Doctrine regaurding evolution?

[Aelswyth]

The low estimate of world population in 5000 BC was 5 million... that is people were being born and dying long before Adam as well as after.

I suppose that God could have created Adam and Eve though some process other than birth like the millions of other people living at that time but it would be odd if he did.

Of course, there's always the possibility that the genealogies by which that date was established are not complete/correct due to the numerous interruptions, captivities, etc. over the millennia; a possibility not so far out there, since we know already of genealogical discrepancies and also that the records of the Hebrews have been subject to much editing and revision (and much has been lost). There is, too, the known tendency in the Bible for genealogies to skip generations for whatever reason and yet present themselves as unbroken lines, because the ancestor/descendant relationship is still known even though the links in between may not be. A "father" may be your great-great-great-great grandfather, a "son" may be six or seven generations removed.

A simple reading of the Biblical narrative seems to indicate a beginning much, much earlier than 5000 B.C. So I tend to regard the genealogical approach to establishing a time-frame as inherently flawed. By the internal details of the story, I'd have to place Adam and Eve at the latest around 10, 000 B.C., probably earlier.

[Aelswyth]

The low estimate of world population in 5000 BC was 5 million... that is people were being born and dying long before Adam as well as after.

I suppose that God could have created Adam and Eve though some process other than birth like the millions of other people living at that time but it would be odd if he did.

Of course, there's always the possibility that the genealogies by which that date was established are not complete/correct due to the numerous interruptions, captivities, etc. over the millennia; a possibility not so far out there, since we know already of genealogical discrepancies and also that the records of the Hebrews have been subject to much editing and revision (and much has been lost). There is, too, the known tendency in the Bible for genealogies to skip generations for whatever reason and yet present themselves as unbroken lines, because the ancestor/descendant relationship is still known even though the links in between may not be. A "father" may be your great-great-great-great grandfather, a "son" may be six or seven generations removed.

A simple reading of the Biblical narrative seems to indicate a beginning much, much earlier than 5000 B.C. So I tend to regard the genealogical approach to establishing a time-frame as inherently flawed. Based on the internal details of the story, I'd have to place Adam and Eve at the latest around 10, 000 B.C., probably earlier.

[Hemidakota]

I couldn't see where anyone had posted Mike Ash's MormonFortress article yet:

http://www.mormonfortress.com/evolution.pdf

Exceptional remarkable article in presenting masses amount of research data. Congrats to Mike on job well done.

OTHERS: what is puzzling, did anyone ask Darwin, what was his main motivation to create such book or account? Or perhaps Lyle’s added expressions to concrete the book? Isn’t this a case of the ‘Law of Perpetuation?’ Do we today, acknowledge the same teaching have fallen under the same law?

I have to agree somewhat with Bruce McConkie on his choosing his father in-law affirmation stance and the indifferences it does cause. I only wish that President J.F. Smith would declare if it was revelation or second hand information from early prophet – namely Joseph Smith.

I have yet to see any anything in the secular or science realm that reveals that DNA can progress into a higher form without outside helping hand. Same goes with the current stance on the Big Bang Theory. Looking at a woman’s fertile egg, when impregnated [outside source required], embryonic growth stills requires an outside source. Any wish to indulge? Please do so…

I come to learn overtime, not every prophet is given the privilege in knowing this very truth. Why? Perhaps it is not part of the Savior’s mission for them. I have seen those individuals, who open each restoration or the beginning, have that privilege and may not write it. Why? Others from the time of Adam to our current time may have the same privilege for their own edification and salvation [ie. Brother of Jared and more].

The closer we look into Abraham's account; we will recognize some distinct patterns are given to an outside observer [meaning those who do not have the privilege observational viewpoint].

BTW – Marc was a great friend, who at times aided my search. However, I had indifferences with his stance of a prophet JFS with this account. “…I would follow the prophet but not as a scientist.” I left him with the same message in reverse: regarding President Eyring, “I would follow him as a servant of the Lord but not as a scientist.”

[Moksha]

I only wish that President J.F. Smith would declare if it was revelation or second hand information from early prophet – namely Joseph Smith.

Thank goodness he did not. That would have been like an early Catholic Pope declaring that an Earth centered Universe was revealed to him by God. It would create later problems with believability. When we add extra layers of superstition to our faith, it lessens our faith.

[DigitalShadow]

I couldn't see where anyone had posted Mike Ash's MormonFortress article yet:

http://www.mormonfortress.com/evolution.pdf

Very interesting read. I think that article sums up the answer to my question quite nicely.

[Snow]

Of course, there's always the possibility that the genealogies by which that date was established are not complete/correct due to the numerous interruptions, captivities, etc. over the millennia; a possibility not so far out there, since we know already of genealogical discrepancies and also that the records of the Hebrews have been subject to much editing and revision (and much has been lost). There is, too, the known tendency in the Bible for genealogies to skip generations for whatever reason and yet present themselves as unbroken lines, because the ancestor/descendant relationship is still known even though the links in between may not be. A "father" may be your great-great-great-great grandfather, a "son" may be six or seven generations removed.

A simple reading of the Biblical narrative seems to indicate a beginning much, much earlier than 5000 B.C. So I tend to regard the genealogical approach to establishing a time-frame as inherently flawed. Based on the internal details of the story, I'd have to place Adam and Eve at the latest around 10, 000 B.C., probably earlier.

The estimated world population in 10,000 BC was still about a million or more.

[the Ogre]

. . . How did the creation occur? We are not sure. Theologically, it matters little . . . This is correct. Even pursuing this topic as to understand the nature of G-d is like enjoying the taste of red herring.

. . . Mechanically and technically, we cannot answer. We cannot comprehend it. We have faith that it is real. So it is with the creation of the world . . . This is incorrect. We can comprehend it otherwise the L-rd would step in and tell us to stop. H- never has. I am sure the L-rd finds science important. As such, we can understand, but like scripture we must discover it line upon line and precept upon precept. Denying the curious nature of humanity is denying one's agency. Denying we as humans can understand creation is denying the perfection of G-d's creation. We are meant to understand and explore.

Denying science is a dangerous as accepting agnosticism and as much a cop-out.

[the Ogre]

If anyone is curious about evidence that evolution is the origin of our species, just look up Endogenous Retroviruses (ERVs). To me that is the most solid evidence. Essentially there is a class of virus (retrovirus) that embeds its own DNA into the cells it infects. Occasionally it will infect a sperm or egg cell that will then be fertilized and grow up. This animal now has the DNA of the retrovirus embedded in its own DNA and that will be reflected in all its children. It turns out that this happens rather often and around 8% of our DNA is comprised of these virus fragments. They are also the best known way of verifying lineage (over thousands of years) as they can only be transferred from parent to child. You can see that we share many of the same ERVs with chimpanzees as they are our closest relative and we have a common ancestor or there is no way that we would have the same ERVs.

I'm not saying that this is "proof" of evolution, but I have yet to hear a religious or scientific explaination that accounts for this besides evolution (I'm open to either). If all species were created directly by God, why would he reuse "junk DNA" with embedded viruses and all?

I read some of those studies. They are fabulous, but how do they deny G-d?

[the Ogre]

. . . God created science. It's amazing that those that seek to follow God so readily ignore his creation . . .

It's amazing too that those who seek to follow science so readily ignore G-d.

[the Ogre]

I would just like to point out that nothing in science claims to be "factual." It is based on observed and testable theories that advance our knowledge. If something claims to be absolute and unquestionable then it is not "science."

Right. The media however, likes to portray science as factual.

I think science needs a better PR rep if what they are portraying is not really supposed to be viewed as fact.

[the Ogre]

Do you believe Adam was born? Or created like an adobe statue, and given life?

I have always wondered if Adam had a belly-button.

[the Ogre]

Unless one truly believes in the resurrection and the latter day prophet insight to the first creational problem seen, then there were no pre-humans. For some, this is old BYU argument still stands this day. For some, it hinders ones testimony...

You are not going to find the answer without a sincere interest / humble state in asking and receiving self-edifying answer from the FATHER. All three individuals, Abraham, Moses, and Joseph Smith are in sync on how it happened. What is missing now for us latter members is allot of details between the lines.

Really?!? Prove it with an outlined argument, otherwise you are just blowing smoke.

[Aelswyth]

The estimated world population in 10,000 BC was still about a million or more.

Mmm. That's why I said, "Probably earlier."

Although, I still see these "estimate populations" as highly dubious, considering all the unknown factors that are impossible to put into the equation. Numerous times in human history we have been almost wiped out by some disaster or disease. Projecting any kind of authoritative, stable population estimate back to 10, 000 B.C. is guesswork of the most tenuous kind. And I say this as a supporter of modern science, not a dissenter. Population statistics that far back are simply not based on any kind of reliable, testable, verifiable methods. It's pseudoscience.

[Stampede]

Religion is the "Why"

Science is the "How"

Heavenly Father uses a natual orders of things to bring to pass his work.

Science + the Priesthood = anythign possible.

God is absolutel knowledge, he is more intelligent that any of us, he is the master chess player. HE is smart enought o make ALL THINGS subject to his will. That knowledge was learned. and all of the "Scientific discoveries" are all knowledge that the Lord has, and has lightened the minds of brilliant scientists to make startling new discoveries as to the nature of the universe.

The Big bang? could have been when our heavenly Father was given a ball of material to organize his own universe.

Evolution? could be how the materials needed to be organized to create our bodies.

also, Science is not perfect.

it's all about theories. You form a hypothesis, then you test it. a "scientific" discovery happens when a particular theory is tested repeatedly and then accepted as law or what have you, but the point is, science is flawed and can only get close to truth....

Scientific Laws change all the time when new evidence is provided that changes what people agreed the common law was.

[Hemidakota]

Denying science is a dangerous as accepting agnosticism and as much a cop-out.

If you are referring to hypothetical science, then yes. Learn to avoid it:lol:.

[the Ogre]

If you are referring to hypothetical science, then yes. Learn to avoid it:lol:.

NO!!!

Learn to love science. G-d is truth and to deny an avenue to truth is to deny G-d.

Never close down your mind or you will fall into the same exact trap DigitalShadow has.

[Hemidakota]

Religion is the "Why"

Science is the "How"

Heavenly Father uses a natual orders of things to bring to pass his work.

Science + the Priesthood = anythign possible.

God is absolutel knowledge, he is more intelligent that any of us, he is the master chess player. HE is smart enought o make ALL THINGS subject to his will. That knowledge was learned. and all of the "Scientific discoveries" are all knowledge that the Lord has, and has lightened the minds of brilliant scientists to make startling new discoveries as to the nature of the universe.

The Big bang? could have been when our heavenly Father was given a ball of material to organize his own universe.

Evolution? could be how the materials needed to be organized to create our bodies.

also, Science is not perfect.

it's all about theories. You form a hypothesis, then you test it. a "scientific" discovery happens when a particular theory is tested repeatedly and then accepted as law or what have you, but the point is, science is flawed and can only get close to truth....

Scientific Laws change all the time when new evidence is provided that changes what people agreed the common law was.

Celestial science is truth. There is no room for rumors, postulations, theories, and so forth. Truth is truth…there is no other way to view it. The danger with man made science without the aid of the Creator [we live in a veil of forgetfulness], becomes of field of permutations and eventually perpetuate falsity as truths overtime.

Remember, mortals are bound by natural laws but GOD is not. GOD is bound by a higher law [Celestial Law] and lower laws are subjected to HIM. We can only assume that is 'how' it happens by testing that theory in a natural state. It will change when applied in a higher law. Does that make sense?

Though, my observation viewpoint, science should and could be perfect when we stop the denial of a Creator governs our portion of this tiny universe.

I still chortle over the 'Big Bang' theory.

[Hemidakota]

NO!!!

Learn to love science. G-d is truth and to deny an avenue to truth is to deny G-d.

Never close down your mind or you will fall into the same exact trap DigitalShadow has.

I am not a fan of 'man made science'.

[Hemidakota]

Really?!? Prove it with an outlined argument, otherwise you are just blowing smoke.

That is same answer I give to those who keep claiming evolutionary found ape skulls and bone fragments is early man. Now why is the ape still around? LOL

Other than that, how is your faith?

[the Ogre]

That is same answer I give to those who keep claiming evolutionary found ape skulls and bone fragments is early man. Now why is the ape still around? LOL

Other than that, how is your faith?

You are a seriously hilarious dude. Teach seminary or are you a wannabe.

Traps traps traps everywhere and not a drop to drink. Where oh where has that little dog gone. Why yes down the theological sewer, that pipe of philosophical silliness that is always in a state of self-denial. Ever wonder what it was that Lehi saw in the filthy water? One component has to be contrived LDS-theology and the human philosophy holding it up.

Neither the Church nor the L-rd has denied science or inquiry so why would you insist on veiling the world in catholic-class ignorance.

[Hemidakota]

Michael Ash says the following:

"Thus, three possibilities were suggested for the creation of man’s

physical body: 1) evolution via a natural process as directed by the

power of God; 2) transplantation from another sphere; 3) birth in mortality

by other mortals. None of these three fits the typical “creationist”

model."

Regarding these possibilities:

1) Adam and Eve were immortal, and would have had to come from immortal parents, IMO. Also, we are told in 2nd Nephi that there was no childbirth or death before the Fall--(at least for Adam and Eve).

2)We are told that Adam and Eve are created from the elements (dust) of this earth, and not another one, 3

3) How could Adam and Eve be born immortal, by mortals?

IMO, Adam and Eve were born of Immortal Parents who must have come down to this earth, and dwelt here for a time, and formed (or bore) Man in their image and likeness.

The Last 2 verses of Luke 3 gives a big clue IMO.

As for evolution, I think it exists, but the process does not create entirely other species unless perhaps the Lord commands it to, but I don't think He does that either. God is still a man as are we, and I don't think that the ancient fossilic caveman is really a "man" in the sense that God is a man.

I fall into the "evil evolution" camp insofar as it can be construed to degrade man's divine origin and inheritance.

1] Correct statement.

Gen. 1: 26 (Alma 22: 12; Ether 3: 15; D&C 20: 18; Moses 2: 26; Abr. 4: 26-27) God said, Let us make man in our image.

Gen. 2: 7 (D&C 77: 12; Moses 3: 7) Lord God formed man of the dust of the ground.

Gen. 2: 22 (Abr. 5: 17) the rib . . . taken from man, made he a woman.

Gen. 3: 19 out of it wast thou taken: for dust thou art.

Gen. 5: 1 in the likeness of God made he him.

Job 4: 19 them that dwell in houses of clay, whose foundation is in the dust.

Job 34: 15 man shall turn again unto dust.

Eccl. 12: 7 dust return to the earth as it was.

Isa. 43: 7 I have created him for my glory I have formed him.

Isa. 45: 12 made the earth, and created man upon it.

Mal. 2: 10 hath not one God created us.

Matt. 19: 4 he which made them at the beginning made them male and female.

Luke 3: 38 (Moses 6: 22) son of Adam, which was the son of God.

Philip. 2: 6 Who, being in the form of God.

Col. 3: 10 after the image of him that created him.

1 Tim. 2: 13 Adam was first formed, then Eve.

1 Ne. 2: 12 that God who had created them.

1 Ne. 17: 36 he hath created his children.

2 Ne. 2: 15 after he had created our first parents.

2 Ne. 29: 7 (Alma 1: 4) God, have created all men.

Jacob 4: 9 by the power of his word man came.

Mosiah 2: 25 (Morm. 9: 17) ye were created of the dust of the earth.

Mosiah 4: 21 God, who has created you.

Mosiah 7: 27 man was created after the image of God.

Alma 18: 32 by his hand were they all created.

4 Ne. 1: 16 all the people who had been created by the hand of God.

Morm. 5: 2 without calling upon that Being who created them.

D&C 93: 10 men were made by him.

D&C 107: 43 his likeness was the express likeness of his father.

Moses 3: 5 God, had created all the children of men . . . in heaven created I them.

Moses 6: 9 In the image of his own body, male and female created he them.

2] Did you note anytime in the Saviors mortal ministry when He used earthly elements to correct a body deficiency?

3] Noting the birth of Christ in this mortality, wasn't he part GOD and thus, being not subject to death? What is the difference between Christ birth and 'if' Adam was born of Godly Parents?

Are we not today, cloning body parts? Is it possible to clone a human body? What is the possibility within the next fifty years; regarding this field of studies?

[Hemidakota]

You are a seriously hilarious dude. Teach seminary or are you a wannabe.

Traps traps traps everywhere and not a drop to drink. Where oh where has that little dog gone. Why yes down the theological sewer, that pipe of philosophical silliness that is always in a state of self-denial. Ever wonder what it was that Lehi saw in the filthy water? One component has to be contrived LDS-theology and the human philosophy holding it up.

Neither the Church nor the L-rd has denied science or inquiry so why would you insist on veiling the world in catholic-class ignorance.

Again, pay attention son. It seems your reading comprehension is thus limited to what your ‘eyes' wants to adhere too.

I do believe in science, when men are seeking for truth and not man made dogma that is nothing more than pulling it out of a 'rectal database' and calling it science.

The Lord said what? Are you a member or not? Is this your assumption? Did the Savior personally tell you, He is ok with man made science?

Do you even comprehend that the Lord is bound by higher laws, which the elements are first created? He is not bound by our physical state when creating. Or perhaps, this is something you do not understand. The church own doctrine spells out, the Savior [all knowing] must have complete knowledge of all fields of studies pertaining to that state or else, this world would not exist spiritually or physically [mortal]. There is no room 'reinventing', changing viewpoints overtime, or the perpetual postulations in His realm of science. This is nothing more than man dogma.

If so, do you understand the resurrection and how it works? If the Savior was resurrected and those before His death, should of any of pre-man, or man since Adam still be buried?

[the Ogre]

Again, pay attention son. It seems your reading comprehension is thus limited to what your ‘eyes' wants to adhere too. Son? My dad's shorter and smarter then you.

I do believe in science, when men are seeking for truth and not man made dogma that is nothing more than pulling it out of a 'rectal database' and calling it science. But then who decides which one is the real rectal database (I like sphincterpool better) and which one is not.

The Lord said what? "But when Jesus perceived their thoughts, he answering said unto them, What reason ye in your hearts?" -- So I gotta wonder why all the hate to science and to the men that study it? To most of them it is not only a job, but a way to improve the world and what is wrong with that? So they might believe differently than what you do, so what? If you think they are contributers to the sphinterpool then teach your children to close their minds and to never go swimming. Are you a member or not? Ask my bishop. Is this your assumption? He is my bishop after all. Did the Savior personally tell you, No, the stake president did when the bishop was called. He is ok with man made science? Well my bishop is a photographer and the stake pres is an accouuntant, so I have no idea, but they are pretty smart guys so who knows.

Do you even comprehend that the Lord is bound by higher laws Yes, but which laws are those, H- has never told us, but I bet we are beginning to understand them and thus I encourage all those evolutionary biologists up to the Y as well as the physicists and pagan poets like me, which the elements are first created? He is not bound by our physical state when creating What is interesting abut this statement is that no where in the gospel does the L-rd lay out how he created the universe all he does is claim that he did it (I did read your little outline, but that still only makes claims to fact it does not show the exact methodology involved). Or perhaps, this is something you do not understand With your narrow minded zealotry? Nope. The church own doctrine spells out, the Savior [all knowing] must have complete knowledge of all fields of studies pertaining to that state or else, this world would not exist spiritually or physically [mortal]. There is no room 'reinventing', changing viewpoints overtime, or the perpetual postulations in His realm of science. This is nothing more than man dogma I agree, everything you are spewing is dogmatic and in no way reflects the generosity we as Latter-day Saints are required to have. Wake up dude, the L-rd loves all of us and we are to reach out to the world with love not hatred. You hate science and I think it is because you do not understand it and how most scientists operate (often with love for their fellow men) instead flinging out the socially-mormon accepted verbiage you repeat so often, but so poorly understand.

If so, do you understand the resurrection and how it works? If the Savior was resurrected and those before His death, should of any of pre-man, or man since Adam still be buried? From this statement I can see you do not understand because only the righteous dead alive prior to the L-rd's resurrection have been risen, the wicked are still down there waiting just like everyone else cooking cooking cooking.

Hemi: You have to understand, I am one of those Latter-day Saints you would hate to sit in front of in church and you are just another mormon who in his heart can not come to terms with Love.

Thats okay, we have lots of time you and I. One of these days, I'll get remarried, be called to a bishopric and you will have time to write letters to the 1st Pres complaining about me.

Lovingly,

Aaron the Ogre

[Hemidakota]

Hemi: You have to understand, I am one of those Latter-day Saints you would hate to sit in front of in church and you are just another mormon who in his heart can not come to terms with Love.

Thats okay, we have lots of time you and I. One of these days, I'll get remarried, be called to a bishopric and you will have time to write letters to the 1st Pres complaining about me.

Lovingly,

Aaron the Ogre

LOL...you have to remember about me, some things 'need to be seen' in order to receive a better understanding. I have that faith to make that 'leap' beyond logic.

[the Ogre]

LOL...you have to remember about me, some things 'need to be seen' in order to receive a better understanding. I have that faith to make that 'leap' beyond logic.

And I live in the realm of unreason, but at least I keep my eyes open while I leap.

G-d is science. Listen to Snow he is smarter then you are.