Doctrine regaurding evolution?

[Snow]

Thank you for answering my question. The only thing that still doesn't make sense to me now is the significance of Adam and Eve. I do attend church most of the time with my wife and from what I've heard, Adam holds a special position. If the story of Adam and Eve was simply an allegory, wouldn't this conflict with some LDS teachings?

I didn't say that the very existence of Adam and Eve was allegorical. It is the creation "myth" found in Genesis that is allegorical. That some part of it is allegorical is indisputably true. How much of it is allegorical is debatable.

[DigitalShadow]

I didn't say that the very existence of Adam and Eve was allegorical. It is the creation "myth" found in Genesis that is allegorical. That some part of it is allegorical is indisputably true. How much of it is allegorical is debatable.

Now I'm somewhat confused again. If you accept that evolution was the origin of our species, then how can Adam and Eve be anything more than an allegory? Evolution is a slow process, it's not as if all of a sudden 2 humans would be born out of nowhere and converse with each other all alone.

[Snow]

Now I'm somewhat confused again. If you accept that evolution was the origin of our species, then how can Adam and Eve be anything more than an allegory? Evolution is a slow process, it's not as if all of a sudden 2 humans would be born out of nowhere and converse with each other all alone.

I said their existence was not necessarily allegorical. Adam and Eve were, I believe, real historical people. In some way that is not fully understood, they represent the mother and father of the human race. How is that possible if other humans or ancestors of humans existed before them? Don't know and that's the allegory part.

Evolution is more than just a theory, it is in some ways a scientific fact. The question is not IF you can reconcile with scripture, but HOW do you reconcile it, because it is certain enough that we, the scientific literate, have to get past the shock of it and find a way to fit it into our world view.

[Snow]

Genesis is not allegorical.

So God made man and woman out of the dust of the ground - simple as that?

Er, no - not that simple. God may have made man out of natural elements but saying that it was as simple as taking dirt and blowing life into it is ALLEGORICAL.

On the other hand, the other creation account says that man was created first and then God took one of man's ribs, healed the wound and made woman. That's also ALLEGORICAL.

The two account obviously conflict. If you believe that one is about the spiritual creation, then that too must be ALLEGORICAL.

How about the story of Jacob wrestling with God and God can't get away until God cheats and put's Jacob's hip out of joint. Literal? Hardly. It's allegorical.

Was there a world wide flood up to the tops of the mountains as described literally in the Bible? Courtesy of science, we know it couldn't have happened that way. Obviously it's either in error or allegorical in some fashion.

[NateHowe]

To call these things allegorical is an error. An allegory is a fictional story, like a parable, presented without the expectation that it should be believed as an actual historical account. I agree that the various accounts of the Creation contain symbols and metaphors which may be interpreted in various ways, but the idea that Christ created the Earth is not fiction. It is no more allegorical than the accounts of Jesus' suffering on the cross.

Now, did Christ create the world from nothing? No. He organized extant matter into a world. It is a process we cannot remember witnessing, and a process man has yet to duplicate or comprehend. Thus, we cannot rationally disprove it.

How did the creation occur? We are not sure. Theologically, it matters little. We may just as well ask, "How can a man suffering in a garden nearly two millennia ago take away my sins today?" 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. We know that Jesus Christ created the earth under the direction of His Father. We know very few specifics. But we have faith that it is a real event, and that Darwinian evolution is an incomplete explanation at best.

[drjme]

I look forward to watching this movie regarding intelligent design vs darwinism:

The Playground for Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed

Watch the trailer it looks very interesting.

[Snow]

To call these things allegorical is an error. An allegory is a fictional story, like a parable, presented without the expectation that it should be believed as an actual historical account.

That's wrong.

An allegory is a form of extended metaphor, in which objects, persons, and actions in a narrative, are equated with the meanings that lie outside the narrative itself. There is no requirement that it be fictional.

I agree that the various accounts of the Creation contain symbols and metaphors which may be interpreted in various ways, but the idea that Christ created the Earth is not fiction.

A minute ago is wasn't allegorical. Now it's allegorical. What will it be next?

It is no more allegorical than the accounts of Jesus' suffering on the cross.

Creating woman by removing a rib from Adam is no more allegorical than than the crucifixion? Sure.

Now, did Christ create the world from nothing? No. He organized extant matter into a world. It is a process we cannot remember witnessing, and a process man has yet to duplicate or comprehend. Thus, we cannot rationally disprove it.

How did the creation occur? We are not sure. Theologically, it matters little. We may just as well ask, "How can a man suffering in a garden nearly two millennia ago take away my sins today?" 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. We know that Jesus Christ created the earth under the direction of His Father. We know very few specifics. But we have faith that it is a real event, and that Darwinian evolution is an incomplete explanation at best.

I have no idea what purpose pontificating serves. You may not comprehend or have hope to comprehend. Others of us believe that God gave us science, a sub-set of theology, that me might understand, learn and appreciate. Science is doing a truly wonderful job in explaining the universe and does a better job every day, every year.

Specifically - what part of evolution is incomplete - not Darwinism, modern evolutionary synthesis?

[DigitalShadow]

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?

[NateHowe]

An allegory is a form of extended metaphor, in which objects, persons, and actions in a narrative, are equated with the meanings that lie outside the narrative itself. There is no requirement that it be fictional.

Name me another literary allegory that's also a true story. Moby Dick?

A minute ago is wasn't allegorical. Now it's allegorical. What will it be next?

Didn't I acknowledge the existence of some symbolism in the way the story is told? That does not make the entire account allegorical. It does not fit the allegorical form.

Creating woman by removing a rib from Adam is no more allegorical than than the crucifixion? Sure.

That type of snarky comment is not helpful, and those details are not equivalent in their respective stories. How about Jesus feeding the 5000? I believe that it actually happened. Will you tell me that the miracles of Christ were simply allegorical as well?

Others of us believe that God gave us science, a sub-set of theology, that me might understand, learn and appreciate. Science is doing a truly wonderful job in explaining the universe and does a better job every day, every year.

I appreciate science, and true religion and true science bear the same witness. Evolution has happened within species, including humanity. This is a true principle - we are taller than our grandparents, on average. However, there is no evidence that one species has become another. Cats do not evolve into dogs. Cows do not evolve into people. That is not the mode of creation, and that idea is not supported by good science, either.

Specifically - what part of evolution is incomplete - not Darwinism, modern evolutionary synthesis?

Again, I gladly admit that evolution, as in change in genotypes and phenotypes over time, exists within species. However, if we believe the Scriptures, death did not enter the world until after the fall. Since the earth already contained all classes of plants and animals at that time, they could not have come there by a process which required generations of animals reproducing and dying over astronomical periods of time. The Lord has a way that we do not understand. Honestly, it makes sense to me that the Lord could have transplanted these creations on this earth from another, similar place. That theory is no more disprovable by science than evolutionary creation.

[Aelswyth]

From what I've gathered so far, there are some in the church who are creationists and some who are not. Is there any official church position on the matter? It seems that if the theory of evolution were true, it would conflict with the Old Testament which is still part of the LDS belief system, is it not?

I don't believe the Church has an official position on evolution, but I personally don't see it conflicting with the Genesis creation account at all. The Biblical account is somewhat incomplete; the version recorded by Joseph Smith in the Pearl of Great Price (and maybe this is also mentioned in the D&C) teaches that there was a spiritual creation before there was a physical creation; a kind of spiritual blueprint, if you will, for physical matter to follow as it developed into its final form. The six-day creation was the spiritual creation, after which God rested and allowed things to take their prescribed course. To me, the statement that God "formed Adam from the dust of the earth" is a clear reference to the evolution of our physical bodies from the primordial mud. The additional story about Eve being taken from Adam's side also seems to be a clear reference to the change from a single-sex self-replicating organism to a reproductive two-sex one. It doesn't make sense any other way. When the "tabernacles of clay" were finally fit to inhabit (i.e. properly reflected the image of God), Adam and Eve entered those first proper human bodies, and the rest is history. :)

[Snow]

Name me another literary allegory that's also a true story. Moby Dick?

The story that a world wide flood covered the entire earth up to the tops of the highest mountains and that 2 (or 7, depending on which bible version of the story you believe) every animal all got on a boat.

Or, the story that God wrestled with Jacob and that God could not escape from Jacob until He cheated and supernaturally put Jacob's hip out of joint.

Or, that God colluded with Satan to kill Job's children on account of a bet.

That type of snarky comment is not helpful, and those details are not equivalent in their respective stories. How about Jesus feeding the 5000? I believe that it actually happened. Will you tell me that the miracles of Christ were simply allegorical as well?

You said that the creation account is no more allegorical than the crucifixion, not the miracle of the 5000... to which I say Sure! Woman being created out of Adam's rib is literally factual as the crucifixion.

I appreciate science, and true religion and true science bear the same witness. Evolution has happened within species, including humanity. This is a true principle - we are taller than our grandparents, on average. However, there is no evidence that one species has become another. Cats do not evolve into dogs. Cows do not evolve into people. That is not the mode of creation, and that idea is not supported by good science, either.

1. You're inccorrect and ought become aquainted with the science. Here's a start;

Observed Instances of Speciation

2. I am in step with virtually the entire scientific community and you are out of step with practically all the scientific community.

Again, I gladly admit that evolution, as in change in genotypes and phenotypes over time, exists within species. However, if we believe the Scriptures, death did not enter the world until after the fall. Since the earth already contained all classes of plants and animals at that time, they could not have come there by a process which required generations of animals reproducing and dying over astronomical periods of time. The Lord has a way that we do not understand. Honestly, it makes sense to me that the Lord could have transplanted these creations on this earth from another, similar place. That theory is no more disprovable by science than evolutionary creation.

You don't have guess if people started dying for the first time within the last 10,000 years. You can check. People (Homo Sapiens) have been dying for 15 times that long.

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

[Hemidakota]

That is what I originally assumed, but there are many Mormons who do not dispute evolution. Since Genesis and evolution appear to be mutually exclusive theories, I was just asking for come clarification.

To receive the truth concerning this planet's creation, it will require some thoughtful studying and lengthy sincere humble prayers. For the 'few,' an eye witness of the event is required for self-edification.

Today's science, as I tell my children, 'don't believe everything they claim as factual."

[DigitalShadow]

To receive the truth concerning this planet's creation, it will require some thoughtful studying and lengthy sincere humble prayers. For the 'few,' an eye witness of the event is required for self-edification.

Today's science, as I tell my children, 'don't believe everything they claim as factual."

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."

[NateHowe]

Snow,

We could go back and forth on the finer points of this topic for a very long time. However, since we obviously have very little civil ground on which to hold the discussion, I would rather bow out. Yesterday's science is today's trite mythology, and today's science is incomplete at best in its explanation of how our Earth and its inhabitants came to be. Time will tell which of us is correct, but for now I have very little desire to discuss the matter further, as we will obviously not move each other.

[Snow]

Snow,

We could go back and forth on the finer points of this topic for a very long time. However, since we obviously have very little civil ground on which to hold the discussion, I would rather bow out. Yesterday's science is today's trite mythology, and today's science is incomplete at best in its explanation of how our Earth and its inhabitants came to be. Time will tell which of us is correct, but for now I have very little desire to discuss the matter further, as we will obviously not move each other.

I can be moved (to change opinion)... by fact and reason, but certainly not by dogmatic assertion with no basis in science.

[NateHowe]

I can be moved (to change opinion)... by fact and reason, but certainly not by dogmatic assertion with no basis in science.

Perhaps your insistence on current scientific thought is detrimental to your understanding of truths which science cannot measure.

[Snow]

Perhaps your insistence on current scientific thought is detrimental to your understanding of truths which science cannot measure.

Interesting thought - that my understanding of scientific truth is harmed by understanding science.

Not very persuasive, but interesting that you think that.

[NateHowe]

Interesting thought - that my understanding of scientific truth is harmed by understanding science.

Not very persuasive, but interesting that you think that.

You mean the thought that God works wonders by means that seem foolish to learned men? No, I can't take credit for that thought. It was expressed by Paul, Nephi, and Alma, among others.

[Moksha]

I think St. Augustine's saying that "all truths are God's truths", is a good one. The difficulty though is in separating truth from superstition.

[Snow]

You mean the thought that God works wonders by means that seem foolish to learned men? No, I can't take credit for that thought. It was expressed by Paul, Nephi, and Alma, among others.

Nope. That is absolutely NOT what I mean. God has not spoken on the matter of evolution or whether the two creation accounts in Genesis are to be taken literally or allegorically. YOU are dogmatically assuming that God shares your opinion but that has no basis in fact.

What I do mean is that if you want to understand the physical world, the place to turn is to the PHYSICAL WORLD, not creation myths.

[FigBearingThistle]

All "believing" members of the Church are creationists. It is not debatable.

All or most all members that are informed on the science are likely evolutionists as well.

I believe the Old Testament. I believe in evolution. There is no conflict.

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

[Doctor Steuss]

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

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

[FigBearingThistle]

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

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

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.

[Snow]

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

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.

[Hemidakota]

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.