Adam and Eve and Evolution

[Traveler]

24 minutes ago, Rob Osborn said:

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.

 

 

What do you believe is more correct and important - what is taught in in scripture , including the "Book of Abraham" or what is taught in the temple as we make covenants with G-d?

 

The Traveler

[Rob Osborn]

29 minutes ago, Traveler said:

 

What do you believe is more correct and important - what is taught in in scripture , including the "Book of Abraham" or what is taught in the temple as we make covenants with G-d?

 

The Traveler

The temple. But I am not sure the temple is most detailed in respect to the creation.

[Rob Osborn]

1 hour ago, CV75 said:

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.

There certainly isnt room for billions of years of "time". Thats the very definition of "temporal".

[CV75]

30 minutes ago, Rob Osborn said:

There certainly isnt room for billions of years of "time". Thats the very definition of "temporal".

You keep saying that but you aren't backing it up with anything. Look up the very definition of "temporal" and then tell me what it has to do with "time." LOL

[Traveler]

38 minutes ago, Rob Osborn said:

The temple. But I am not sure the temple is most detailed in respect to the creation.

I would suggest that the details you do not or cannot validate (particularly difficult) from what is learned at the temple (especially in respect to “the creation”) are not as valuable or as important as what otherwise may be thought.

 

The Traveler

[Traveler]

54 minutes ago, Rob Osborn said:

There certainly isnt room for billions of years of "time". Thats the very definition of "temporal".

Just a thought concerning special relativity – If one could accelerate a starship with the force of gravity such that the speed would continue until the speed of light was reached and then travel to the farthest point of the universe and then return to earth – those on the starship would experience less than a week of time.  But billions of years would have passed for those that remained on earth.  If the starship was accelerated with a force 10 times gravity – the trip would be less than a day but still billions of years for those remaining on earth.

If Eden was somewhere very distant to our current solar system – say close to Kolob or where G-d dwells and if such was such distant – Adan could have been cast out of Eden to earth in less than a day but the time would have been billions of years on earth.  Perhaps there is more room than you have been willing to consider.  Maybe mortal fallen man is not capable of traveling beyond the speed of light????

 

The Traveler

Edited December 29, 2017 by Traveler

[Rob Osborn]

1 hour ago, CV75 said:

You keep saying that but you aren't backing it up with anything. Look up the very definition of "temporal" and then tell me what it has to do with "time." LOL

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/temporal

[Rob Osborn]

1 hour ago, Traveler said:

Just a thought concerning special relativity – If one could accelerate a starship with the force of gravity such that the speed would continue until the speed of light was reached and then travel to the farthest point of the universe and then return to earth – those on the starship would experience less than a week of time.  But billions of years would have passed for those that remained on earth.  If the starship was accelerated with a force 10 times gravity – the trip would be less than a day but still billions of years for those remaining on earth.

If Eden was somewhere very distant to our current solar system – say close to Kolob or where G-d dwells and if such was such distant – Adan could have been cast out of Eden to earth in less than a day but the time would have been billions of years on earth.  Perhaps there is more room than you have been willing to consider.  Maybe mortal fallen man is not capable of traveling beyond the speed of light????

 

The Traveler

Except that Eden is part of the earth. Doesnt work.

In a dream I had I used a urim and thummin around my neck to look through it, see a planet in the universe and then almost instantly being transported there. Im not opposed to faster than light travel by heavenly beings. The problem with the earth is that Eden was and is part of the earth and as such, according to Abraham, the entire sphere is subject to the time of its reckoning.

[CV75]

1 hour ago, Rob Osborn said:

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/temporal

This is a non-answer. I'll leave you with this as you evidently don't wish to have a conversation:

First, let's use a reference that is more contemporary to the time D&C 77 was written: http://webstersdictionary1828.com/Dictionary/temporal

According to one definition, the one you seem to think supports your notion, the scriptural reference to the temporal existence of the earth refers to its worldly (as opposed to a sacred or eternal) condition. What makes the earth worldly? ANS: Adam and his descendants in their fallen condition. This does not prevent the earth from existing for billions of years in a natural (as opposed to spirit or paradisaical) state when there were no fallen people under God’s economy which would exist prior to the 7,000 year period of reckoning.

This gets back to the point you seem unable or unwilling to acknowledge: the meaning of’ “continuance” in relation to temporal (worldly) existence. When did this worldly continuance commence? ANS: From a point in time before fallen Adam was upon earth, no matter how much time passed between his partaking of the forbidden fruit and his arrival upon the earth as a fallen mortal.

Now if want to shift back to a definition where “temporal” relates to time (the progress of existence and events in the past, present, and future regarded as a whole, whether measured incrementally or not), the 7,000 year period is only a “continuance” from something bigger and so follows an indeterminate period of time (even billions of years!) that was not reckoned by, because it predated, fallen Adam and his posterity, and which is not accounted for in scripture.

Which definition are you using again?

 

[CV75]

1 hour ago, Rob Osborn said:

Except that Eden is part of the earth.

***

The problem with the earth is that Eden was and is part of the earth and as such, according to Abraham, the entire sphere is subject to the time of its reckoning.

But Eden was only part of the paradisaical earth, with a corresponding locale in the telestial earth (Jackson County, Mo.). Note that Adam could not have performed sacrifices in paradise; Adam did not dwell in the garden after his expulsion, and Adam-ondi-Ahman (where the mortal Adam lived and offered sacrifice) is not located in Eden. Adam's reckoning changed between paradise and Adam-ondi-Ahman, and there is no telling how long it tool to make that change. Could have been billions of years!

Just as Zion was taken up, Eden could have been taken up until the earth was ready to receive a mortal Adam, at which point it was placed in its proper location in Jackson County, Mo. and became a telestial place. In the meantime, billions of years of telestial or natural law reigned upon the earth to prepare a telestial place for a telestial man.

[Blossom76]

5 hours ago, Traveler said:

 

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

https://www.dosomething.org/us/facts/11-facts-about-pollution 

Pollution from mankind is a big problem on this planet.  It's a fact, I think the Church should be getting involved in environmental charities and members should be donating their time to help as well (I certainly do).  God gave us this planet to live on, the very least we can do is admit there is a problem and do something positive to look after it better.

I can see there is no point continuing on this thread, so I will stop commenting

Edited December 29, 2017 by Blossom76

[Rob Osborn]

1 hour ago, CV75 said:

This is a non-answer. I'll leave you with this as you evidently don't wish to have a conversation:

First, let's use a reference that is more contemporary to the time D&C 77 was written: http://webstersdictionary1828.com/Dictionary/temporal

According to one definition, the one you seem to think supports your notion, the scriptural reference to the temporal existence of the earth refers to its worldly (as opposed to a sacred or eternal) condition. What makes the earth worldly? ANS: Adam and his descendants in their fallen condition. This does not prevent the earth from existing for billions of years in a natural (as opposed to spirit or paradisaical) state when there were no fallen people under God’s economy which would exist prior to the 7,000 year period of reckoning.

This gets back to the point you seem unable or unwilling to acknowledge: the meaning of’ “continuance” in relation to temporal (worldly) existence. When did this worldly continuance commence? ANS: From a point in time before fallen Adam was upon earth, no matter how much time passed between his partaking of the forbidden fruit and his arrival upon the earth as a fallen mortal.

Now if want to shift back to a definition where “temporal” relates to time (the progress of existence and events in the past, present, and future regarded as a whole, whether measured incrementally or not), the 7,000 year period is only a “continuance” from something bigger and so follows an indeterminate period of time (even billions of years!) that was not reckoned by, because it predated, fallen Adam and his posterity, and which is not accounted for in scripture.

Which definition are you using again?

 

Its not really worth the back and forth. I feel strongly one way and you feel strongly another. Lets call it a good day and move on.

[CV75]

31 minutes ago, Rob Osborn said:

Its not really worth the back and forth. I feel strongly one way and you feel strongly another. Lets call it a good day and move on.

I don't feel strongly about the topic, but I do feel strongly about justifying assertions and straightforwardness in addressing challenges and questions.

[Rob Osborn]

This is probably my last say in this thread so I will state my beliefs and move on.

I believe God created the heavens and earth. I believe he brought animals and seeds here to replicate after their kind. I further believe we are the literal physical seed of God and not the product of evolution. I also believe in the global flood, that it destroyed the earth and from those geologic events we have mountains and valleys of sediment layers wherein lies the dead from that flood as testament. I will never retract these beliefs. I believe they are all true just as Christ is our Savior is true.

[Traveler]

10 hours ago, Rob Osborn said:

Except that Eden is part of the earth. Doesnt work.

....

Where does it explicitly say that?

 

The Traveler

[NeedleinA]

15 hours ago, Rob Osborn said:

I believe God created the heavens and earth. I believe he brought animals and seeds here to replicate after their kind. I further believe we are the literal physical seed of God and not the product of evolution. I also believe in the global flood, that it destroyed the earth and from those geologic events we have mountains and valleys of sediment layers wherein lies the dead from that flood as testament. I will never retract these beliefs. I believe they are all true just as Christ is our Savior is true.

Hi @Rob Osborn -
Not arguing with you, as I once strongly thought/believed as you do. I had a very black & white stance on evolution vs. being LDS. Things have changed greatly for me personally. I no longer see that divide, but rather a blended compatible harmony between the two. If this subject matters to you, which I suppose it does, I offer up for your consideration the following, a brief quote and a BYU produced video: Evolving Faith. Putting Evolution in an LDS context
I believe every member owes it to themselves to at least watch the first 13 minutes of this video, and then the rest if time permits.

Quote

New Era 2016: What does the Church believe about evolution?
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.

 

 

Edited December 30, 2017 by NeedleinA

[Rob Osborn]

9 hours ago, Traveler said:

Where does it explicitly say that?

 

The Traveler

You are joking right?

[Rob Osborn]

1 hour ago, NeedleinA said:

Hi @Rob Osborn -
Not arguing with you, as I once strongly thought/believed as you do. I had a very black & white stance on evolution vs. being LDS. Things have changed greatly for me personally. I no longer see that divide, but rather a blended compatible harmony between the two. If this subject matters to you, which I suppose it does, I offer up for your consideration the following, a brief quote and a BYU produced video: Evolving Faith. Putting Evolution in an LDS context
I believe every member owes it to themselves to at least watch the first 13 minutes of this video, and then the rest if time permits.

 

 

Steven Peck eh? Let me just say a few words and that will be all. Me and Steven have had our rounds of debate. He was the cause for my blog to be banned from the LDS archipelego years ago. He would censor me and parts of my posts that didnt agree with his. I confronted him over this and he lied about it publicly. He is a very dishonest man. In several back and forth emails he confided in me that he wasnt sure how God fits into the creation and that God himself was probably the result of nature itself. He puts on a great facade but behind that hes as dishonest as they come.

[NeedleinA]

51 minutes ago, Rob Osborn said:

He is a very dishonest man.
He puts on a great facade but behind that hes as dishonest as they come.

Curious, have you also had the same experience/run in with other LDS scientists who see God and Evolution working together? One not excluding the other, but rather working together.
If Dr. Peck is to be discredited for being dishonest, as you say, how about the others who also share a similar view?

 

[CV75]

18 hours ago, Rob Osborn said:

This is probably my last say in this thread so I will state my beliefs and move on.

I believe God created the heavens and earth. I believe he brought animals and seeds here to replicate after their kind. I further believe we are the literal physical seed of God and not the product of evolution. I also believe in the global flood, that it destroyed the earth and from those geologic events we have mountains and valleys of sediment layers wherein lies the dead from that flood as testament. I will never retract these beliefs. I believe they are all true just as Christ is our Savior is true.

You do realize that I too believe these very same things.

The first three statements are clearly scriptural.

Your fourth statement of belief is a mingling of scripture with geology (a philosophy of man), and the geologic observation you are making to support scripture is not in fact testified of in scripture. No that there's anything inherently wrong in that.

My beef is your using such combined spiritual and secular beliefs to counter other people who are in good faith doing the same thing to reconcile the observations from other physical sciences (e.g. horology, biology, cosmology and theology) with the scriptural account. I haven’t noticed any atheists in the thread (I haven’t been following much other than our dialog), but it seems that ultimately all agree that all these things, no matter how we observe them scientifically, are brought about by the power of God.

[Maureen]

On 28/12/2017 at 11:56 PM, 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....

We can speculate that this great storm has been occuring for possibly 400 years. The link I am providing says the Jupiter storm might last another 10 to 20 years. Can you provide a source for your information?

http://www.businessinsider.com/jupiter-great-red-spot-death-2017-7

M.

[NeedleinA]

52 minutes ago, CV75 said:

but it seems that ultimately all agree that all these things, no matter how we observe them scientifically, are brought about by the power of God.

^^^This

[the Ogre]

On 12/18/2017 at 3:55 PM, NeuroTypical said:

. . . if I was to summarize my thoughts on the whole experience, it would be this: Scientific ignorance is not a Christian virtue . . .

Right on the dot. I love this idea and wish for more of this kinda thought from people. Ignorance is not a Christian virtue. Sure, it happens, but insisting on it is problematic. Disagreeing with a scientific finding for religious reasons is a little more passable, particularly when scientists disagree with each other over the minutia of scientific discovery, but raising children to be ignorant is a disservice to the children and to society in general and, in my opinion, one of the reasons why our children are deserting religion.

[Rob Osborn]

4 hours ago, NeedleinA said:

Curious, have you also had the same experience/run in with other LDS scientists who see God and Evolution working together? One not excluding the other, but rather working together.
If Dr. Peck is to be discredited for being dishonest, as you say, how about the others who also share a similar view?

 

I hope there are honest evolutionists out there. I had a conversation with Duane Jeffery, a BYU professor, who was also on the board at the NCSE, a known anti creation organization. He told me there was friction between his position as board member at the NCSE and the prophet and apostles. Its one of the main reason they came out with the BYU evolution packet as teachings and beliefs amongst professors at BYU do not coincide with the gospel.

[Rob Osborn]

2 hours ago, the Ogre said:

Right on the dot. I love this idea and wish for more of this kinda thought from people. Ignorance is not a Christian virtue. Sure, it happens, but insisting on it is problematic. Disagreeing with a scientific finding for religious reasons is a little more passable, particularly when scientists disagree with each other over the minutia of scientific discovery, but raising children to be ignorant is a disservice to the children and to society in general and, in my opinion, one of the reasons why our children are deserting religion.

They are deserting religion because of all the secular teachings and philosophies. Its not ignorance but rather indoctrination into secular atheism.