you are making it into. As from the last statement I clearly stated, once again, "As to the theory of evolution (organic evolution), I can totally see the evolution within kinds.," by which I provided an example of organic evolution with horses evolving into more than one species of horse.

The claim actually made is that "human" evolution (not organic), Adam, did not develop (evolve) from a lower order of the animal creation. "These, however, are the theories of man." Adam had a spiritual body that became "mortal" flesh upon him partaking of the fruit. So, if you can provide an authoritative quote from a prophet or the First Presidency that is in opposition to the one given in 1909, 2002, and 2011 please feel free to point it out.

[anatess2]

25 minutes ago, Anddenex said:

I will share with you Anatess what I shared with Vort:

So no, Vort is not right, as no one here made the claim that the statements made declared "organic" evolution is false. READ the whole statement, not what Vort made it into, and now what you are making it into. As from the last statement I clearly stated, once again, "As to the theory of evolution (organic evolution), I can totally see the evolution within kinds.," by which I provided an example of organic evolution with horses evolving into more than one species of horse.

The claim actually made is that "human" evolution (not organic), Adam, did not develop (evolve) from a lower order of the animal creation. "These, however, are the theories of man." Adam had a spiritual body that became "mortal" flesh upon him partaking of the fruit. So, if you can provide an authoritative quote from a prophet or the First Presidency that is in opposition to the one given in 1909, 2002, and 2011 please feel free to point it out.

Okay, let's focus it here:

"It is held by some that Adam was not the first man upon this earth and that the original human being was a development from lower orders of the animal creation. "  "These, however, are the theories of man"  

There is NO revelation from God about how dust became the human body that ADAM  was breathed into.  Therefore, all we have is theories of men.

"Adam had a spiritual body that became "mortal" flesh upon him partaking of the fruit." - I don't read that into the words of the Prophet.  There is no revelation on HOW Adam's pre-mortal body transformed into mortal flesh.  There is no revelation on HOW pre-mortal earth became mortal earth.  All of that is philosophies of men.  

Therefore, theorizing (a philosophy of man) that the process by which dust became the mortal body of Adam went through an evolutionary process until it became human after which Adam's spirit was breathed into does not conflict with the statement that "The word of the Lord declared that Adam was “the first man of all men” (Moses 1:34), and we are therefore in duty bound to regard him as the primal parent of our race."   It will only conflict if the Prophet specifically says - No, that scientific theory is false - which is exactly what Vort is trying to tell you. 

Edited December 19, 2017 by anatess2

[MrShorty]

At the risk of my sanity, salvation, and exaltation, I will dip my toe into this.

Part of me agrees with Rob and Anddenex. The simplest reading of J. F. Smith's statement is that he (on behalf of the Church) does not believe that man evolved from apes. It is not difficult to find others after him (his son J. Fielding Smith may be the most prominent) who rejected the 20th century scientific cosmology and evolution of life theories. It would not surprise me to find some among our current leadership who also reject these beliefs (Elder Nelson has said a few things that suggest that he is not fond of modern cosmology and evolution of life theories). I am not sure that this is The Only True (TM) way to read these statements, but it seems the simplest.

IMO, the deeper question that this exposes is around prophecy, discernment, and how do we discern The Truth (TM) from scripture and prophetic statements. Does scripture contain factually incorrect information and history? Does scripture contain elements of the mortal opinions of its authors? Are modern Church statements without error or without the influence of the opinions of their authors? How does one use scripture and Church pronouncements in discerning The Truth (TM)?

Has anyone noticed that it seems like a key characteristic of scripture is that there is often just enough ambiguity in it to allow humans to endlessly debate its meanings? It seems interesting to me that there is just enough ambiguity in J. F. Smith's statement to allow us to endlessly debate exactly what the Church really believes and what Church members should believe about the origins of man. Is this kind of ambiguity a feature or a bug of the process of revelation?

I don't believe that this more literal reading of the 1909 statement is truth, even if the Church may believe it (and is only tolerating those of use with dissenting opinions for now). For myself, I am going to believe that this statement is strictly about the "spiritual" (whatever that might be) origins of man and not the physical. I don't find anything in my reaction to this statement that compels me to believe that it should be taken as literally as others have taken it.

[Anddenex]

1 minute ago, anatess2 said:

Okay, let's focus it here:

"It is held by some that Adam was not the first man upon this earth and that the original human being was a development from lower orders of the animal creation. "  "These, however, are the theories of man"  

There is NO revelation from God about how dust became the human body that ADAM  was breathed into.  Therefore, all we have is theories of men.

"Adam had a spiritual body that became "mortal" flesh upon him partaking of the fruit." - I don't read that into the words of the Prophet.  There is no revelation on HOW Adam's pre-mortal body transformed into mortal flesh.  There is no revelation on HOW pre-mortal earth became mortal earth.  All of that is philosophies of men.  

Therefore, theorizing (a philosophy of man) that the process by which dust became the mortal body of Adam went through an evolutionary process until it became human after which Adam was breathed into does not conflict with the statement that "The word of the Lord declared that Adam was “the first man of all men” (Moses 1:34), and we are therefore in duty bound to regard him as the primal parent of our race."   It will only conflict if the Prophet specifically says - No, that scientific theory is false - which is exactly what Vort is trying to tell you.

Correct, there is no revelation from God on "how dust became the human body." There is revelation though, once again (this is getting old), from the First Presidency (1909) and reiterated for out time in 2002 and 2011, that the notion of Adam, the first man, developing from "lower orders of the animal creation" are the "theories of man." Adam "is the first man of all men" meaning there was no one before him. Adam was created by God spiritually. Adam did not have a lower order of species that gave birth to him, which is the whole concept of human evolution. Adam would have had then a "father" of a lower species of order in the animal creation.

I am not interested in what Vort is telling because he is wrong, and was seeking to change the conversation from Adam and Eve not evolving (developing) from a lower order of the animal creation, which is clearly stated in 1909, 2002, 2011, to The First Presidency saying "organic evolution is false" which was never stated and was i disingenuous, which is what you are protecting a disingenuous attempt to state someone said something he didn't say or claim.

I mean even a Christian, was able to recognize what the First Presidency clearly stated and not what Vort made it into, and what you for some unknown reason are advocating

10 hours ago, Shath said:

I don't know why some of you have a problem understanding these guys.  They were pretty clear.  Only a dunce couldn't understand what they said.  I don't think people here are dunces, but I think some may be mean.  It seems clear to me that the Mormons officially do not believe Adam was a product of evolution from Apes.

That isn't bad to me.  He posted the words that they said, and they said that Adam was not from evolution.  I think you know this, so why are you picking at this?

 

[wenglund]

11 hours ago, Anddenex said:

One item I find interesting is how a person at one point will completely say, "Follow the prophets," and then disregard their words at another point (especially when lds.org points out this as official doctrine of the Church). As pertaining to Adam evolving from a "lower" order of species has been declared false in 1909 and was reiterated in 2002, as has been mentioned:

"It is held by some that Adam was not the first man upon this earth and that the original human being was a development from lower orders of the animal creation. These, however, are the theories of men. The word of the Lord declared that Adam was “the first man of all men” (Moses 1:34), and we are therefore in duty bound to regard him as the primal parent of our race."  (emphasis added) As pertaining to our parentage, we did not evolve from a lower order of species -- this is clear -- and has been reiterated by the Church. The argument ends there for me.

Isn't this statement somewhat dependent upon how narrowly or broadly one defines "man" or "men" and "race"?

For example, if one defines "man" as those born under the Adamic covenant (i.e. the offspring of Adam and Eve), thereby making the  children or descendants of Adam and Eve the "race" in question, then this leaves the door open to compatible beliefs in evolution and renders the 1909 declaration less a means of abominable dogama or creedalism. Right?

Also, if one defines "man" as those possessed of a higher state of consciousness or they are endowed with the Light of Christ (moral conscience), then that opens the door as well.

Granted, these terms can rightly be defined more broadly, but then one runs into the dilemma of deciding  where to draw the line DNA-wise. Is the line drawn scientifically at the species level, or subspecies, genus or subgenus, tribe or subtribe, or family? Is a chimp a man given that it shares 96% of human DNA? 

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

 

[anatess2]

17 minutes ago, Anddenex said:

Correct, there is no revelation from God on "how dust became the human body." There is revelation though, once again (this is getting old), from the First Presidency (1909) and reiterated for out time in 2002 and 2011, that the notion of Adam, the first man, developing from "lower orders of the animal creation" are the "theories of man." Adam "is the first man of all men" meaning there was no one before him. Adam was created by God spiritually. Adam did not have a lower order of species that gave birth to him, which is the whole concept of human evolution. Adam would have had then a "father" of a lower species of order in the animal creation.

 

It is getting old because you and I (and Vort) are not interpreting this statement the same way.  Adam - the first man - not developing from lower orders of animal creation DOES NOT CONFLICT with dust going through whatever it has to go through before it became a human body.  What would conflict is that Adam was an ape or Adam's father was an ape.  He wasn't.  Adam was the FIRST MAN - therefore, any form that empty shell of a human body took before Adam entered it did not contain Adam or any other spiritual man entity and is therefore not Adam nor Adam's Father.  If we theorize that the human body evolved from apes, that doesn't make the Ape Adam's Father.  Adam did not enter the Ape and gave birth to spiritual evolving apes until spiritual man stood upright.  Rather, apes would have evolved to human spieces THEN Adam enters it making the FIRST MAN human, not ape.  Spirit versus Mortal.  No spiritual man, therefore, and that includes you and me, can trace their genealogy to, say apes, because the genealogy STARTS with Adam who is human.  Adam, therefore, does not have a mortal Father and would not have an ape for a Father even if we theorize that the mortal carcass that he entered evolved from apes.

So, saying that the mortal shell before Adam entered it did not evolve from anything other than human... is also a philosophy of man because that is not part of the revelation as the revelation ONLY references SPIRITUAL man and a Spiritual Father.

 

 

 

Edited December 19, 2017 by anatess2

[Anddenex]

Isn't this statement somewhat dependent upon how narrowly or broadly one defines "man" or "men" and "race"?

I would say this statement is dependent on how one defines (not narrowly or broadly) defines "first man/woman." The quote is specific to our "origin" which according to scripture is Adam and Eve.

For example, if one defines "man" as those born under the Adamic covenant (i.e. the offspring of Adam and Eve), thereby making the  children or descendants of Adam and Eve the "race" in question, then this leaves the door open to compatible beliefs in evolution and renders the 1909 declaration less a means of abominable dogama or creedalism. Right?

I see where you are coming from; however, the quote isn't defining man. The quote is a declaration regarding "first man" (first woman). So in this thing, we wouldn't be defining "man" as one born under the covenant as Adam himself, and Eve, were not born under the covenant. They received the covenant directly from the Father in an eternal realm, without death. If they were born through evolution, this means they were mortal before they were spiritual, and we know their creation was spiritual before it was mortal.

Again, the subject being debated is not "organic evolution" as Vort made it out to be. The subject in question, the claim, is whether or not Adam and Eve evolved (developed) from a lower order of the animal species/creation? According to this proclamation from the First Presidency in 1909 (reiterated in 2011, thus something the First Presidency today wants us to read and hear) isn't an abominable dogma or creed. The First Presidency quote doesn't even touch "organic evolution." It solely touches Adam and Eve's evolution from a lower order of animal (I am even referring to "Lucy" and others mentioned in science, not just Apes), which it appears the First Presidency is wanting us to understand that they weren't wrong in what they said.

The concept of organic evolution (in totality), can be compatible with the gospel, but that isn't what the First Presidency addressed. They addressed Adam and Eve solely.

Also, if one defines "man" as those possessed of a higher state of consciousness or they are endowed with the Light of Christ (moral conscience), then that opens the door as well.

The subject is not "man" but "first man" and "first woman." Even with their higher state of conscious, which Adam and Eve did receive once partaking of the fruit and becoming flesh -- the ability to die -- but not sure how that opens the door to "human" (Adam and Eve) evolving (developing) from a lower order which has been stated to be a theory of men.

Granted, these terms can rightly be defined more broadly, but then one runs into the dilemma of deciding  where to draw the line DNA-wise. Is the line drawn scientifically at the species level, or subspecies, genus or subgenus, tribe or subtribe, or family? Is a chimp a man given that it shares 96% of human DNA? 

I have no clue where the line is drawn DNA wise, but I don't think humans are anywhere close to understanding DNA. Until we receive further revelation from prophets, then what we have, then it is open to believe as you want (including myself in this statement). No a chimp is not a man, doesn't matter how closely they are related in human DNA. I mean, we all have bones, which DNA triggers (probably not best choice of words), and there bones are similar to ours, doesn't make them a man, as it doesn't make Adam a chimp.

 

[brlenox]

On ‎12‎/‎17‎/‎2017 at 11:57 PM, zlllch said:

I understand that the church has no official position on the theory of evolution, and that members are free to believe what they will on the subject. The church does however, assert that Adam and Eve were real historical persons, the first children of God on the earth, and the primal parents of the entire human race.

The church's position regarding pre-adamites (humans who lived before the biblical time of Adam) is also neutral. The church neither confirms nor denies their existence. The same is true regarding the idea that there was no death on the earth prior to the fall; the church takes no official stance.

Though the church is neutral on the subject, fossil and archaeological evidence overwhelmingly point to the existence of pre-adamites and death prior to the fall, and I'm inclined to accept the validity of that evidence. Keep in mind that the church neither supports nor condemns me in doing so.

If you similarly choose to accept this evidence, I'm interested in how you reconcile the existence of pre-adamites with a literal, historical Adam and Eve. 

Perhaps Adam and Eve were the first humans only in the sense that they were the first children of God. Perhaps they were products of evolution, the apex of the pre-adamic race, and were merely the first of whom God breathed the breath of life into their nostrils. Perhaps they weren't created through the process of evolution, and the pre-adamites have no relation to them. Thoughts?

Whatever the case may be, it cannot be denied that the best evidence available to us does seem to confirm the existence of pre-adamites.

Please let me know what you believe on this subject and why. I would also be very interested if you are aware of any theories advanced by church leaders, or really anyone else for that matter. Thanks!

 

Sometimes I think the nature of this discussion is not reduced to lowest terms so that we consider upon what really is the key elements of the debate.  One way of stating it is that we have two perspectives equally unprovable from an intellectual perspective. Evolution is first and foremost a theory. It postulates certain conditions that have yet to fulfill the expectations of scientific verity. Thus from this perspective when one chooses between two unprovable positions one is really revealing their own state more than anything else.  One perspective tolerates faith as a defining priority while the other perspective preferences proofs.  From the theological expectations of "without faith it is impossible to please God" the proof perspective desired by those of the scientific model is a strong indictment against their capacity to find favor with the Lord while the faith priority compromises in many instances those of the community of faith 's ability to find the favor of man.

The LDS theological perspective will tolerate some overlay's of the scientific model in terms of time frames but it will not and cannot yield on certain other conditions.  One is that which you mention of Adam And Eve being first flesh and first death and not evolutionary products of progressive development.  If one is thoughtful, the reasons for theologies intolerance of certain conditions are profound and compelling.  The first reference provides for consideration of perhaps the most significant and severe implications of the evolutionary model. Please consider these observations by Elder Boyd K. Packer:

Quote

Many who perceive organic evolution to be law rather than theory do not realize they forsake the atonement in the process.... And, I am sorry to say, the so-called theistic evolution, the theory that God used an evolutionary process to prepare a physical body for the spirit of man, is equally false. I say I am sorry because I know it is a view commonly held by good and thoughtful people who search for an acceptable resolution to an apparent conflict between the theory of evolution and the doctrines of the gospel.( Boyd K. Packer, "The Law and the Light," Book of Mormon Symposium, BYU, 30 October 1988)

For those who have not internalized the profound impact of the atonement, Elder Packers statement will not create the sense of alarm that would cause them to evaluate with great care their loyalties to a priority of evolutionary process which they might claim as sources of Adam and Eve's origins.  However, those of a theological, spiritual priority will recognize that if this creation did not start as an eternal sphere of existence where two eternal beings fell to a self-unredeemable position of subjection to Satan then there could be no necessity of the Son of God redeeming mankind through the blessings of an atonement.  From the theological perspective these are self-existent necessities that cannot brook a pre-Adamite state where death has always existed.  Without an actual fall there is no need for an actual redemption.   

In this next observation by Elder Bruce R. McConkie, one must appreciate his unyielding commitment to a faith based paradigm.  However, he also offers up  some interesting considerations for further pondering.

Quote

Of this much we are quite certain: When, during the Millennium, the sealed portion of the Book of Mormon is translated, it will give an account of life in the premortal existence; of the creation of all things; of the Fall and the Atonement and the Second Coming; of temple ordinances, in their fullness; of the ministry and mission of translated beings; of life in the spirit world, in both paradise and hell; of the kingdoms of glory to be inhabited by resurrected beings; and many such like things. As of now, the world is not ready to receive these truths. For one thing, these added doctrines will completely destroy the whole theory of organic evolution as it is now almost universally taught in the halls of academia. For another, they will set forth an entirely different concept and time frame of the creation, both of this earth and all forms of life and of the sidereal heavens themselves, than is postulated in all the theories of men. And sadly, there are those who, if forced to make a choice at this time, would select Darwin over Deity. (The Bible a Sealed Book, Bruce R. McConkie, underlining added for emphasis)

The idea that one of the flawed aspects of the theories of evolution is found in the considerations of "time" is extremely sensible based on what we can see in the theological model.  I have no difficulty with the evidences and proofs of the scientific model - something obviously produced the visible / tangible evidences that we do have for consideration. However, it seems logical that a condition defined as more or less impossible from the scientific model of a fall in time and space of the earth, or in other words the processes of transitioning from an eternal sphere to that of a mortal sphere might have conditions that would be completely misinterpreted from a model that sees no potential for such alterations in the laws of physics that differentiate the two conditions. Time is the question, and time is the answer.  While for the majority of this era of scientific evaluation the laws of physics have been accepted as static and without differentiation there is nonetheless a question or two popping up in the minds of the scientific community.  Please consider:

Quote

WEST LAFAYETTE, Ind. - Researchers may have discovered a new method to predict solar flares more than a day before they occur, providing advance warning to help protect satellites, power grids and astronauts from potentially dangerous radiation.

 

The system works by measuring differences in gamma radiation emitted when atoms in radioactive elements "decay," or lose energy. This rate of decay is widely believed to be constant, but recent findings challenge that long-accepted rule.

 

The new detection technique is based on a hypothesis that radioactive decay rates are influenced by solar activity, possibly streams of subatomic particles called solar neutrinos. This influence can wax and wane due to seasonal changes in the Earth's distance from the sun and also during solar flares, according to the hypothesis, which is supported with data published in a dozen research papers since it was proposed in 2006, said Ephraim Fischbach, a Purdue University professor of physics. http://www.purdue.edu/newsroom/releases/2012/Q3/new-system-could-predict-solar-flares,-give-advance-warning.html

While these considerations are noted they are not main stream accepted for the implications that are implied.  Change the rates of decay and every time based evaluation we have ever made becomes suspect.  These kinds of concerns, I believe is what Elder McConkie is inferring as situations that will completely alter our perceptions of the passage of time - and interestingly it is not outside of the possibilities of science to acknowledge such based on the above observations.  However recent analysis provided by a team of astrophysicists points to other very interesting possibility.  Please consider:

 

 

Quote

A team of astrophysicists based in Australia and England has uncovered evidence that the laws of physics are different in different parts of the universe. A preliminary version of the paper is currently under peer review.

The report describes how one of the supposed fundamental constants of Nature appears not to be constant after all. Instead, this 'magic number' known as the fine-structure constant -- 'alpha' for short -- appears to vary throughout the universe.

"After measuring alpha in around 300 distant galaxies, a consistency emerged: this magic number, which tells us the strength of electromagnetism, is not the same everywhere as it is here on Earth, and seems to vary continuously along a preferred axis through the universe," Professor John Webb from the University of New South Wales said.

"The implications for our current understanding of science are profound. If the laws of physics turn out to be merely 'local by-laws', it might be that whilst our observable part of the universe favours the existence of life and human beings, other far more distant regions may exist where different laws preclude the formation of life, at least as we know it."

"If our results are correct, clearly we shall need new physical theories to satisfactorily describe them." (http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/09/100909004112.htm)

For those who believe in Fall theology, scientific observations such as this above, only seem obvious in consideration conditions which must have transitioned this world from an eternal to a mortal state. Studying the life spans of the descendants of Adam and Eve clearly speaks to conditions of change which resulted in the reduction of lifespans to current levels.  These changes could easily implicate our theories of unchanging laws of physics which form the basis of our models of time.  And while theology can never bow to the expectations of an evolutionary model, I suspect as does Elder McConkie that the day will come when the better understandings of the time model will illustrate the primary areas in which we err in our current scientific preferences. 

 

 

 

Edited December 19, 2017 by brlenox
I found a missing link

[Anddenex]

14 minutes ago, anatess2 said:

Adam was the FIRST MAN - therefore, any form that empty shell of a human body took before Adam entered it did not contain Adam or any other spiritual man entity and is therefore not Adam nor Adam's Father.  If we theorize that the human body evolved from apes, that doesn't make the Ape Adam's Father.  Adam did not enter the Ape and gave birth to spiritual evolving apes until spiritual man stood upright.  Rather, apes would have evolved to human spieces THEN Adam enters it making the FIRST MAN human, not ape.  Spirit versus Mortal.  No spiritual man, therefore, and that includes you and me, can trace their genealogy to, say apes, because the genealogy STARTS with Adam who is human.  Adam, therefore, does not have a mortal Father and would not have an ape for a Father even if we theorize that the mortal carcass that he entered evolved from apes.

So, saying that the mortal shell before Adam entered it did not evolve from anything other than human... is also a philosophy of man because that is not part of the revelation as the revelation ONLY references SPIRITUAL man and a Spiritual Father.

Except the following statements:

President Spencer W. Kimball testified that all human beings are descended from Adam and Eve:

“Adam and Eve were the progenitors of the race. They were the first father and mother, and all the children of mortality are the offspring of this couple” (“The Lord’s Plan for Men and Women,” Ensign, Oct. 1975, 4). (emphasis added)

If Adam was by the process of human evolution Adam would not be the "first" father and Eve would not have been "first" mother. I am not sure how we can say Adam was the first father if he himself had a father from a lower species of the animal order. Again, the First Presidency message, and Spencer W. Kimball appear to say, Adam and Eve were not the product of developing (evolving) from a lower order of species. This would mean I would have, whatever animal, a grandpa of the lower order of animal creations, which we don't. Again, seems pretty clear to me, but I am fine with whatever people want to believe.

 

[anatess2]

7 minutes ago, Anddenex said:

Except the following statements:

President Spencer W. Kimball testified that all human beings are descended from Adam and Eve:

“Adam and Eve were the progenitors of the race. They were the first father and mother, and all the children of mortality are the offspring of this couple” (“The Lord’s Plan for Men and Women,” Ensign, Oct. 1975, 4). (emphasis added)

If Adam was by the process of human evolution Adam would not be the "first" father and Eve would not have been "first" mother. I am not sure how we can say Adam was the first father if he himself had a father from a lower species of the animal order. Again, the First Presidency message, and Spencer W. Kimball appear to say, Adam and Eve were not the product of developing (evolving) from a lower order of species. This would mean I would have, whatever animal, a grandpa of the lower order of animal creations, which we don't. Again, seems pretty clear to me, but I am fine with whatever people want to believe.

 

Anddenex - Spiritual vs Mortal.  I explained that above.  The mortal shell does not become a Father if there is no Spirit in there that is within the organization of the Plan of Salvation.  Father is a Spiritual Entity not a mortal one just like Families is a Spiritual Organization and not a mortal one.

Edited December 19, 2017 by anatess2