Adam and Eve and Evolution

[CV75]

On 12/18/2017 at 1:57 AM, zlllch said:

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

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

The evidence is certainly there, but I do not think it is conclusive, and science certainly does not recognize Adam not pre-adamites. That said, I've toyed around with the following:

The Lord abides eternal law to the point Himself is the full expression of eternal law. In premortality, I imagine that we were infused with celestial law in a spirit condition, which by virtue of having no body, was only partially expressed, hence a third part made the bad choice. Adam in Eden (and all his stewardship) was in a "filtered" situation where eternal law was expressed only at the the paradiasical level, and when he fell, or chose to live by telestial law, only the telestial laws were filtered and came through the big bang (or the more current theory of the cosmic inflation of vacuum energy of space fabric) and he and all his stewardship then had to abide accordingly. These telestial laws are what we see working to organize and sustain the universe as we understand it. They would include evolution.

So we have the pre-mortal spirit creation in the presence of God's celestial creation (which was made for Him), the paradisaical creation, the telestial creration (our world), the Millennial world (Christ's creation), the celestialization of the earth, and the continuation of the seeds in its adjoining pre-mortal spirit creation (and so we have the eternal round). Each successive iteration of creation follows the pattern or template of the world preceding it, each stage essential the plan of progress and happiness. Each one re-organizes or recreates the former according to its respective laws. We will now advance and recreate the world in the Millennium under terretsrial law (as the inhabitants of Enoch's Zion and other translated people have done), and proceed toward celestial law and exaltation.

I'm suggesting that the filtering of telestial law is an example of where the physical laws come from. With the filtering came disconnection or apparent inconsistencies and contradictions between the various laws, including how we conceptualize them (and this even happened with such laws as mercy and justice). As we advance into higher laws, they will be brought back together again through the unifying law or power of God as expressed in the Atonement of Christ.

At any rate, evolution was the telestial way, and the long way around, of bringing life to earth (life in Eden was simply transported there). But that is the nature of fallen law. Adam observed and managed some of these transactions in his stewardship over billions of years, and 6,000 years ago found it was the right time to enter the fallen world, have his own posterity and carry out his ministry. Whatever varieties of "human being" had evolved up to that time, most of which had gone extinct, were to be adopted into God's family at some point.

Just for the sake of discussion.

[zlllch]

4 minutes ago, Traveler said:

I would think that definitive statements should be developed with exhaustive verification.  One of the reasons that there is such a divide between science and religion is because many in religion come to unverified conclusions only to be proven wrong with a preponderance of empirical evidence.   Advances in science, physics, medical care and engineering are mostly products of secularism.  Though I personally prefer devout LDS – I will rely (seek advice and help) on an atheistic doctor proficient in his particular discipline – and not just prayer alone – for my personal needs.

I recently underwent surgical procedures for a macular hole to save my eyesight.  The problem is genetic that caused my grandfather (a wonderful man of great faith – and LDS) to go blind – despite his and many other’s prayers.  And if anyone is wondering – I also sought a priesthood blessing and the result is that I still have 20/20 vision with is quite unusual for someone my age.  Standing with one foot in G-d and one foot in secularism serves me quite well.

 

The Traveler

Matthew 18:16

But if he will not hear thee, then take with thee one or two more, that in the mouth of two or three witnesses every word may be established.

Science and religion are two sides of the same coin. They both witness the truth. Thanks for sharing your experience!

[CV75]

4 minutes ago, zlllch said:

Matthew 18:16

But if he will not hear thee, then take with thee one or two more, that in the mouth of two or three witnesses every word may be established.

Science and religion are two sides of the same coin. They both witness the truth. Thanks for sharing your experience!

Do you have an example where scientific truth embraces religious truth?

[Traveler]

1 minute ago, CV75 said:

Do you have an example where scientific truth embraces religious truth?

That man can "evolve" without some pre-determined limit and become a G-d.

 

The Traveler

[brlenox]

43 minutes ago, Traveler said:

 

Just about any non-surface understanding on doctrine involves some level of speculation.  It would seem that the more we understand (line upon line and precept upon precept) the more we discover questions that become part of our seeking, knocking and asking (quest) for truth.  D&C 93:28 suggests that as we “keep the commandments” we will continue down a path that increases our understanding until we come to “know all things”.  It seems that the great secret is to “keep the commandments”.

I believe all revelation that pertains to the everlasting covenant (Plan of Salvation) is and will be revealed through the priesthood and those that hold the priesthood keys as necessary.  But it also seems to me that many things that are true (Science) is revealed directly to those that seek.

I find Brigham Young’s statements of the origins of Adam interesting – along with your speculations.  The latest and most popular scientific theories of the beginnings of life on earth is that life on earth likely had extra-terrestrial origins.   I also find it interesting that definite (although small) amounts of Neanderthal DNA has been found in small percentages of our modern human population.  I, myself, believe that there is more genius in curiosity than there is in conjuring up some answer that has little or nothing to do with the disciplines and rigors of studying things out before asking of the spirit.

 

The Traveler

 

From some research I did some years ago, I found it interesting that quite frequently we find overlays of religious theology with scientific advancement. Your reference to extra terrestrials as a source of life and the juxtaposition against Brigham Young's statements of Adam's origins one such example.  The order of events is off by President Young's standards but here is another such comparison. Brigham states:

 

Quote

When the earth was framed and brought into existence and man was placed upon it, it was near the throne of our Father in heaven. And when man fell—though that was designed in the economy, there was nothing about it mysterious or unknown to the Gods, they understood it all, it was all planned—but when man fell, the earth fell into space, and took up its abode in this planetary system, and the sun became our light. When the Lord said—"Let there be light," there was light, for the earth was brought near the sun that it might reflect upon it so as to give us light by day, and the moon to give us light by night. This is the glory the earth came from, and when it is glorified it will return again unto the presence of the Father, and it will dwell there, 20. (Brigham Young, Journal of Discourses, 17:143.)

 

For many this was an unlikely possibility before, as a priority for scientific support of theological claims takes precedence over the considerations of prophets: hopefully it has become more feasible as we observe many of the current postulates that are rapidly coming forth with the considerable increase in cosmological knowledge. This observation from astronomers illustrates how science is coming around to recognize conditions touted as truth by theologians and completely rejected by scientists until they catch up with evidences in the realms of proofs: Please consider this observation in light of Brigham Young's inspired musings:

 

Quote

This is the cosmic puzzle that now confronts astrophysicists. Some scientists are speculating that this could mean that our sun originated from someplace else in the galaxy with much less oxygen, and then somehow moved to its present location. (http://www.space.com/15628-sun-slower-shock-wave-missing.html)

 

These possibilities as they might apply to Adam's origins seem so much more probable in that evolution never terminates in it's highest expectations as beings of an eternal existence.  Only if God created an eternal being and then placed him can we find consensus in theology.  Perhaps it shall ever be as Robert Jastrow observes:

Quote

 

“For the scientist who has lived by his faith in the power of reason, the story ends like a bad dream. He has scaled the mountains of ignorance; he is about to conquer the highest peak; as he pulls himself over the final rock, he is greeted by a band of theologians who have been sitting there for centuries.”(Robert Jastrow, ''God and the Astronomers ''(New York: W.W. Norton Press, 1978), p. 116.)

 

 

Edited December 20, 2017 by brlenox
For the absence of finite boundaries

[Traveler]

7 minutes ago, brlenox said:

 

From some research I did some years ago, I found it interesting that quite frequently we find overlays of religious theology with scientific advancement. Your reference to extra terrestrials as a source of life and the juxtaposition against Brigham Young's statements of Adam's origins one such example.  The order of events is off by President Young's standards but here is another such comparison. Brigham states:

 

 

For many this was an unlikely possibility before, as a priority for scientific support of theological claims takes precedence over the considerations of prophets: hopefully it has become more feasible as we observe many of the current postulates that are rapidly coming forth with the considerable increase in cosmological knowledge. This observation from astronomers illustrates how science is coming around to recognize conditions touted as truth by theologians and completely rejected by scientists until they catch up with evidences in the realms of proofs: Please consider this observation in light of Brigham Young's inspired musings:

 

This is the cosmic puzzle that now confronts astrophysicists. Some scientists are speculating that this could mean that our sun originated from someplace else in the galaxy with much less oxygen, and then somehow moved to its present location. (http://www.space.com/15628-sun-slower-shock-wave-missing.html)

 

These possibilities as they might apply to Adam's origins seem so much more probable in that evolution never terminates in it's highest expectations as beings of an eternal existence.  Only if God created an eternal being and then placed him can we find consensus in theology.  Perhaps it shall ever be as Robert Jastrow observes:

 

“For the scientist who has lived by his faith in the power of reason, the story ends like a bad dream. He has scaled the mountains of ignorance; he is about to conquer the highest peak; as he pulls himself over the final rock, he is greeted by a band of theologians who have been sitting there for centuries.”(Robert Jastrow, ''God and the Astronomers ''(New York: W.W. Norton Press, 1978), p. 116.)

 

Unfortunately, the Great Apostasy separated science and religion.  It has been my experience that theologians have resisted science much more than scientist have resisted religion.  It would seem that scientist want a religion that respects empirical evidence and most theologians want a religion the ignores empirical evidence.

 

The Traveler

[brlenox]

1 minute ago, Traveler said:

 

Unfortunately, the Great Apostasy separated science and religion.  It has been my experience that theologians have resisted science much more than scientist have resisted religion.  It would seem that scientist want a religion that respects empirical evidence and most theologians want a religion the ignores empirical evidence.

 

The Traveler

I believe it to be a challenge of intrinsic expectations.  One discipline finds value in the priority of believing in the absence of proof while the other ostensibly requires proof as the priority of belief.

[Guest MormonGator]

1 hour ago, DoctorLemon said:

Yabba dabba doo!

Zen like layers of meaning to that one my friend. 

[brlenox]

10 hours ago, zlllch said:

Many of these quotes reference Brigham Young's teachings that Adam was actually God the Father, otherwise known as Adam-God theory. These teachings have been formally disavowed by the church. A few of the rest of them contain the official church doctrine, but most are just the opinions of individual church leaders, which does not constitute church doctrine.

"We warn you against the dissemination of doctrines which are not according to the Scriptures and which are alleged to have been taught by some of the General Authorities of past generations. Such, for instance, is the Adam-God theory. We denounce that theory and hope that everyone will be cautioned against this and other kinds of false doctrine."

—Spencer W. Kimball, "Our Own Liahona," Ensign (November 1976)

Elden Watson purports to have insider information on your quote.  Please consider:
 

Quote

 

There has been an official statement made on this subject by President Spencer W. Kimball, made in the Priesthood session of October conference 1976.

We hope that you who teach in the various organizations, whether on the campuses or in our Chapels, will always teach the orthodox truth. We warn you against the dissemination of doctrines which are not according to the Scriptures and which are alleged to have been taught by some of the General Authorities of past generations. such, for instance, is the Adam-God theory. We denounce that theory and hope that everyone will be cautioned against this and other kinds of false doctrine. (See Ensign, November 1976 p. 77)

Several important things can be gleaned from this brief statement by President Kimball:

• The Adam-God theory is not orthodox truth.
• The Adam-God theory is a doctrine which is not in accordance with scripture.
• The Adam-God theory is alleged to have been taught by some of the General Authorities of past generations.
• The Adam-God theory is false doctrine.

At the time this statement was made in the 1976 Priesthood conference, I was serving on a priesthood committee under the direction of Elder Mark E. Petersen. We were at that time working with a number of people who believed the Adam-God theory, and our committee wanted to know more precisely what President Kimball meant by his statement, so through Elder Petersen we made an appointment with him and asked him. In a private interview President Kimball made the following clarifications: He said that he did not say that President Brigham Young did not make the statements which are attributed to him, nor did he claim that they were falsely reported. Neither did he say that Brigham Young taught false doctrine. What he did say and what he meant is that the Adam-God theory is false, and the Adam-God theory is that interpretation which is placed on Brigham Young's words by present day apostates and fundamentalists - their understanding of what Brigham Young meant is false. (http://www.eldenwatson.net/7AdamGod.htm)

 

 

[wenglund]

18 hours ago, Rob Osborn said:

Exvept that the stance you explain is not a doctrine of the church. The official doctrine of the church is tgat there was no death on the earth until the fall. I dont care how one dices it, thats the facts.

While the stances I have mentioned aren't dogma for the Church (thankfully),  they fit quite nicely with many  of its teachings, and may well be useful in seeking Christ--which is the fundamental point of the gospel. 

Regarding what you call "official doctrine," again, it depends upon what is meant by "death" as well as the intended scope thereof. In terms of one of the stances I mentioned, prior to Adam and Eve, even physical death had yet to occur within the covenant world God had created, in part because that world didn't begin until Adam and Eve, though the non-covenant world  did predate them, but was relatively dark and devoid of form. .

I think it is important to understand that the creation and garden stories are very ancient. Some similar versions thereof date to more than 10,000 years ago. The multiple versions we have in our LDS scriptures are also several thousands of years old, dating back to Abraham and Moses.

The significance of this is that these stories predate science and philosophy. By that I mean that  they predate the way our modern minds reason and learn and formulate paradigms or world views. Prior to logic and empiricism, people "debated" and taught through the use of stories--oft using fantasy or dream-like characters and events to convey meaning and to "act out" archetypes and the like. 

And, while there are some disadvantage to such stories compared to modern epistemiological methods (less clarity, certitude, etc.), there are some advantage, chief among them being illuminating layers of meaning. It is like the difference between reading a well crafted doctoral dissertation compared with experiencing a master painting or symphony or play.

The point being, it doesn't work so well when we attempt to force the round peg of ancient Near East stories into the square hole of modern  Western thought. Instead, if you wish to glean great value from the ancient stories, then it may be best to read the scriptures and attend the temple with an open heart and mind, rather than with scalpel or beaker or pastel and mortar, and let them wash over you and work their magic like an opus of Rembrandt or Beethoven or Shakespeare. Enter the dream-lie state in the Spirit and witness order miraculously emerging from chaos, and the mysteries of godliness unfold.

Dissecting them here or submitting them to logical or scientific scrutiny elsewhere, particularly in the pursuit of dogma, will simply and perhaps inevitably produce disorder--i.e. it will sow the seeds of confusion and disunity, moving the subject matter from a semblance of order back to chaos.

Just a suggestion.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[Guest]

10 minutes ago, brlenox said:

Elden Watson purports to have insider information on your quote.  Please consider:
 

 

I have read all of those adam-God quotes, and I don't find them to be nearly as controversial as made out to be.  They clearly delineate between Adam and God the Father as two different people.  The only real thing they seem to say that is new is that Adam had something to do with turning the souls of men from intelligences to souls.  Since we know we have gone through several phases in eternity past (intelligence to soul to mortal), and Adam certainly had something to do with giving us physical bodies, is it really so controversial to say Adam had something to do with helping us become spirits from intelligences? 

I agree, we will probably do very well just sticking to what is taught in the scriptures.  But all of that Adam-God stuff is nowhere near as big of a deal as made out to be.

One more thing - Adam-God definitely is NOT Church doctrine - it was never ratified by the leadership of the Church, and was only spoken of by Brigham Young in a very small number of very cryptic remarks.  But it is food for thought if anyone is actually bothered by Adam-God.

Edited December 20, 2017 by DoctorLemon

[brlenox]

34 minutes ago, CV75 said:

Do you have an example where scientific truth embraces religious truth?

My favorite is the Book of Moses observation of worlds without number.  A theological statement that has been held in derision until the past few decades, while there have been fringe folks who could see the potential for such, the first mainstream observation I have found was not until 1989 with consensus achieved with Kepler 1.

[zlllch]

1 hour ago, CV75 said:

Do you have an example where scientific truth embraces religious truth?

Alma 30:44

"...The scriptures are laid before thee, yea, and all things denote there is a God; yea, even the earth, and all things that are upon the face of it, yea, and its motion, yea, and also all the planets which move in their regular form do witness that there is a Supreme Creator."

"In the end, truth has only one content and one source, and it encompasses both science and religion."
-- Dallin H. Oaks

"The LDS Church has a great scientific tradition, including notable, respected researchers in virtually every field of modern science. Indeed, our motto is “The glory of God is intelligence.” Why not just acknowledge that science and religion address two very different sets of questions, and that the methodology in one arena cannot settle controversies in the other?" -- David H. Bailey 

While religion testifies of theological and spiritual truth, science testifies of natural and physical truth. It is an effort to understand the natural laws and principles God has instated in order to form the universe in perfect order and balance. Religion seeks to discover the mysteries of God, science seeks to discover the mysteries of God's creation. 

[brlenox]

18 minutes ago, DoctorLemon said:

I have read all of those adam-God quotes, and I don't find them to be nearly as controversial as made out to be.  They clearly delineate between Adam and God the Father as two different people.  The only real thing they seem to say that is new is that Adam had something to do with turning the souls of men from intelligences to souls.  Since we know we have gone through several phases in eternity past (intelligence to soul to mortal), and Adam certainly had something to do with giving us physical bodies, is it really so controversial to say Adam had something to do with helping us become spirits from intelligences? 

I agree, we will probably do very well just sticking to what is taught in the scriptures.  But all of that Adam-God stuff is nowhere near as big of a deal as made out to be.

One more thing - Adam-God definitely is NOT Church doctrine - it was never ratified by the leadership of the Church, and was only spoken of by Brigham Young in a very small number of very cryptic remarks.  But it is food for thought if anyone is actually bothered by Adam-God.

Your final sentence is the thought I would like to respond to.  The theology which falls under the LDS banner can sometimes be found to be outside the banner of church doctrine.  Mother in Heaven is a classic example. However, I think that the issue is one of inherent responsibility.  The church as an organization has an umbrella of doctrine that is generally reflective of a fundamental level of understanding and responsibility to carry the gospel to the world. The church fosters the basics of doctrine that each must know to build upon as a foundation but the church does not promulgate as it's own many "doctrines" that find reference in the Journal of Discourses or less widespread delivery such as talks given in select places.

That said the church also has an objective to lead you and I to the point of establishing the Holy Ghost as our guide.  Once there we are left to be tutored and taught and often things not part of the official doctrinal cannon which are true.  Thus we each develop personal doctrine which the church is under no obligation to sustain as it is outside of it's official purview. This split level of doctrine is a unique and wonderful aspect of LDS theology for those who are spiritually mature.  We find the foundation in the church doctrines and then we have the opportunity to move forward in knowledge wisdom and understanding of areas far beyond if we take the Holy Spirit as our guide. For those who feel bound to remain within the constraints of official doctrine it is a safe place, but true growth in the gospel individually insists that we explore beyond the official stance to finds the Lord's insight, else Alma 12:9 (it is given many to understand the mysteries of God) serves no purpose. 

[zlllch]

1 hour ago, CV75 said:

The evidence is certainly there, but I do not think it is conclusive, and science certainly does not recognize Adam not pre-adamites. That said, I've toyed around with the following:

The Lord abides eternal law to the point Himself is the full expression of eternal law. In premortality, I imagine that we were infused with celestial law in a spirit condition, which by virtue of having no body, was only partially expressed, hence a third part made the bad choice. Adam in Eden (and all his stewardship) was in a "filtered" situation where eternal law was expressed only at the the paradiasical level, and when he fell, or chose to live by telestial law, only the telestial laws were filtered and came through the big bang (or the more current theory of the cosmic inflation of vacuum energy of space fabric) and he and all his stewardship then had to abide accordingly. These telestial laws are what we see working to organize and sustain the universe as we understand it. They would include evolution.

So we have the pre-mortal spirit creation in the presence of God's celestial creation (which was made for Him), the paradisaical creation, the telestial creration (our world), the Millennial world (Christ's creation), the celestialization of the earth, and the continuation of the seeds in its adjoining pre-mortal spirit creation (and so we have the eternal round). Each successive iteration of creation follows the pattern or template of the world preceding it, each stage essential the plan of progress and happiness. Each one re-organizes or recreates the former according to its respective laws. We will now advance and recreate the world in the Millennium under terretsrial law (as the inhabitants of Enoch's Zion and other translated people have done), and proceed toward celestial law and exaltation.

I'm suggesting that the filtering of telestial law is an example of where the physical laws come from. With the filtering came disconnection or apparent inconsistencies and contradictions between the various laws, including how we conceptualize them (and this even happened with such laws as mercy and justice). As we advance into higher laws, they will be brought back together again through the unifying law or power of God as expressed in the Atonement of Christ.

At any rate, evolution was the telestial way, and the long way around, of bringing life to earth (life in Eden was simply transported there). But that is the nature of fallen law. Adam observed and managed some of these transactions in his stewardship over billions of years, and 6,000 years ago found it was the right time to enter the fallen world, have his own posterity and carry out his ministry. Whatever varieties of "human being" had evolved up to that time, most of which had gone extinct, were to be adopted into God's family at some point.

Just for the sake of discussion.

Wow that's a really interesting explanation, I'd never thought about it that way, thanks for sharing! What you said about celestial law being partially expressed in our spiritual condition definitely seems to ring true with these verses from D&C 93:

31 Behold, here is the agency of man, and here is the condemnation of man; because that which was from the beginning is plainly manifest unto them, and they receive not the light.
32 And every man whose spirit receiveth not the light is under condemnation.

 

[Guest]

5 minutes ago, brlenox said:

Your final sentence is the thought I would like to respond to.  The theology which falls under the LDS banner can sometimes be found to be outside the banner of church doctrine.  Mother in Heaven is a classic example. However, I think that the issue is one of inherent responsibility.  The church as an organization has an umbrella of doctrine that is generally reflective of a fundamental level of understanding and responsibility to carry the gospel to the world. The church fosters the basics of doctrine that each must know to build upon as a foundation but the church does not promulgate as it's own many "doctrines" that find reference in the Journal of Discourses or less widespread delivery such as talks given in select places.

That said the church also has an objective to lead you and I to the point of establishing the Holy Ghost as our guide.  Once there we are left to be tutored and taught and often things not part of the official doctrinal cannon which are true.  Thus we each develop personal doctrine which the church is under no obligation to sustain as it is outside of it's official purview. This split level of doctrine is a unique and wonderful aspect of LDS theology for those who are spiritually mature.  We find the foundation in the church doctrines and then we have the opportunity to move forward in knowledge wisdom and understanding of areas far beyond if we take the Holy Spirit as our guide. For those who feel bound to remain within the constraints of official doctrine it is a safe place, but true growth in the gospel individually insists that we explore beyond the official stance to finds the Lord's insight, else Alma 12:9 (it is given many to understand the mysteries of God) serves no purpose. 

Well said, sir.  Well said.

[zlllch]

4 hours ago, brlenox said:

That said the church also has an objective to lead you and I to the point of establishing the Holy Ghost as our guide.  Once there we are left to be tutored and taught and often things not part of the official doctrinal cannon which are true.  Thus we each develop personal doctrine which the church is under no obligation to sustain as it is outside of it's official purview. This split level of doctrine is a unique and wonderful aspect of LDS theology for those who are spiritually mature.  We find the foundation in the church doctrines and then we have the opportunity to move forward in knowledge wisdom and understanding of areas far beyond if we take the Holy Spirit as our guide. For those who feel bound to remain within the constraints of official doctrine it is a safe place, but true growth in the gospel individually insists that we explore beyond the official stance to finds the Lord's insight, else Alma 12:9 (it is given many to understand the mysteries of God) serves no purpose.

Well said, thanks for this insight!

Edit: Although, I have to mention, anything outside the realm of official church doctrine is speculation. Sometimes we are right in our speculations, and sometimes we are wrong. It is unwise and prideful to give too much credence to our speculations, we always must be humble enough to abandon them completely and fall back on official church doctrine if it turns out we were wrong.

Edited December 20, 2017 by zlllch

[CV75]

1 hour ago, Traveler said:

That man can "evolve" without some pre-determined limit and become a G-d.

 

The Traveler

Huh? While I agree with that statement, it is not a scientific principle, which is what i was asking for The point I'm making is that religious truth encompasses scientific truth, but science does not reciprocate.

[zlllch]

34 minutes ago, DoctorLemon said:

Well said, sir.  Well said.

Haha I didn't realize you beat me to the punch here.

[CV75]

1 hour ago, brlenox said:

My favorite is the Book of Moses observation of worlds without number.  A theological statement that has been held in derision until the past few decades, while there have been fringe folks who could see the potential for such, the first mainstream observation I have found was not until 1989 with consensus achieved with Kepler 1.

Again, while I agree with that, it is not a scientific principle, which is what i was asking for. The point I'm making is that religious truth encompasses scientific truth, otherwise the theological principle would not have been held in derision for so long.

[CV75]

52 minutes ago, zlllch said:

Alma 30:44

"...The scriptures are laid before thee, yea, and all things denote there is a God; yea, even the earth, and all things that are upon the face of it, yea, and its motion, yea, and also all the planets which move in their regular form do witness that there is a Supreme Creator."

"In the end, truth has only one content and one source, and it encompasses both science and religion."
-- Dallin H. Oaks

"The LDS Church has a great scientific tradition, including notable, respected researchers in virtually every field of modern science. Indeed, our motto is “The glory of God is intelligence.” Why not just acknowledge that science and religion address two very different sets of questions, and that the methodology in one arena cannot settle controversies in the other?" -- David H. Bailey 

While religion testifies of theological and spiritual truth, science testifies of natural and physical truth. It is an effort to understand the natural laws and principles God has instated in order to form the universe in perfect order and balance. Religion seeks to discover the mysteries of God, science seeks to discover the mysteries of God's creation. 

Again, while I agree with that, witnessing of a Supreme Creator is not a scientific principle, which is what I was asking for. Even LDS scientists don't use science to witness for God in scientific publications and circles. This is an example of the faithful embracing scientific truth, not the other way around, which is the point I'm making by the question i asked.

[CV75]

41 minutes ago, zlllch said:

Wow that's a really interesting explanation, I'd never thought about it that way, thanks for sharing! What you said about celestial law being partially expressed in our spiritual condition definitely seems to ring true with these verses from D&C 93:

31 Behold, here is the agency of man, and here is the condemnation of man; because that which was from the beginning is plainly manifest unto them, and they receive not the light.
32 And every man whose spirit receiveth not the light is under condemnation.

I know that not much of what I wrote is very scientific, but it shows how religious truth can embrace scientific truth, while a scientist would have me locked up in the loony bin!

[Rob Osborn]

2 hours ago, Traveler said:

I would think that definitive statements should be developed with exhaustive verification.  One of the reasons that there is such a divide between science and religion is because many in religion come to unverified conclusions only to be proven wrong with a preponderance of empirical evidence.   Advances in science, physics, medical care and engineering are mostly products of secularism.  Though I personally prefer devout LDS – I will rely (seek advice and help) on an atheistic doctor proficient in his particular discipline – and not just prayer alone – for my personal needs.

I recently underwent surgical procedures for a macular hole to save my eyesight.  The problem is genetic that caused my grandfather (a wonderful man of great faith – and LDS) to go blind – despite his and many other’s prayers.  And if anyone is wondering – I also sought a priesthood blessing and the result is that I still have 20/20 vision with is quite unusual for someone my age.  Standing with one foot in G-d and one foot in secularism serves me quite well.

 

The Traveler

This reminds me of this story

"A man was patching a pitched roof of a tall building when he began sliding off. As he neared the edge of the roof he prayed, "Save me, Lord, and I'll go to church every Sunday, I'll give up drinking, I'll be the best man this city has ever known."
As he finished his prayer, a nail snagged onto his overalls and saved him. The man looked up to the sky and shouted, "Never mind, God. I took care of it myself."

So quick are we to pat ourselves on the back for great acclaim in all our indeavors including advancements in medicine, engineering, etc. The truth is that God is behind all truth and helps man in all aspects of our lives even guiding the very hand of the skilled surgeon. Secularism is the paradigm of actions void of God or the intentional dismissing of God. All I can say is good luck with all that. Empirical evidence is a funny thing because many would claim such empirical evidence as a means for acceptance when in reality, by unbiased standards, their "empirical evidence" is anything but that! Such is the case when it comes to human evolution. There is supposedly this "empirical evidence" proving how humans are the end product of life originating from nothing billions of years ago. Just because they can find a fossil jawbone of some ape-like creature doesnt equate to "empirical evidence". Thats not exhaustive verification. Similarities in DNA also isnt empirical evidence either. The differences even between us and chimps are so extensive on the DNA level that there just isnt a viable pathway that could allow for such vast changes even in small portions (in DNA that "small" equates to billions of bits of specified information) of the sequences. One of the principles involved in Darwinian evolution is that change cant be guided by or preceded by an intelligent process. This is why, under close scrutiny, that flys do not gain new intelligent information when copy errors happen and natural selection acts upon those changes. If anything, empirical evidence is mounting to uphold this enigma that man did not, nor could have originated from animals.

I think it would genuinely surprise us at just how extensive Gods hand is in all things. In fact, all things are supposed to manifest of Christ our creator. He has given us his word and it still remains to be overturned. In time secularism will bury themselves in all their folly.

[zlllch]

5 minutes ago, CV75 said:

Again, while I agree with that, witnessing of a Supreme Creator is not a scientific principle, which is what I was asking for. Even LDS scientists don't use science to witness for God in scientific publications and circles. This is an example of the faithful embracing scientific truth, not the other way around, which is the point I'm making by the question i asked.

Well in that case I don't think there is a scientific principle which proves the existence of God. That's why we have to have faith. Science proves things with empirical evidence, and there isn't any for the existence of God. Any evidence we have for God's existence is individually attained and non-transferable from person to person.

When I said religion and science are two sides of the same coin, I intended for that coin to represent truth in general, not necessarily the same truths. 

[Rob Osborn]

1 hour ago, wenglund said:

While the stances I have mentioned aren't dogma for the Church (thankfully),  they fit quite nicely with many  of its teachings, and may well be useful in seeking Christ--which is the fundamental point of the gospel. 

Regarding what you call "official doctrine," again, it depends upon what is meant by "death" as well as the intended scope thereof. In terms of one of the stances I mentioned, prior to Adam and Eve, even physical death had yet to occur within the covenant world God had created, in part because that world didn't begin until Adam and Eve, though the non-covenant world  did predate them, but was relatively dark and devoid of form. .

I think it is important to understand that the creation and garden stories are very ancient. Some similar versions thereof date to more than 10,000 years ago. The multiple versions we have in our LDS scriptures are also several thousands of years old, dating back to Abraham and Moses.

The significance of this is that these stories predate science and philosophy. By that I mean that  they predate the way our modern minds reason and learn and formulate paradigms or world views. Prior to logic and empiricism, people "debated" and taught through the use of stories--oft using fantasy or dream-like characters and events to convey meaning and to "act out" archetypes and the like. 

And, while there are some disadvantage to such stories compared to modern epistemiological methods (less clarity, certitude, etc.), there are some advantage, chief among them being illuminating layers of meaning. It is like the difference between reading a well crafted doctoral dissertation compared with experiencing a master painting or symphony or play.

The point being, it doesn't work so well when we attempt to force the round peg of ancient Near East stories into the square hole of modern  Western thought. Instead, if you wish to glean great value from the ancient stories, then it may be best to read the scriptures and attend the temple with an open heart and mind, rather than with scalpel or beaker or pastel and mortar, and let them wash over you and work their magic like an opus of Rembrandt or Beethoven or Shakespeare. Enter the dream-lie state in the Spirit and witness order miraculously emerging from chaos, and the mysteries of godliness unfold.

Dissecting them here or submitting them to logical or scientific scrutiny elsewhere, particularly in the pursuit of dogma, will simply and perhaps inevitably produce disorder--i.e. it will sow the seeds of confusion and disunity, moving the subject matter from a semblance of order back to chaos.

Just a suggestion.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Sounds like you just described how secularism operates.

Assuming our ancient ancestors were fairy land dreamers is a great mistake. But, as you say, it does pave the way to dismiss the Book of Mormon entirely because no one that ancient could have built ships to cross oceans to get to the Americas. For them their only logical reality is the bearing stait ice bridge. And that based off of a complete lack of belief that our ancestors were just as smart as us. Yeah, we think we know it all with our modern western intelligence.