Adam and Eve and Evolution

[anatess2]

4 minutes ago, Rob Osborn said:

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

Adam's body was human.  How Adam's body was created (the period between dust and human) we don't know.  We at least know from revealed official doctrine that the body evolved from dust by the hand of God.

Edited December 19, 2017 by anatess2

[brlenox]

1 minute ago, Carborendum said:

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.  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.  But left unto themselves we would always devolve, not evolve.

I'm afraid that I am going to have to call double foul on this one.

1.) the quote is listed in your comments that he had to retract "this" statement and you selected the quote on the atonement. I can't see that I made any error in simply reading what you stated in your reply.

2.) I wonder if you read my comments completely, esp. as to why the atonement is germane to this discussion and why Elder Packers comments form the most significant observation as to the implications of believing Adam is an evolved specimen.

[zil]

1 hour ago, anatess2 said:

The mortal shell does not become a Father if there is no Spirit in there

https://www.lds.org/scriptures/dc-testament/dc/77.2?lang=eng#p1

https://www.lds.org/scriptures/pgp/moses/3.5?lang=eng#p4

https://www.lds.org/scriptures/dc-testament/dc/29.31-32?lang=eng#p30

The notion of "life" without spirit is, in my opinion, an impossibility.  Life is synonymous with "spirit".  Something which lacks spirit is not alive, animated, capable of moving and thinking and acting.  It appears you believe things can be created and even animated physically without having spirit.  I believe scripture counters this idea.

(posted without yet reading beyond the post I quoted - apparently there are more than 20 posts to go still)

[brlenox]

5 minutes ago, anatess2 said:

Adam's body was human.  How Adam's body was created (the period between dust and human) we don't know.  We at least know from revealed official doctrine that the body evolved from dust by the hand of God.

Adam, our 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…. The doctrine of the pre-existence… pours a wonderful light upon the otherwise mysterious problem of man's origin. It shows that man, as a spirit, was begotten and born of heavenly parents… prior to coming upon the earth in a temporal body.

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 declares that Adam was 'the first man of all men'… and we are therefore in duty bound to regard him as the primal parent of our race. It was shown to the brother of Jared that all men were created in the beginning after the image of God; and whether we take this to mean in the spirit or the body, or both, it commits us to the same conclusion: Man began life as a human being, in the likeness of our Heavenly Father.

True it is that the body of man enters upon its career as a tiny germ embryo, which becomes an infant, quickened at a certain stage by the spirit whose tabernacle it is…. 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.

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

Man is the child of God, formed in the divine image and endowed with divine attributes, and even as the infant son of an earthly father and mother is capable in due time of becoming a man, so the undeveloped offspring of celestial parentage is capable, by experience through ages and aeons, of evolving into a God.

First Presidency (Joseph F. Smith, et al., 1909), "The Origin of Man," quoted in Encyclopedia of Mormonism, v. 4, pp. 1665-1669

[anatess2]

6 minutes ago, zil said:

https://www.lds.org/scriptures/dc-testament/dc/77.2?lang=eng#p1

https://www.lds.org/scriptures/pgp/moses/3.5?lang=eng#p4

https://www.lds.org/scriptures/dc-testament/dc/29.31-32?lang=eng#p30

The notion of "life" without spirit is, in my opinion, an impossibility.  Life is synonymous with "spirit".  Something which lacks spirit is not alive, animated, capable of moving and thinking and acting.  It appears you believe things can be created and even animated physically without having spirit.  I believe scripture counters this idea.

(posted without yet reading beyond the post I quoted - apparently there are more than 20 posts to go still)

Okay, now we need to qualify Spirit.  Spirit in my usage only includes human spirits of the Kingdom of God.  Whether my dog has a spirit or not is irrelevant because I do not believe Christ atoned for the sins of my dog.  My dog, therefore, cannot become a father of a human spirit and neither can any other non-humans in all of creation from beginning times to end times.

Edited December 19, 2017 by anatess2

[Guest]

2 minutes ago, brlenox said:

I'm afraid that I am going to have to call double foul on this one.

1.) the quote is listed in your comments that he had to retract "this" statement and you selected the quote on the atonement. I can't see that I made any error in simply reading what you stated in your reply.

2.) I wonder if you read my comments completely, esp. as to why the atonement is germane to this discussion and why Elder Packers comments form the most significant observation as to the implications of believing Adam is an evolved specimen.

1) Yes, I chose that quote out of the series of quotes because that ENTIRE SPEECH was the one I had additional knowledge about that I thought I'd share.  The fact that the speech touched on this idea that the Atonement and evolution were linked, I ignored because that was not what I was addressing.  And I have subsequently attempted to clarify that.  So, make a decision, are you going to hold to calling this foul because I ignored a single phrase in favor of the topic of the entire speech?  Or can we move on?

2) Now, I wonder if you read my comments completely because I did address that very thing in my last post.

[anatess2]

11 minutes ago, brlenox said:

 

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.

If you are saying that these lower orders of creation have human spirits, then THAT theory is inconsistent with the gospel and would therefore be false.  Adam is the first of pre-mortal man to have a mortal body.  The process by which the body was created up to and including how Adam's spirit entered the mortal body, we do not know and would be an interesting object of scientific theory.  But since science cannot prove that there's such a thing as a Spirit, then we will just have to leave it to the theories of men until such time that God shows us how it is done.

Edited December 19, 2017 by anatess2

[brlenox]

19 minutes ago, Carborendum said:

1) Yes, I chose that quote out of the series of quotes because that ENTIRE SPEECH was the one I had additional knowledge about that I thought I'd share.  The fact that the speech touched on this idea that the Atonement and evolution were linked, I ignored because that was not what I was addressing.  And I have subsequently attempted to clarify that.  So, make a decision, are you going to hold to calling this foul because I ignored a single phrase in favor of the topic of the entire speech?  Or can we move on?

2) Now, I wonder if you read my comments completely because I did address that very thing in my last post.

You are the funniest one to watch spin in circles.  Now I have to wonder if you were there at the first talk, or if you have read it subsequent to that event to refresh your memory.  You have selected a small portion which in your first response supports your statement of chance which I never referenced.  However had you read my statements and remembered or refreshed your observations of Elder Packers talk you might have realized that my comments do tie wonderfully to his comments as follows:
 

Quote

 

Elder Packer stated the following:

I give six reasons for my conviction:

Reason 1. The revelations from God. The revelations testify of the separate creation of man in the image of God—this after the rest of creation was finished. When the revelations do not fully explain something (and there is purpose in their not doing so), there is safety in clinging to whatever they do reveal. The creation of man and his introduction into mortality by the Fall as revealed in the scriptures conform to eternal laws governing both body and spirit.

If the theory of evolution applies to man, there was no Fall and therefore no need for an atonement, nor a gospel of redemption, nor a redeemer.

 

 

Edited December 19, 2017 by brlenox

[brlenox]

9 minutes ago, anatess2 said:

If you are saying that these lower orders of creation have human spirits, then THAT theory is inconsistent with the gospel and would therefore be false.  Adam is the first of pre-mortal man to have a mortal body.  The process by which Adam's spirit entered the mortal body, we do not know and would be an interesting object of scientific theory.  But since science cannot prove that there's such a thing as a Spirit, then we will just have to leave it to the theories of men until such time that God shows us how it is done.

I didn't say anything in that post.  In it's entirety it was a quote of Joseph F. Smith or the first presidency if you prefer and I don't think that they would even recognize anything you referenced above as reasonable or even sensible for that matter.

However, in the quote I did underline the thoughts of theirs that I thought were germane to your observation of not defining how Adam was created...I think they do a fine job of explanation and find it odd you skipped over that.

Edited December 19, 2017 by brlenox

[brlenox]

32 minutes ago, Rob Osborn said:

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.

 

I wondered if this was the same Rob Osborn from Mormondialogue.

[Guest MormonGator]

4 minutes ago, brlenox said:

I wondered if this was the same Rob Osborn from Mormondialogue.

It's actually me. My real name is Rob Osborn. I created @MormonGator as a secret identity. 

[brlenox]

Just now, MormonGator said:

It's actually me. My real name is Rob Osborn. I created @MormonGator as a secret identity. 

Oh.  What a surprise...Your tail looks smaller up close.

[zil]

33 minutes ago, anatess2 said:

Okay, now we need to qualify Spirit.  Spirit in my usage only includes human spirits of the Kingdom of God.  Whether my dog has a spirit or not is irrelevant because I do not believe Christ atoned for the sins of my dog.  My dog, therefore, cannot become a father of a human spirit and neither can any other non-humans in all of creation from beginning times to end times.

Read the linked scriptures.  They clearly teach that your dog and the grass it eats were spiritually created, thus having spirit. ("Spirit" with a capital "S" is short for the Holy Spirit or Holy Ghost, BTW.)

I get that everyone's gonna think what they think and I'm not gonna try to convince them otherwise - people are too brick wall on this topic - but those scriptures are clear.

Edited December 19, 2017 by zil

[Guest]

23 minutes ago, brlenox said:

You are the funniest one to watch spin in circles.  Now I have to wonder if you were there at the first talk, or if you have read it subsequent to that event to refresh your memory.  You have selected a small portion which in your first response supports your statement of chance which I never referenced. 

Sheesh! I skip over a single phrase in a normally TLDNR post and you're telling me I'm spinning in circles?  I spent an awful lot of time reading an awful lot of posts including your exceptionally long one.  A little leeway here?  You should be glad someone didn't simply skip over the entire post, as many did.

23 minutes ago, brlenox said:

If the theory of evolution applies to man, there was no Fall and therefore no need for an atonement, nor a gospel of redemption, nor a redeemer.

Yes, I addressed that.  Did you read what I wrote?  Did you read the rest of Elder Packer's statement?  It was his logic for making the statement in the first place.  You yourself provided the seed of that logic.  Just prior to your quote, he said.

Quote

If man is but an animal, then logic favors freedom without accountability or consequence. 

<your quote>

...

There are too many interconnections uniting the physical and the spiritual in man to suppose that they came at random or by chance

Thus his entire line of thinking is based on two assumptions about those who adhere to evolution.

1) Man is merely an animal.
2) Everything was random.

In case you haven't been reading all the posts, no one here has advocated those two points.  Now, do you understand this or not?

Edited December 19, 2017 by Guest

[anatess2]

12 minutes ago, brlenox said:

I didn't say anything in that post.  In it's entirety it was a quote of Joseph F. Smith or the first presidency if you prefer and I don't think that they would even recognize anything you referenced above as reasonable or even sensible for that matter.

However, in the quote I did underline the thoughts of theirs that I thought were germane to your observation of not defining how Adam was created...I think they do a fine job of explanation and find it odd you skipped over that.

I don't mean "you" as brlenox but "you" as generic you (one of the failures of the English language is the lack of a different word to differentiate the two).

You (I mean brlenox here) don't think Joseph F Smith would recognize anything I referenced is because Joseph F Smith, in my opinion, does not address anything outside of the realm of Spiritual Man when he talks about Adam.

Spiritual versus Mortal.

The perfect example I can give you is the position on abortion.  When a mother aborts the baby (complete with bishop's counsel), did she kill a Spiritual Being?  Is your answer Yes to all instances or is your answer - could be Yes could be No.  My answer is the latter.  The period of time that the fetus is in the mother's womb without the Spiritual Being having entered it is a period of time when that fetus is not a Spiritual Man.  That period of time is the same period of time "between dust and Adam".  A period of time NOT COVERED by prophetic revelation on the matter of man's origin because the revelation focuses on Adam as a Spiritual Man starting from his time with the Father in pre-mortal existence to the time he came to earth.  It does not cover how the body was created only that it was.  On the 6th day God created land animals and man.  How that happened we don't know.  What we know is that Adam was with the Father before creation and then he entered creation on the "6th day".

 

 

[brlenox]

6 minutes ago, Carborendum said:

Sheesh! I skip over a single phrase in a normally TLDNR post and you're telling me I'm spinning in circles?  I spent an awful lot of time reading an awful lot of posts including your exceptionally long one.  A little leeway here?  You should be glad someone didn't simply skip over the entire post, as many did.

Yes, I addressed that.  Did you read what I wrote?  Did you read the rest of Elder Packer's statement?  It was his logic for making the statement in the first place.  You yourself provided the seed of that logic.  Just prior to your quote, he said.

Thus his entire line of thinking is based on two assumptions about those who adhere to evolution.

1) Man is merely an animal.
2) Everything was random.

In case you haven't been reading all the posts, no one here has advocated those two points.  Now, do you understand this or not?

I tell you what, if you read my entire long post then why not comment on something I said or the essence of what I was trying to say and we'll just forget the rest of this spinning. 

[anatess2]

11 minutes ago, zil said:

Read the linked scriptures.  They clearly teach that your dog and the grass it eats were spiritually created, thus having spirit. ("Spirit" with a capital "S" is short for the Holy Spirit or Holy Ghost, BTW.)

I get that everyone's gonna think what they think and I'm not gonna try to convince them otherwise - people are too brick wall on this topic - but those scriptures are clear.

Zil, I don't disagree with you.  But reading those scriptures does not make my dog have a human spirit.

I use capital S Spirit when I'm trying to differentiate our Spirit from any other spirit.  It denotes the divine potential of our Spirit which is not present in dog spirits.

Edited December 19, 2017 by anatess2

[zil]

3 minutes ago, anatess2 said:

Zil, I don't disagree with you.  But reading those scriptures does not make my dog have a human spirit.

I never said he had a human spirit, just spirit.  Your argument requires one of two things:

1) Animate, but spirit-less, beings existed and evolved into something a sliver shy of "man"

2) Animate beings with non-man spirits evolved into something a sliver shy of "man"

...then, regardless of which of these happened, one of these happened:

A) Adam's spirit entered into the fetus produced by one of the above

B) Adam's spirit entered into the spirit-less being birthed by one of the above (or replaced the non-man spirit in the being birthed by one of the above)

...I find all of them preposterous.

[brlenox]

4 minutes ago, anatess2 said:

I don't mean "you" as brlenox but "you" as generic you (one of the failures of the English language is the lack of a different word to differentiate the two).

You (I mean brlenox here) don't think Joseph F Smith would recognize anything I referenced is because Joseph F Smith, in my opinion, does not address anything outside of the realm of Spiritual Man when he talks about Adam.

Spiritual versus Mortal.

The perfect example I can give you is the position on abortion.  When a mother aborts the baby (complete with bishop's counsel), did she kill a Spiritual Being?  Is your answer Yes to all instances or is your answer - could be Yes could be No.  My answer is the latter.  The period of time that the fetus is in the mother's womb without the Spiritual Being having entered it is a period of time when that fetus is not a Spiritual Man.  That period of time is the same period of time "between dust and Adam".  A period of time NOT COVERED by prophetic revelation on the matter of man's origin because the revelation focuses on Adam as a Spiritual Man starting from his time with the Father in pre-mortal existence to the time he came to earth.  It does not cover how the body was created only that it was.  On the 6th day God created land animals and man.  How that happened we don't know.  What we know is that Adam was with the Father before creation and then he entered creation on the "6th day".

 

 

Quote

True it is that the body of man enters upon its career as a tiny germ embryo, which becomes an infant, quickened at a certain stage by the spirit whose tabernacle it is…. 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. (Joseph F. Smith)

If then you feel Joseph F. Smith is only talking about spiritual man, are you stating that the above portion of the quote is defining how a spiritual man is created and that that entails an act of fertilization?

[Guest]

8 minutes ago, brlenox said:

I tell you what, if you read my entire long post then why not comment on something I said or the essence of what I was trying to say and we'll just forget the rest of this spinning. 

So, you're now committing the same sin you accused me of... ok.

[brlenox]

1 minute ago, Carborendum said:

So, you're now committing the same sin you accused me of... ok.

I never accused of a request to be civil.. still I extend the hand of compromise to discuss actual comments made and I will do the same for you.  A truce I seek - nothing more.

[brlenox]

1 hour ago, anatess2 said:

Adam's body was human.  How Adam's body was created (the period between dust and human) we don't know.  We at least know from revealed official doctrine that the body evolved from dust by the hand of God.

I think Elder McConkie explains this condition very well and I can't see that it supports any concept of idea of an "evolved body":

 

Quote

 

Continuing the divine commentary about the Creation, we read: "And I, the Lord God, formed man from the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul, the first flesh upon the earth, the first man also; nevertheless, all things were before created; but spiritually were they created and made according to my word." (Moses 3:7.) How filled with meaning are these words! The physical body of Adam is made from the dust of this earth, the very earth to which the Gods came down to form him. His "spirit" enters his body, as Abraham expresses it. (See Abr. 5:7.) Man becomes a living, immortal soul; body and spirit are joined together. He has been created "spiritually," as all things were because there is as yet no mortality. Then comes the Fall; Adam falls; mortality and procreation and death commence. Fallen man is mortal; he has mortal flesh; he is "the first flesh upon the earth." And the effects of his fall pass upon all created things. They fall in that they too become mortal. Death enters the world; mortality reigns; procreation commences; and the Lord's great and eternal purposes roll onward.

 

Thus, "all things" were created as spirit entities in heaven; then "all things" were created in a paradisiacal state upon the earth; that is, "spiritually were they created," for there was as yet no death. They had spiritual bodies made of the elements of the earth as distinguished from the mortal bodies they would receive after the Fall when death would enter the scheme of things. Natural bodies are subject to the natural death; spiritual bodies, being paradisiacal in nature, are not subject to death. Hence the need for a fall and the mortality and death that grows out of it.

 

Thus, as the interpolative exposition in the divine word explains, "I, the Lord God, planted a garden eastward in Eden, and there I put the man whom I had formed." (Moses 3:8.) Adam, our father, dwelt in the Garden of Eden. He was the first man of all men in the day of his creation, and he became the first flesh of all flesh through the Fall. Because of the Fall "all things" changed from their spiritual state to a natural state. And thus we read: "And out of the ground made I, the Lord God, to grow every tree, naturally, that is pleasant to the sight of man; and man could behold it. And it became also a living soul. For it was spiritual in the day that I created it." (Moses 3:9; italics added). ( McConkie, Bruce R., Christ and the Creation, Ensign, June 1982, p. 14)

 

 

Edited December 19, 2017 by brlenox
A creative flaw

[Traveler]

There has been some discussion about the spirit part of the human soul of man.   We are told that mankind has both a spirit body and a physical body.  I do not know much about what a spirit body is – only that it looks a lot like the physical body.  For example, I do not know that a spirit body has all the organs that a physical body does.  Does our spirit body have and appendix?  I really do not know.  I am inclined to think that it does – that the spirit and the physical are somehow tied.  But we do know there are exceptions or at least we think we know. 

If a person has lost a limb to amputation – I assume that the spirit retains its limb.  But I do not know this is the case.  The human physical body is comprised of millions of individual cells.  These cells are constantly dying off and being replaced at a rate that will completely turn over about ever 7 years.  Is our spirit body also comprised of individual cells?  Does each individual living cell have a counterpart spirit cell?   I do not know.  Some have insisted in this thread that there is no life without spirit.  I am not 100% sure that this is always true.

The ancient Apostle John talks about not being sure if he was in his body or not during certain revelations.  I am not sure if the physical body ceases to “live” or have life without the corresponding spirit.  I do understand that the spirit leaves the body when we die but what I do not know is; if exceptions are possible – I think there may be exceptions but I do not want to go to Hell for believing in some exception – no do I want to challenge someone’s intelligence for not accepting my opinion.

Part of the problem with debates over evolution is that life is evolution.  In a sense, we define death as what happens when our physical bodies no longer evolve.  Can we take human cells and genetically engineer (forced evolution) to create something different?  If someone is thinking no! – think again because it has already been done.  My wife is a type 1 diabetic.  She relies on modified pig cells to produce insulin that she can use to sustain her life.  We are currently experimenting with methods of genetic modification to cure many other human ailments. 

There has been some talk that G-d the Father is the literal father of our spirits.  Currently fathers and mothers supply live individual parts of them that unite to begin the creation of our children.  Did G-d use some of his spirit to initiate our spirit body?  If he didn’t – I am confused what others are implying when they say G-d is the liter Father of our spirits.  Were we born a spirit zygote in the pre-existence?  I do not know.  And I do not know what someone is saying when they say we were literal offspring.  I have an opinion – but I don’t know.

What I do know is that whenever I encounter someone that thinks they know the answers and if I start asking questions – they will duck and dodge and never answer my questions.  I resolve two things from such responses.  First that they do not know as much as they think they know and second – they do not want to learn or explorer anything related to what they do not know.

 

The Traveler

Edited December 19, 2017 by Traveler

[Traveler]

10 minutes ago, brlenox said:

I think Elder McConkie explains this condition very well and I can't see that it supports any concept of idea of an "evolved body":

 

 

Is Eve the "Mother" of all living?  A title given to her before she had children?  If something is created from us - are we its parent?  Is it possible that G-d used his own DNA and modified it to create other living things?

 

The Traveler

[brlenox]

34 minutes ago, Traveler said:

Is Eve the "Mother" of all living?  A title given to her before she had children?  If something is created from us - are we its parent?  Is it possible that G-d used his own DNA and modified it to create other living things?

 

The Traveler

For myself the entire concept of "continuation of the seeds" speaks to a possibility that this does not reference only the seeds of direct offspring but indeed may find realization in the ability to manage the creative processes of all existing species and perhaps might enable the formation of new forms of life.  That is pure speculation, which I do not do often but it is the closest thing that I have to a thought that matches, as I read them, your implications.

Quote

 

When you tell me that father Adam was made as we make adobes from the earth, you tell me what I deem an idle tale. When you tell me that the beasts of the field were produced in that manner, you are speaking idle words devoid of meaning. There is no such thing in all the eternities where the Gods dwell.

Mankind are here because they are the offspring of parents who were first brought here from another planet, and power was given them to propagate their species, and they were commanded to multiply and replenish the earth. ((Brigham Young, JD 7:285-286.))

 

However, that said, When Brigham Young indicates that Adam's origins were on a different planet and then he was brought to this earth, that seems so much more reasonable to me than to think that every time God populates a planet that he forces an evolutionary process that not only goes to great lengths to recreate mankind but what is already running around freely from other creative effort in the form of any species of life that exist throughout creation.  So, if a new life form was created from the DNA of God...? would all subsequent iterations of that life form require the same initial process or from the point of their creation would they most likely be replicated through normal birth processes and relocated?

Edited December 19, 2017 by brlenox