Doctrine regaurding evolution?

[Hemidakota]

Hmm...I thought I already said that GOD and the Savior is all knowing [science, math, and so forth].

Our interruption on what is science is at a past and viewpoints differ. Though, I had a good laugh. Keep it up.

[the Ogre]

Righto then. How are we to learn the science of G-d, but by line upon line and precept upon precept. You will need to resit that differential equations class until you get it, just like I'll have to learn that agnostics are people too.

The thing about it is that this life is the time for our labors. Get to it boy, put on the gloves and blue-jeans, you have a lot of growing to do for one as old as you.

Science is imperfect, but knowing that should we wait for them to get it right? I say no. We can get in the game now and when the scientists prove to be wrong we can say, "dude, good try though" instead of "I told you so." I think evolution is cool, but only a tiny part of the entire picture and that even the scientific community is still considering how valid the current methodology is. Give them time. Even the atheist scientists are okay. Sure they are a bit arrogant, but so are the religiously zealous or even the smart-mouthed morons like me.

[Snow]

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.

A million is the low estimate. It was likely higher. Regardless, the point is that long before the time of Adam, modern man was on the scene, reproducing and populating the globe.

[Francine]

A million is the low estimate. It was likely higher. Regardless, the point is that long before the time of Adam, modern man was on the scene, reproducing and populating the globe.

There were the sons of God (Gen. 6:4) , who were in the line of Adam, and there where the daughters of men who were your pre-existing "modern men", and by the time of Noah, nearly all of the sons of God had amalgamated themselves with the daughters of men.

[Moksha]

There were the sons of God (Gen. 6:4) , who were in the line of Adam, and there where the daughters of men who were your pre-existing "modern men", and by the time of Noah, nearly all of the sons of God had amalgamated themselves with the daughters of men.

Versus amalgamating themselves with other sons of Gods?

[Aelswyth]

There were the sons of God (Gen. 6:4) , who were in the line of Adam, and there where the daughters of men who were your pre-existing "modern men", and by the time of Noah, nearly all of the sons of God had amalgamated themselves with the daughters of men.

Sorry, but the phrase "Beni-ha-Elohim", Sons of God, is a well-established term in the Semitic religions, known to refer to the lesser gods of Heavenly Father's court (sometimes also referred to as angels, though not all angels are gods). The story in Genesis 6 has parallels in other religious mythologies and refers to gods sleeping with human women, whose offspring are the great heroes and demigods of history (such as Heracles etc.). It's nothing to do with pre-Adamic humans, in this case (although I hold it to be a distinct possibility that there were pre-Adamic humans).

[Aelswyth]

A million is the low estimate. It was likely higher. Regardless, the point is that long before the time of Adam, modern man was on the scene, reproducing and populating the globe.

I maintain that the "point" is still reliant on conjecture and guesswork. It also depends on when one believes Adam appeared on the earth. So, the conclusion is highly debatable and certainly can't be nailed down and based on any 100% verifiable evidence. My personal opinion is that the early chapters of Genesis were written long after the events occurred and that much time was lost in between. After all, if the authors had actually known Adam and his offspring personally, they'd also have known if there were other people around beforehand who were no relation. Logically, then, the narrative was written by someone many generations removed; and sure enough, tradition holds that it was Moses. And Moses didn't show up until after a lot of extremely disruptive events occurred to not only the Hebrews but to all the humans descended from Adam and Eve. First nearly everyone was wiped out by the Flood. Then humanity was scattered all over the earth speaking different languages. Then there was repeated, long-term involvement with the Egyptians, whose own records go back farther than the supposed time of Adam. No wonder records got scrambled. Clearly the timeline is not accurate. It simply tells what is known and stitches together events far apart in time, in an attempt to create a continuous narrative. It is a bare-bones historical record combined with a sacred mythology, intended to create a sense of identity and a specific world-view and to promote an appreciation of God and His works. It focuses on the events and people of importance to the narrative and omits superfluous details and large chunks of uneventful time. Whether there were humans before Adam, or whether dates and generations accurately reflected the physical record, were obviously not major concerns of the authors, and neither has God seen fit to bother with it.

[Francine]

Sorry, but the phrase "Beni-ha-Elohim", Sons of God, is a well-established term in the Semitic religions, known to refer to the lesser gods of Heavenly Father's court (sometimes also referred to as angels, though not all angels are gods). The story in Genesis 6 has parallels in other religious mythologies and refers to gods sleeping with human women, whose offspring are the great heroes and demigods of history (such as Heracles etc.). It's nothing to do with pre-Adamic humans, in this case (although I hold it to be a distinct possibility that there were pre-Adamic humans).

Christianity is monotheistic. There are no "lesser gods" in Christianity, not even Satan. If they were fallen angels they would not have been called Sons of God. If they were unfallen angels they would not have slept with women.

[a-train]

Moses 8:13-15 says: 'And Noah and his sons hearkened unto the Lord, and gave heed, and they were called the sons of God. And when these men began to multiply on the face of the earth, and daughters were born unto them, the sons of men saw that those daughters were fair, and they took them wives, even as they chose. And the Lord said unto Noah: The daughters of thy sons have sold themselves; for behold mine anger is kindled against the sons of men, for they will not hearken to my voice.'

The only difference between the 'sons of God' and the 'sons of men' was simply that of faith. The 'sons of God' were those who 'gave heed' to the voice of the LORD and the 'sons of men' were those who would 'not hearken' to His voice. They were all human beings and descendents of Adam and Eve.

The relationships of the daughters of the 'sons of God' with the 'sons of men' and the 'daughters of the sons of men' with the 'sons of God' were simply interfaith marriages. It is that simple. No extra terrestrials, no super humans, no red-skinned winged humanoids, and no biotechnology was necessary.

-a-train

[Francine]

The only difference between the 'sons of God' and the 'sons of men' was simply that of faith. The 'sons of God' were those who 'gave heed' to the voice of the LORD and the 'sons of men' were those who would 'not hearken' to His voice. They were all human beings and descendents of Adam and Eve.

There is a line of men who have been taught to listen to the voice of the LORD, the bible calls them sons of God. You say they are all descendants of Adam and Eve, and that is your belief. How you accord that belief with evidence that the human race is millions of years old (rather than 6,000 years) is up to you. If you take that approach, then all men were taught to listen to the voice of the LORD by Adam, but some fell away, which prefigures the apostasy. Where in scripture does God go through the trouble of setting up a negative outcome as a type-antitype pair?

In my belief, God called out from the multitude of men one single family of men (the line of Adam-Seth-Enoch-Noah etc) and taught them to listen to his word. This prefigures the calling of Abraham, of Moses, the priesthood of Aaron, of all the prophets, and of the Church in general. This belief allows for evolution and an old earth, but it also explains where Cain got his wife, and how he built a whole city in only a few generations...not all the citizens were from his loins.

[gwozz]

Evolution encompassess some truths, all found under the designation of "microevolution," but you're referring to "macroevolution" (ie a rna chain became a cell, which bacame bacteria, which became a fish, then a monkey, then a human). There is a big debate within the church, and many get angry about it. IMHO, JFS and BRM were never anti-science, they were anti-theories of men not proven using sound scientific principles which were built upon false assumptions. If you change the underlying assumptions (ie that there was an actual literal fall and man was "first flesh" upon the earth (read BD under "fall of Adam" and "flesh")) and reanalyze the scientific observations, the scientific conclusions are consistent with the gospel.

Read D&C 107:27-29. (ie unified statements=same as if its in the bofM; and one man's opinion within a quorum is trumped always by the unified statement).

Then read "the origin of Man"

As for "most mormons either believe theistic evolution or are agnostic concerning evoltion"

Read Boyd K. Packer's personal opinion, finishing with his testimony, entitled "the law and the light."

All of that said: the church takes no official position concerning evolution. They avoid the whole issue and focus on the members coming to christ, studying, fasting and praying to know truths, and learning things for themselves.

Since this is an opinion forum, I'll say my opinion. Macroevolution is false. Not scientifically proven, conflicts with the doctrines of the gospel (ie the creation, fall, and thus atonement whose purpose is to overcome the effects of the fall (ie literally overcoming death both spiritual and physical)). If the fall is figurative in scripture, then the atonement is figurative. The miracles in scripture are not symbolic and figurative; the mountains being moved are not just stories, but actually and literally happend; Adam is the great patriarch over the human race; no one became flesh upon the earth before them (adam and eve), and no death ensued upon any creature until after they fell. I believe this is the truth that the gospel teaches.

Again, that said, the official "doctrine," which means the official "teaching" of the church is that we leave it alone.

[Hemidakota]

One must become a SEER, not a prophet, in order to see into the past. It is a talent that is not often given or used today.

[gwozz]

Thus if we "don't know," It would be wise to rely on the opinions of the SEERs as a general rule I'd say.

[azazel420]

I've studied the scientific debate between Young Earth Creationists (the belief in a literal translation of the Genesis creation story) and Evolutionists extensively. After having examined nearly every claim and counter-argument I've determined that as of yet there is no credible evidence to support the young Earth view outside of the bible. I remain open to evidence but until I see it I think it makes more sense to translate Genesis creation symbolically. This actually makes some sense as there was a common polytheistic view at the time in which different aspects of Nature were viewed to be the realm of different Gods. The Bible seems to me to refute this claim through Genesis and state that all of creation is the work of the one true God.

Evidence for Evolution is not incontrovertible but it's hard to dismiss easily.

[lilered]

If one was to view this subject as one of of putting together jig saw puzzle, then it may make a little more sense.

First Piece of the Puzzle is found in the Bible in Genesis -

Additional Pieces of the puzzle - additional information -

found in JST Moses Chapter 2 - Comment: Indicates that the all things were first create spiritually, before they were added upon, then brought into this temporal sphere.

From Moses 3 : Now behold, I say unto you that these are the generations of the heavens and the earth.... in the day that I the Lord God made the heaven and the earth and every plant of the field before It was in the earth, and every herb I, the Lord God, created all things of which I have spoken spiritually before they were naturally upon the face of the earth.

B.Y. Journal of Discourses 6:275 it is not to far of a reach to also assume that animals and plants were also reproduced from parent stock in a resurrecte status and brought here from somewhere else.

Adam and Eve:

Moses 6: 59 Dust of the earth: means to be born by water, blood, and the spirit.

Moses 3: And man (Adam) became a living soul, the first flesh upon the earth, the first man also.

We know from Scriptures that Adam was known as Michael and was a prince of God in the pre-existance, so it would be a safe assumption that Eve, also held a similiar position in the pre-existance.

B.Y. indicated in his writings that Adam was made as you and I were made and no person was made on any other principle. (Note: The Lord did not reveal exactly where Adam was born nor who his parents were.)

Therefore, how could he have evolved from earlier flesh (Darwins Theory), if indeed Adam was the first man? There could not have been any pre-Adam men!!!!

Pres. Taylor & B.Y. - taught this earth, which has fled and fallen from where it ws organized near the planet KOLOB.

This suggests interplanaetary transplanttion of life. Plants and animals were brought from other planets to this world.!!!!

Keep in mind that Adam and Eve were not kicked out of the Garden immediatly after partaking of the forbidden fruit. They had to have time to realize and understand they were naked and then devise and construct a fig covering.

One thought concerning God revealing only part of the story of the entire creation is that the entire story really has no bearing on life here and would only distract some from making life on this planet more profitable to God.

[Hemidakota]

I've studied the scientific debate between Young Earth Creationists (the belief in a literal translation of the Genesis creation story) and Evolutionists extensively. After having examined nearly every claim and counter-argument I've determined that as of yet there is no credible evidence to support the young Earth view outside of the bible. I remain open to evidence but until I see it I think it makes more sense to translate Genesis creation symbolically. This actually makes some sense as there was a common polytheistic view at the time in which different aspects of Nature were viewed to be the realm of different Gods. The Bible seems to me to refute this claim through Genesis and state that all of creation is the work of the one true God.

Evidence for Evolution is not incontrovertible but it's hard to dismiss easily.

There is no young earth theory to debate and the church does not recognize it. If one would take the time and read the fragmented earth on what a Seer [Joseph Smith] seen, this earth was remodeled after the last creation attempt failed after creation of the animals. No one, including our earth scientists really know how old this earth is since the earth was not in this solar system prior to 2nd earth creation to base any time scale [orbital length]. We can only speculate until it is fully revealed to us on what transpired and when this earth was moved here.

[Elphaba]

No one, including our earth scientists really know how old this earth is

Yes we do. It's approximately 4.55 billion years old, give or take a few billion.

I understand your belief that truth will be revealed one day, and believe it or not I respect that.

However, I don't understand why it is so easy to ignore all of the scientific evidence.

Evidence that is painstakingly reached by scientists who have studied isotopes, meteor leads, lunar rocks, radiometrics, etc. These things are real, and they have been intricately studied by people who devote their lifetimes to this work, and who only ascert they have "truth" when it can be proved mathematically. This is not a small thing.

Scientists didn't pick "4.55 billion years" out of a hat. The evidence for it is unmistakable.

Elphaba

[Hemidakota]

Ever since I have been alive, that number has been adjusted several times. I think you have seen that one also. Now, so much for any real accuracy. As do I expect this number to grow in the coming decade when science advances even further. Also, I am aware of the principle of radioactive clocks as a time piece.

I for one cannot concur with that answer since this earth is made up of several fragmented earths which displaces the exact age. It could be alot more older than we think since the materials have nothing to do with the latest life creation. As does my house being remodeled in using old and new materials.

Last, neither was this planet created in this solar system or was here during the last failed creation. That itself shows that science is fallible. However, I do love science and those who are actively seeking the truths.

[gwozz]

Yes we do. It's approximately 4.55 billion years old, give or take a few billion.

I understand your belief that truth will be revealed one day, and believe it or not I respect that.

However, I don't understand why it is so easy to ignore all of the scientific evidence.

Evidence that is painstakingly reached by scientists who have studied isotopes, meteor leads, lunar rocks, radiometrics, etc. These things are real, and they have been intricately studied by people who devote their lifetimes to this work, and who only ascert they have "truth" when it can be proved mathematically. This is not a small thing.

Scientists didn't pick "4.55 billion years" out of a hat. The evidence for it is unmistakable.

Elphaba

The age of the earth, and how long death has been on the earth are two separate issues. The age of the earth doesn't matter all that much doctrinally speaking. But you must realize, that it is impossible to definitively "prove" the age of the earth in science. The conclusion is based upon unprovable assumptions that they have made. If you want to put your faith in scientific assumptions, go for it. I have no problem with a 4.5 billion yr old earth personally, but I recognize that its not proven, so I take it with a grain of salt. I personally will trust Abraham's account over any scientific conclusion based upon assumptions.

[Guest HEthePrimate]

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?

There is no official Church position on the matter. At BYU they have a file of quotes from different Church leaders about evolution vs. creationism, and the brethren have had wildly differing opinions on the matter. In the scriptures we have a number of different accounts of the creation, none of which are the same. Taking them literally would tend to confuse a person more than clarify things. I think the point is that God created the universe--whether He did so by snapping His fingers and making everything pop into existence, or by setting things in motion and let evolution take its course is less important than it is interesting.

As far as being descended from apes goes, I don't really have a problem with that. I rather like apes! If you ask me, behaving like animals would be an improvement for many people.

Peace.

DH

[Moksha]

But you must realize, that it is impossible to definitively "prove" the age of the earth in science. The conclusion is based upon unprovable assumptions that they have made.

Unproved assumptions? Did you not read Elphaba's post?

[Hemidakota]

It is still unproven since no one as been around long enough to tell the story. LOL

[Hemidakota]

There is no official Church position on the matter. At BYU they have a file of quotes from different Church leaders about evolution vs. creationism, and the brethren have had wildly differing opinions on the matter. In the scriptures we have a number of different accounts of the creation, none of which are the same. Taking them literally would tend to confuse a person more than clarify things. I think the point is that God created the universe--whether He did so by snapping His fingers and making everything pop into existence, or by setting things in motion and let evolution take its course is less important than it is interesting.

As far as being descended from apes goes, I don't really have a problem with that. I rather like apes! If you ask me, behaving like animals would be an improvement for many people.

Peace.

DH

There is but don't allow these professors to tell you otherwise. I have the same quotes and materials and now started the collection of the latest JS diaries. Where it started? It started with Joseph Smith and ever since most would not allow this distract away from the core of the church - teaching the gosepl to the world.

What it does take for person to know such, is a Seer.

[gwozz]

Unproved assumptions? Did you not read Elphaba's post?

Yes I did, and I'm a part of the very community Elphaba is place his/her faith in. You can calculate all you want, but the basis of the calculation is an assumption. Thus the conclusion built upon assumption cannot be proven.

The assumption of science: nothing moves or progesses faster than the slow and constant rate we currently observe.

The scriptures teach that great and marvelous changes can be wrought upon the earth in very short timeperiods--ie brother of jared and mount zerin, the face of the earth changing in 3nephi. Those who claim that the scientific calculations built upon assumptions are proven fact, will also tell you that these "miracles" are figurative stories, and not literal. Because if God can remodel the face of the earth quickly, their underlying assumption upon which the caluculations are based comes into question. Don't place your faith in the arm of flesh... we're all ignorant as to what really happened, and how great God's power really is.

As for God "snapping his fingers" and "poof" its all created out of nothing, our scriptures teach very clearly that creation does not come about in that way. God is the creator of all things, including heaven and the earth, and all things that exist therein (2 Nephi 2:14, Alma 18:28). To create, however does not mean to create out of nothing, or “ex nihilo,” as the creeds of men have affirmed. In the King Follett sermon, Joseph Smith taught: “You ask the learned doctors why they say the world was made out of nothing; and they will answer, ‘Doesn’t the Bible say He created the world?’ And they infer, from the word create, that it must have been made out of nothing. Now, the word create came from the word baurau which does not mean to create out of nothing; it means to organize; the same as a man would organize materials and build a ship. Hence, we infer that God had materials to organize the world out of chaos—chaotic matter, which is element, and in which dwells all the glory. Element had an existence from the time he had. The pure principles of element and principles which can never be destroyed; they may be organized and re-organized, but not destroyed. They had no beginning, and can have no end.” (TPJS, 350-352)

The key concept taught by the prophet Joseph Smith is that “the elements are eternal.” (D&C 93:33) Phrased another way, “intelligence, or the light of truth, was not created or made, neither can be.” (D&C 93:29) All things were created from eternal matter, both physical and spiritual creations alike (see D&C 131:7-8, JD 13:248). The material from which all things were created was in the beginning with God. It has always been, and cannot be created or destroyed. If it were not so, we could not exist forever as resurrected beings with the “spirit and element, inseparably connected,” able to receive a “fulness of joy;” (D&C 93:33-34) for that which has a beginning will in turn have an end (see TPJS 354). Understanding this doctrinal truth makes it clear why the word “created” is replaced with “organized” in Abraham’s account of the creation (see Abraham 4).

[gwozz]

There is but don't allow these professors to tell you otherwise. I have the same quotes and materials and now started the collection of the latest JS diaries. Where it started? It started with Joseph Smith and ever since most would not allow this distract away from the core of the church - teaching the gosepl to the world.

What it does take for person to know such, is a Seer.

Did you say that you have JS quotes which support evolutionary claims? I've yet to read a GA quote that sided with evolution personally. If you have them, I'd love to read them.