DiscussMormonism.com

I've been learning more about evolution lately. As a History major in college, I took only the science courses needed to complete my General Ed requirements and so I've been in need of a refresher course on evolution. Waiting on a few books recently ordered from Amazon has me feeling impatient, though with my husbands religious views on the creation of the earth, I may have to read them on the sly!

As a Mormon, I never considered evolution compatible with church teachings on the creation of the earth. I took literally the accounts of creation in the Bible, the Book of Moses and the temple. I had no problem understanding creation may have taken more than six days, but I did accept as truth that God created Adam and Eve as the fully developed first humans. I didn't believe that humans evolved, only adapted, and likewise, I believed that God was once a man who was created as a human being long ago on another planet. I didn't believe he was the product of evolution, either.

Yet, I see that some Mormons claim to believe in evolution. How is it possible to square evolution with Mormon doctrine? Doesn't the fact that evolution is in reality the way humans came to be spell trouble for a religion which teaches God has a body and also claims that God Himself gave Joseph Smith the eternal truths which were to be taught in the temple? Perhaps some Mormons believe the Bible to be errant in many ways, but do they believe what is taught in the temple to be errant, also? Not literal, perhaps? For those Mormons who believe in evolution, do you think God gave Joseph Smith incorrect information about how the earth and all it's inhabitants were formed?

Admittedly, I do not know a tremendous amount about evolution, but I do know enough about Mormon doctrine on the creation of the earth to believe it's incongruent with human evolution.

KA

Did you order Dennett's book Darwin's Dangerous Idea: Evolution and the Meanings of Life ?

Evolution is incompatible with Mormon doctrine.

KA you can always read about evolution on the net on the sly. Do a google, there's plenty of information. There's a Berkeley website that is very helpful, I found.

Adam and Eve are nothing more than a myth. By myth I mean the following:

A myth is a story in which the validity of it is not consequential but the lessons learned are. In other words, Adam and Eve quite possibly never existed, but so what? That has no bearing upon what is being taught by the mythology of them. The lessons learned are the important part. This is how all of scriptures are supposed to be understood. When one tries to make them all 100% factual, then the story falls apart and loses its ability to teach anything (the whole reason the story was made to begin with).

Take (for instance) Noah and the great flood. Did it happen? Maybe on a local scale, but regardless the story told is a myth. It was never written for us to pick apart to the point we ask if it actually occurred or not. When you do that, you miss the fundamental ideas and lessons expressed in the mythology.

So, to answer your question, the story works because I do not spend my time arguing if they literally existed or not. If I did, I risk the chance of missing the point of the story. Kinda like watching Star Wars. Star Wars (whether or not its 100% true) teaches some very valuable lessons in life, and therefore, to look at the whole story and say, "its all bogus, and not true," one misses the whole point of the story.

I guess you can say it works for me because I choose not to spend my time trying to find out if they existed or not. Chances are, they did not exist, but who cares? The whole point of the story isn't to define how mankind ACTUALLY came into existence but to understand the idea of original sin and our place with God (just to name a few of the concepts taught).

Nephi wrote:Adam and Eve are nothing more than a myth. By myth I mean the following:

A myth is a story in which the validity of it is not consequential but the lessons learned are. In other words, Adam and Eve quite possibly never existed, but so what? That has no bearing upon what is being taught by the mythology of them. The lessons learned are the important part. This is how all of scriptures are supposed to be understood. When one tries to make them all 100% factual, then the story falls apart and loses its ability to teach anything (the whole reason the story was made to begin with).

Take (for instance) Noah and the great flood. Did it happen? Maybe on a local scale, but regardless the story told is a myth. It was never written for us to pick apart to the point we ask if it actually occurred or not. When you do that, you miss the fundamental ideas and lessons expressed in the mythology.

So, to answer your question, the story works because I do not spend my time arguing if they literally existed or not. If I did, I risk the chance of missing the point of the story. Kinda like watching Star Wars. Star Wars (whether or not its 100% true) teaches some very valuable lessons in life, and therefore, to look at the whole story and say, "its all bogus, and not true," one misses the whole point of the story.

I guess you can say it works for me because I choose not to spend my time trying to find out if they existed or not. Chances are, they did not exist, but who cares? The whole point of the story isn't to define how mankind ACTUALLY came into existence but to understand the idea of original sin and our place with God (just to name a few of the concepts taught).

I thought LDS didn't believe in original sin?

Hey Nephi, you still post at MAD? You need to go talk to Hammer about these myths. ;)

barrelomonkeys wrote:

Nephi wrote:Adam and Eve are nothing more than a myth. By myth I mean the following:

A myth is a story in which the validity of it is not consequential but the lessons learned are. In other words, Adam and Eve quite possibly never existed, but so what? That has no bearing upon what is being taught by the mythology of them. The lessons learned are the important part. This is how all of scriptures are supposed to be understood. When one tries to make them all 100% factual, then the story falls apart and loses its ability to teach anything (the whole reason the story was made to begin with).

Take (for instance) Noah and the great flood. Did it happen? Maybe on a local scale, but regardless the story told is a myth. It was never written for us to pick apart to the point we ask if it actually occurred or not. When you do that, you miss the fundamental ideas and lessons expressed in the mythology.

So, to answer your question, the story works because I do not spend my time arguing if they literally existed or not. If I did, I risk the chance of missing the point of the story. Kinda like watching Star Wars. Star Wars (whether or not its 100% true) teaches some very valuable lessons in life, and therefore, to look at the whole story and say, "its all bogus, and not true," one misses the whole point of the story.

I guess you can say it works for me because I choose not to spend my time trying to find out if they existed or not. Chances are, they did not exist, but who cares? The whole point of the story isn't to define how mankind ACTUALLY came into existence but to understand the idea of original sin and our place with God (just to name a few of the concepts taught).

I thought LDS didn't believe in original sin?

Hey Nephi, you still post at MAD? You need to go talk to Hammer about these myths. ;)

Right, LDS doesn't believe in original sin, in the sense that I am held accountable for my ancestors' sins, but this was the "first sins", and gives the idea of falling away from innocence, which I do believe mankind did at some point. We went from natural to "unnatural". Make sense?

No. That makes absolutely no sense to me at all.



:D


*psst, could that be another myth?*

barrelomonkeys wrote:No. That makes absolutely no sense to me at all.



:D

I am going to assume from the ":D" that you are being facetious unless you say otherwise... Sorry, haven't been feeling well today and my sarcasm circuits aren't working well online today.

Oh, I'm completely serious.

and gives the idea of falling away from innocence, which I do believe mankind did at some point. We went from natural to "unnatural". Make sense?

Read back what you just wrote to me. Then explain it to me slowly.

Very slowly and see if you can explain it so it will make sense to me.

KA hit upon a good point: Squaring evolution with many LDS speculations may not be easy but it is essential. A non-somnambulent Mormon believer would want to have the true nature of God's handiwork on their side.

barrelomonkeys wrote:Oh, I'm completely serious.

and gives the idea of falling away from innocence, which I do believe mankind did at some point. We went from natural to "unnatural". Make sense?

Read back what you just wrote to me. Then explain it to me slowly.

Very slowly and see if you can explain it so it will make sense to me.

Okay, symbolically, the idea that Adam and Eve fell away from the garden is symbolically describing when the apes "swung down from the trees." In other words, we went from innocent animals which didn't know better the things we did to evolved humans which understood the ideas of their actions; "The Fall." However, we willingly did this because we desired fruit from the tree of knowledge of good and evil.

Dave Matthews Band has a great song describing this exact situation, called Proudest Monkey:

Swing in this tree
Oh I am bounce around so well
Branch to branch,
limb to limb you see
All in a day's dream
I'm stuck
Like the other monkeys here
I am a humble monkey
Sitting up in here again
But then came the day
I climbed out of these safe limbs
Ventured away
Walking tall, head high up and singing
I went to the city
Car horns, corners and the gritty
Now I am the proudest monkey you've ever seen

We fell away from the innocence of being animals not knowing good from evil. Make sense now?