Adam and Eve and Evolution

[wenglund]

3 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. .

The fact that human's have the capacity to make clothes and shoes, build structures and devises to protect us from the sun and freezing cold, enables us to not only fit better, but thrive as the most fit on this planet than any other animal. But, then, I haven't been successfully indoctrinated by the Left to despise mankind.

In fact, while I find your comment somewhat absurd, if not also in a way lovable, it is far superior to what a monkey could come up with, let alone type into a computer and post  online.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

 

[Blossom76]

27 minutes ago, wenglund said:

The fact that human's have the capacity to make clothes and shoes, build structures and devises to protect us from the sun and freezing cold, enables us to not only fit better, but thrive as the most fit on this planet than any other animal. But, then, I haven't been successfully indoctrinated by the Left to despise mankind.

In fact, while I find your comment somewhat absurd, if not also in a way lovable, it is far superior to what a monkey could come up with, let alone type into a computer and post  online.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

 

My point is that without those things we would not survive, well not for very long anyway and not very well, so we are highly likely not the product of natural evolution.  

And we do damage our environment just by being here, the growing size of our population is a strain on the planet and the natural resources that are here, when we thrive, things die, and that's not absurd, that's a fact.  I don't despise mankind at all, but I do think God wants us to take care of the planet not destroy it.

Edited December 29, 2017 by Blossom76

[Traveler]

10 hours ago, Rob Osborn said:

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.

Just wondering - What is your opinion about the discrepancies we have in the different accounts of the creation? 

 

The Traveler

[Traveler]

10 hours ago, Anddenex said:

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:

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)."

 

It appears to me that most revelations that are recorded in scripture are symbolic.  When Jesus was asked why he taught using symbolism – He gave a most interesting answer which is ignored by many religious theologians that want to understand literal and not sybolism.  It is my personal theory that what many overlook is; that revelation is not about the past but is prophetic and thus has more to do with the future. 

 

The Traveler

[wenglund]

1 minute ago, Blossom76 said:

My point is that without those things we would not survive, well not for very long anyway and not very well, so we are highly likely not the product of natural evolution.  

It is a seriously flawed point given not only the reality that we do have those things, but also we have the brains to invent and make those things--brains which, according to modern science, are the product of natural evolution.

Quote

And we do damage our environment just by being here, the growing size of our population is a strain on the planet and the natural resources that are here, we we thrive, things die, and that's not absurd, that's a fact.  I don't despise mankind at all. 

But, the same applies to nearly every species when not only viewed in isolation, but when only the negative side of their existence is factored into the evaluative equation.

The irony is, humans are the only species on the planet capable of evaluating whether they are good for the planet or not, and this even when they do so illogically as you have done. In other words, even in our stupidity we are the most fit of the species. 

More important, they are the only ones capable of affecting positive change based on their evaluations. By that I mean, if humans determine that they are, on balance, inflicting undue and unnecessary damage to the planet, and supposedly threatening the planet, and thus the survival of humans, they have the capacity to fashion rational and effective solutions (this does not include the toxic Leftist move towards human annihilation) to correct that perceived problem.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[Blossom76]

2 minutes ago, wenglund said:

It is a seriously flawed point given not only the reality that we do have those things, but also we have the brains to invent and make those things--brains which, according to modern science, are the product of natural evolution.

But, the same applies to nearly every species when not only viewed in isolation, but when only the negative side of their existence is factored into the evaluative equation.

The irony is, humans are the only species on the planet capable of evaluating whether they are good for the planet or not, and this even when they do so illogically as you have done. In other words, even in our stupidity we are the most fit of the species. 

More important, they are the only ones capable of affecting positive change based on their evaluations. By that I mean, if humans determine that they are, on balance, inflicting undue and unnecessary damage to the planet, and supposedly threatening the planet, and thus the survival of humans, they have the capacity to fashion rational and effective solutions (this does not include the toxic Leftist move towards human annihilation) to correct that perceived problem.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Like I said in the beginning its just my opinion and I am entitled to have it, just as you are yours.  We don't agree and that's fine. 

[wenglund]

2 minutes ago, Blossom76 said:

Like I said in the beginning its just my opinion and I am entitled to have it, just as you are yours.  We don't agree and that's fine. 

Correct.

However, as the most evolved species, one might reasonably expect that while differing opinions may be fine, and to each their own, there would yet be some motivation to determine if one's opinion is not only of value, but whether or not it actually advances or degrades the human, if not also the world's condition. In other words, there is the presumption that practical humans would want to determine if their opinions will work towards good or ill.

Am I mistaken in that presumption in your case?

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[Blossom76]

1 minute ago, wenglund said:

Correct.

However, as the most evolved species, one might reasonably expect that while differing opinions may be fine, and to each their own, there would yet be some motivation to determine if one's opinion is not only of value, but whether or not it actually advances or degrades the human, if not also the world's condition. In other words, there is the presumption that practical humans would want to determine if their opinions will work towards good or ill.

Am I mistaken in that presumption in your case?

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

I don't presume anything and I suggest you don't either

[wenglund]

19 minutes ago, Traveler said:

 

It appears to me that most revelations that are recorded in scripture are symbolic.  When Jesus was asked why he taught using symbolism – He gave a most interesting answer which is ignored by many religious theologians that want to understand literal and not sybolism.  It is my personal theory that what many overlook is; that revelation is not about the past but is prophetic and thus has more to do with the future. 

Agreed. Furthermore, all things unto God are spiritual (D&C 29:29-35)

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[Traveler]

43 minutes ago, Blossom76 said:

My point is that without those things we would not survive, well not for very long anyway and not very well, so we are highly likely not the product of natural evolution.  

And we do damage our environment just by being here, the growing size of our population is a strain on the planet and the natural resources that are here, when we thrive, things die, and that's not absurd, that's a fact.  I don't despise mankind at all, but I do think God wants us to take care of the planet not destroy it.

 

It appears to me that there is a discrepancy in your post.  Mostly I do not believe we do “damage” by just being here but still have an obligation to G-d not to destroy our planet. 

Just a little note in passing – the LDS church owns a lot of raw land in Wyoming that has been managed using modern science.  The land has been divided into a grid and monitored for optimal use for one of the largest cattle herds in the Western US.   What they have discovered is that the land can be used to raise more cattle than if the land is not managed plus the wildlife does better and the land is also used for recreational by thousands.

It is interesting to me because environmentalists have taken the Church to court trying to shut down the high use of the property.  The Church’s defense has been to show that wild life does better on the property than on any of the nearby property that have been preserved for the specific use of wild life only.  Also, that the wild life does much better now on the same property before it was managed.

Scripture tells us that there is plenty and enough for all.  I believe the problem is pride and greed.  One last note – I use to consider myself an environmentalist – I was a member of a so-called international environmental organization but came into conflict because environmentalism has become more political than environmental.

 

The Traveler

[wenglund]

5 minutes ago, Blossom76 said:

I don't presume anything and I suggest you don't either

Actually, among several presumptuous things you have said on this thread alone, you just presumed to suggest that I not presume anything.

Nevertheless, I can see this exchange is going nowhere fast, and so my evolved human brain advises to let it be, and simply wish you all the best. 

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Edited December 29, 2017 by wenglund

[Blossom76]

14 minutes ago, Traveler said:

 

It appears to me that there is a discrepancy in your post.  Mostly I do not believe we do “damage” by just being here but still have an obligation to G-d not to destroy our planet. 

The Traveler

I'm not a hippy or anything like that, but as a species we do damage the planet, we cover it in concrete, we cut down the forests, we overuse natural resources, we cause a lot of pollution and we don't replenish as much as we damage.  I think we should be doing a better job of looking after the planet

Edited December 29, 2017 by Blossom76

[Blossom76]

14 minutes ago, wenglund said:

Actually, among several presumptuous things you have said on this thread alone, you just presumed to suggest that I not presume anything.

Nevertheless, I can see this exchange is going nowhere fast, and so my evolved human brain advises to let it be, and simply wish you all the best. 

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

I dont think its going anywhere either.  You presume the Theory of evolution is a fact, I don't and everything I said I made clear from the start was just my opinion. And I wish you all the best too.  

Edited December 29, 2017 by Blossom76

[wenglund]

1 minute ago, Blossom76 said:

I dont think its going anywhere either.  You presume evolution is a fact, everything I said I made clear from the start was just my opinion.

Here, you not only falsely presumed that I presume that evolution is a fact--I don't, but you also presume to infer that opinions are not presumptuous, when they very well can be, as your expressed opinions on this thread attest. 

I say this by way of clarification and correction rather than with intent to further engage.

Again, I wish you all the best. And, right or wrong, or presumptuous or otherwise, I will let you have the last word if you wish.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[Traveler]

11 minutes ago, Blossom76 said:

I'm not a hippy or anything like that, but as a species we do damage the planet, we cover it in concrete, we cut down the forests, we overdue natural resources, we cause a lot of pollution and we don't replenish as much as we damage.  I think we should be doing a better job of looking after the planet

 

I am an old guy that can remember when most homes were heated with coal than with natural gas.  The world is much better off today.  As per paved roads – I believe paved roads cause much less environmental damage (erosion) than crossing the wilderness without any pre-planning.

Also – concerning climate change – did you know that Jupiter is undergoing significant climate change and that the great storm eye (that has existed for thousands of years) that can be seen from earth is shrinking and will likely disappear within the next 5 years.  How is this possible in our same solar system and no humans there to cause it?????

 

The Traveler

Edited December 29, 2017 by Traveler

[Blossom76]

5 minutes ago, Traveler said:

 

I am an old guy that can remember when most homes were heated with coal than with natural gas.  The world is much better off today.  As per paved roads – I believe paved roads cause much less environmental damage (erosion) than crossing the wilderness without any pre-planning.

Also – concerning climate change – did you know that Jupiter is undergoing significant climate change and that the great storm eye (that has existed for thousands of years) that can be seen from earth is shrinking and will likely disappear within the next 5 years.  How is this possible in our same solar system and no humans there to cause it?????

 

The Traveler

Humanity may be better off but with the massive overpopulation and overuse of the natural resources, the planet isn't, I think its naive to think we don't have a negative effect on the earth.

And I don't think we are responsible for climate change at all. I NEVER said that, I said pollution, which is a completely different thing, the rubbish we create is astounding and certainly not having a positive effect on the environment.

[Blossom76]

26 minutes ago, wenglund said:

my evolved human brain advises to let it be

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Fair assumption considering this comment I thought.

 

13 minutes ago, wenglund said:

Here, you not only falsely presumed that I presume that evolution is a fact--I don't, but you also presume to infer that opinions are not presumptuous, when they very well can be, as your expressed opinions on this thread attest. 

I say this by way of clarification and correction rather than with intent to further engage.

Again, I wish you all the best. And, right or wrong, or presumptuous or otherwise, I will let you have the last word if you wish.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

But I apologise if you don't believe that the theory of evolution is a fact.  And I couldn't care less about 'the last word'

[CV75]

17 hours ago, Rob Osborn said:

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.

Do you really think the spiritual creation, the paradisaical creation, the Millennium, and the celestialization of the earth are of no importance? Do you really think these stages had no temporal existence?

None of what you say here prevents there being a span of time between the Fall, which is when death entered the physical world through a new organizing process, and the beginning of the 7,000 years of the earth's continuance (refer back to the definition--you seemed to ignore that point) some time after that, which is when Adam and his posterity entered the scene. That is what you have to address; can / will you? It might help if you would give straightforward answers to my other questions. D&C 77:6 pertains to the 7,000 segment of the earth's temporal existence as a continuance of previous stages and times.

Your gripe is that all the life in paradise became mortal at once, but you have no basis for that other than a very limited interpretation of D&C 77:6 and what some of the key words mean. Remember how Noah was the last to enter the post-Flood earth? It seems he was following the pattern of Adam in that Adam entered the fallen world only after he placed all other life into it.

[Vort]

9 hours ago, Traveler said:

Also – concerning climate change – did you know that Jupiter is undergoing significant climate change and that the great storm eye (that has existed for thousands of years) that can be seen from earth is shrinking and will likely disappear within the next 5 years.  How is this possible in our same solar system and no humans there to cause it?????

Darn Republicans.

[Guest]

2 minutes ago, Vort said:

Darn Republicans.

I blame Bush. Oh, wait.  That was so 1 year ago.  I blame Trump and his basket of deplorables.

Edited December 29, 2017 by Guest

[Vort]

3 minutes ago, Carborendum said:

I blame Bush. Oh, wait.  That was so 1 year ago.  I blame Trump and his basket of deplorables.

Blaming Bush is always the right call.

[Rob Osborn]

56 minutes ago, Traveler said:

Just wondering - What is your opinion about the discrepancies we have in the different accounts of the creation? 

 

The Traveler

I believe they all hold a measure of truth. Taken all together, I would have to say that only one thing is constant and that is mans arrival on the seventh day. Abraham is interesting because the six days of creation are about creating the earth and then preparing it for life but not actually placing life until the seventh day. It makes the most sense to create the conditions to support life. The seventh day was special because it pertains to life.

 

[Traveler]

9 hours ago, Blossom76 said:

Humanity may be better off but with the massive overpopulation and overuse of the natural resources, the planet isn't, I think its naive to think we don't have a negative effect on the earth.

And I don't think we are responsible for climate change at all. I NEVER said that, I said pollution, which is a completely different thing, the rubbish we create is astounding and certainly not having a positive effect on the environment.

 

Pollution?  Man is not adding anything to this planet that has not been an integral and essential part of this planet’s environment for millions of years.  As far as being hostile to other living organisms – 90% of extinct species had nothing to do with the existence of mankind.  Though I believe humans are an intelligent species (meaning capable of learning and correcting mistakes) – I believe humans are part of the “natural” environment and the evolutionary process of this planet.   It seems to me that not managing our resources (leaving everything to nature) is actually more devastating than poorly managing our resources as many suggest.   

For example – It appears to me that the failure to manage gender and family relationships are more of a threat to the human species (natural selection) among other things; as a trigger to inspire gluttony, waist and pollution than any other single factor threatening the continuation of human life on this planet.   As horrible as rape is in heterosexual relationships – the human species could and would survive longer if all humans were involved only in such relationships than if all of the human species were only involved in consensual homosexual relationships.

 

The Traveler

[NeedleinA]

9 hours ago, Blossom76 said:

but with the massive overpopulation

The earth is fulfilling it's purpose, in part, a place where Our Father in Heaven can send his spirit children to receive their physical bodies. Is it even possible to some how corrupt his plan by breeding too fast? I would suggest it is not and that God has already taken into account any speed/pace we as a population could manufacture.

Quote

D&C 104: 17 For the earth is full, and there is enough and to spare; yea, I prepared all things, and have given unto the children of men to be agents unto themselves.

 

Edited December 29, 2017 by NeedleinA

[Traveler]

16 minutes ago, Vort said:

Darn Republicans.

It has to be the probe we crashed into Jupiter – things were fine until then.  I guess you are right – Darn Republicans that would rather spend our precious monetary resources on space exploration than on the welfare needs of children.

 

The Traveler