Adam and Eve and Evolution

[Guest]

14 minutes ago, brlenox said:

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)

 

Little known fact about this particular speech.  Elder Packer was sent (I say 'sent') back to BYU a couple months later to retract that statement.  The substance of what he said in the retraction is:

1) There is no official position on the Church's doctrine on the validity of the theory of evolution.
2) If you are going to study this field, be aware that there are many pitfalls in this topic.  You must be armed with a strong testimony in the gospel of Jesus Christ.

Edited December 19, 2017 by Guest

[brlenox]

1 minute ago, Carborendum said:

Little known fact about this particular speech.  Elder Packer was sent (I say 'sent') back to BYU a couple months later to retract that statement.  The substance of what he said in the retraction is:

1) There is no official position on the Church's doctrine on the validity of the theory of evolution.
2) If you are going to study this field, be aware that there are many pitfalls in this topic.  You must be armed with a strong testimony in the gospel of Jesus Christ.

Can you add some legitimacy to your observation by a source of reference?

[Guest]

Just now, brlenox said:

Can you add some legitimacy to your observation by a source of reference?

That would be great, wouldn't it.  I'm in the process of looking for it.

I know he said it because I was present at both speeches.

 

[Anddenex]

1 minute ago, anatess2 said:

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.

What you are describing is not evolution, nor is it organic evolution. Organic evolution, if we take it to human evolution, means Adam and Eve had parents. They didn't. What you are describing is different, and is not in relation to the quote from the First Presidency.

How did God create the human body, spiritually before it was temporally? That is what your question states and addresses. In light of the First Presidency quote, it did not come from a lower order of the animal creation. You just speak of a "mortal" shell, but a "mortal" shell? If all things were created spiritually before they were temporally, how does a "mortal" shell making Adam's body coincide? It doesn't. The shell of Adam was spiritual from the beginning before it became "mortal" -- flesh.

[Guest MormonGator]

What's more likely to cause a fistfight in religious forums-Insulting someones wife or mother? No. Insinuating that their children are ugly and stupid? No. Mentioning that their religion is false and based on lies? No. 

Saying anything about evolution? Gloves come off pal. 

Edited December 19, 2017 by MormonGator

[Rob Osborn]

1 hour ago, wenglund said:

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-

 

Your inquiry is common belief amongst LDS evolutionists. The only way it works for evolutionists is to believe two principles. That 1st. one is that up until Adam, the lower order of man was either spiritless or had a different kind of spirit than man has. The second principle they must believe in is that mortality had already been a part of the creation all along. Both of these principles have to be in place in order for LDS evolutionists to be right. The problem here is twofold. The first is that the official teachings of the church do not place any kind of death amongst Gods creations until after the fall. Up until that point Gods creations were all immortal and pronounced "good". Also of importance here is that up until the fall time and its reckoning with man itself had not yet been given. The fall brought both mortality into the earth and started the process leading to mans reckoning of time. The second issue here is that the 1909 statement in regards to mans origins states rather emphatically that Adam's body, his physical creation was not the result of evolution from lower orders of animals. This is why traditional Darwinian evolution is contrary to the teachings of Jesus Christ.

[Anddenex]

6 minutes ago, MormonGator said:

What's more likely to cause a fistfight in religious forums-Insulting someones wife or mother? No. Insinuating that their children are ugly and stupid? No. Mentioning that their religion is false and based on lies? No. 

Saying anything about evolution? Gloves come off pal. 

My gloves haven't even come close to coming off, now when you starting posting, my hands feel a little itchy!

[Guest MormonGator]

1 minute ago, Anddenex said:

My gloves haven't even come close to coming off, now when you starting posting, my hands feel a little itchy!

Hey pal, I'm 5'07', 170 pounds of sheer rock. Grr!!!!! 

[Anddenex]

Just now, MormonGator said:

Hey pal, I'm 5'07', 170 pounds of sheer rock. Grr!!!!! 

Well now pal, I'm 5'08', 150 punds of sheer granite. Double Grrr!

[Guest]

3 minutes ago, MormonGator said:

Hey pal, I'm 5'07', 170 pounds of sheer rock. Grr!!!!! 

2 minutes ago, Anddenex said:

Well now pal, I'm 5'08', 150 punds of sheer granite. Double Grrr!

Oh, yeah!?  Well, I'm 5-7, 180 lbs of pure kim chee.  So get ready to fight while plugging your nose!!

[Guest MormonGator]

3 minutes ago, Carborendum said:

Oh, yeah!?  Well, I'm 5-7, 180 lbs of pure kim chee.  So get ready to fight while plugging your nose!!

 

7 minutes ago, Anddenex said:

Well now pal, I'm 5'08', 150 punds of sheer granite. Double Grrr!

Let's film this, put it on pay per view and charge 49.99 to watch. We need a promoter. Who wants to be Don King? 

[Guest]

31 minutes ago, brlenox said:

Can you add some legitimacy to your observation by a source of reference?

I have searched all over the place. And found something rather odd.  I've found blogs and so forth with the first speech.  This is not so odd.  I couldn't find the second speech.  This is also not-so-notable.

Here's what's odd.  I went to the BYU speeches website.  Neither speech is available under Boyd K. Packer.  Why would they delete two of his speeches?  Especially the first that was so widely quoted?

I'll tell you that I was just a happy spectator at the time.  Apparently, the physical science department at BYU got all into a huff about the first speech.  One biology professor skipped over his regular class to declare that the speech was wrong in no uncertain terms.  The department pressured a retraction.  The 1P looked into it.  They sent him back.

Then the religion department got all into a huff about the second speech.  That was when I took my PoGP class.  My religion professor actually called for the excommunication of several biology professors.

[brlenox]

16 minutes ago, Carborendum said:

That would be great, wouldn't it.  I'm in the process of looking for it.

I know he said it because I was present at both speeches.

 

I do not doubt that you have a recollection of said events, but memory is a fickle mistress and I am positive he did not remove the atonement observation from his comments.  It is profoundly true and correct and if no one had ever said it until now it would be nonetheless true.  However I do look forward to your source information which would clarify for memories vicissitudes.  

[anatess2]

43 minutes ago, Anddenex said:

What you are describing is not evolution, nor is it organic evolution. Organic evolution, if we take it to human evolution, means Adam and Eve had parents. They didn't. What you are describing is different, and is not in relation to the quote from the First Presidency.

How did God create the human body, spiritually before it was temporally? That is what your question states and addresses. In light of the First Presidency quote, it did not come from a lower order of the animal creation. You just speak of a "mortal" shell, but a "mortal" shell? If all things were created spiritually before they were temporally, how does a "mortal" shell making Adam's body coincide? It doesn't. The shell of Adam was spiritual from the beginning before it became "mortal" -- flesh.

Adam and Eve's mortal body may have had evolutionary ancestors.  Those evolutionary ancestors do not make them Adam and Eve's father and mother.  Father and mother are spiritual beings.  Adam and Eve did not have one as they are the first.

God created spirit bodies.  I have a spirit body that God made for me.  That spirit body did not "transform" into the glob of fetal tissue that was inside my mother.  It simply "entered" the fetus in some form or fashion.  In the same manner, that mortal body does not transform into a resurrected body when I die.  It will turn to dust from whence it came from and my spirit body is the one that gets transformed, resurrected, and perfected in the end times.

Edited December 19, 2017 by anatess2

[Guest]

Just now, brlenox said:

I do not doubt that you have a recollection of said events, but memory is a fickle mistress and I am positive he did not remove the atonement observation from his comments.  It is profoundly true and correct and if no one had ever said it until now it would be nonetheless true.  However I do look forward to your source information which would clarify for memories vicissitudes.  

Well, if you look at my later post, it is confirmed by other people also commenting on the sequence of events.  It was not just me listening to the two talks.  It was a topic of conversation for a couple of years.

[brlenox]

2 minutes ago, Carborendum said:

I have searched all over the place. And found something rather odd.  I've found blogs and so forth with the first speech.  This is not so odd.  I couldn't find the second speech.  This is also not-so-notable.

Here's what's odd.  I went to the BYU speeches website.  Neither speech is available under Boyd K. Packer.  Why would they delete two of his speeches?  Especially the first that was so widely quoted?

I'll tell you that I was just a happy spectator at the time.  Apparently, the physical science department at BYU got all into a huff about the first speech.  One biology professor skipped over his regular class to declare that the speech was wrong in no uncertain terms.  The department pressured a retraction.  The 1P looked into it.  They sent him back.

Then the religion department got all into a huff about the second speech.  That was when I took my PoGP class.  My religion professor actually called for the excommunication of several biology professors.

Well, until we find it, it would be inappropriate to guess at it's contents.  I will also continue to search for it and perhaps we can come up with something.

[Rob Osborn]

10 minutes ago, anatess2 said:

Adam and Eve's body may have had evolutionary ancestors.  Those evolutionary ancestors do not make them Adam and Eve's father and mother.  Father and mother are spiritual beings.  Adam and Eve did not have one as they are the first.

God created spirit bodies.  I have a spirit body that God made for me.  That spirit body did not "transform" into the glob of fetal tissue that was inside my mother.  It simply "entered" the fetus in some form or fashion.  In the same manner, that mortal body does not transform into a resurrected body when I die.  It will turn to dust from whence it came from and my spirit body is the one that gets transformed, resurrected, and perfected.

You can twist it into whatever you like but its still contrary to the teachings of Christ.

[Guest]

16 minutes ago, brlenox said:

I do not doubt that you have a recollection of said events, but memory is a fickle mistress and I am positive he did not remove the atonement observation from his comments.  It is profoundly true and correct and if no one had ever said it until now it would be nonetheless true.  However I do look forward to your source information which would clarify for memories vicissitudes.  

I missed this the first go around.  I have no idea how you thought I said he removed anything about the atonement.  We're talking about evolution vis-a-vis Adam being the first man.  And the section I quoted said nothing about the atonement.

Edited December 19, 2017 by Guest

[anatess2]

13 minutes ago, Rob Osborn said:

You can twist it into whatever you like but its still contrary to the teachings of Christ.

As I said, the revelation does not state HOW dust became man before it got consecrated for Adam, therefore, it does not run contrary to the teachings of Christ.  But hey, you can have your own theory if you like.  It is simply one of the many possibilities.  And that's the beauty of science - we get to study in great depth the works and wonder of God's creation and come up with all these amazing possibilities.  Where religion becomes overbearing is when we treat the gospel that is meant as spiritual matter as the scientific text of mortal existence.  That's how you end up excommunicating Galileo.

Edited December 19, 2017 by anatess2

[brlenox]

4 minutes ago, Carborendum said:

I missed this the first go around.  I have no idea how you thought I said he removed anything about the atonement.  We're talking about evolution vis-a-vis Adam being the first man.  And the section I quoted said nothing about the atonement.

Uh oh!!! better look again.  Top post on page 5.  Ah Yes...memory is indeed a fickle mistress.......

Edited December 19, 2017 by brlenox

[Rob Osborn]

15 minutes ago, Carborendum said:

I have searched all over the place. And found something rather odd.  I've found blogs and so forth with the first speech.  This is not so odd.  I couldn't find the second speech.  This is also not-so-notable.

Here's what's odd.  I went to the BYU speeches website.  Neither speech is available under Boyd K. Packer.  Why would they delete two of his speeches?  Especially the first that was so widely quoted?

I'll tell you that I was just a happy spectator at the time.  Apparently, the physical science department at BYU got all into a huff about the first speech.  One biology professor skipped over his regular class to declare that the speech was wrong in no uncertain terms.  The department pressured a retraction.  The 1P looked into it.  They sent him back.

Then the religion department got all into a huff about the second speech.  That was when I took my PoGP class.  My religion professor actually called for the excommunication of several biology professors.

Years ago I used to privately dialogue with several of the zoology staff at BYU. The ones I talked to are not genuine honest folks. There has been a war over evolution being taught at BYU for a long time. The church tolerates it as accredation qualification is important. Needless to say, the fact remains that BYU controls and dominates most of accepted LDS academia and they are highly persuasive in snuffing out and censoring alternate views. I used to have my own blog that was part of the LDS archipelego. I got into a series of debates that turned sour when I accused Steven Peck of heavily censoring my posts and changing my written content. I called him out and the next day my blog was deleted and permantly banned from their archipelago. I was also banned shortly thereafter on the mormondialogue forum for the same thing. I am greatful for this forum as they are the only legitimate lds forum that doesnt police  and enforce one sided politics.

 

[Rob Osborn]

7 minutes ago, anatess2 said:

As I said, the revelation does not state HOW dust became man before it got consecrated for Adam, therefore, it does not run contrary to the teachings of Christ.  But hey, you can have your own theory if you like.  It is simply one of the many possibilities.  And that's the beauty of science - we get to study in great depth the works and wonder of God's creation and come up with all these amazing possibilities.

The revelations do say however that Adam was not an evolved species.

[anatess2]

2 minutes ago, Rob Osborn said:

The revelations do say however that Adam was not an evolved species.

Spiritual Adam.  The body was not Adam until Adam entered it.  So, Adam was not an ape that became human or birthed Cain and Abel as progressive apes.  Adam was human and everybody born of him were human.

Edited December 19, 2017 by anatess2

[Rob Osborn]

4 minutes ago, anatess2 said:

Spiritual Adam.  The body was not Adam until Adam entered it.

The body itself was not the result of evolution. Thats a factual part of revealed official doctrine.

[Guest]

6 minutes ago, brlenox said:

Uh oh!!! better look again.  Top post on page 5.

No.  I was talking about the fact that I made a comment about the quoted section from your series of quotations.

Then, specifically talking about the aspects of evolution that we are discussing in this thread, I said that Elder Packer had to retract those words.

Now, the section in Elder Packer's speech regarding the Atonement has nothing to do with what we are talking about in this thread.  (And I made NO reference about that in my previous posts).  So let me do so now.  He said that because evolution requires that everything is random, we deny the atonement.  That was his bottom line.  But we aren't saying that.  I don't know of anyone here who believes that any significant level of evolution could have succeeded based on randomness alone.  I believe that to fly in the face of all the laws of thermodynamics and the laws of probability.

No.  The fact is that natural processes are natural processes.  And left unto themselves we would always devolve, not evolve.

Edited December 19, 2017 by Guest