Can Mormons Believe in Evolution? (Click here for the answer

Post by **_Tal Bachman** » Sat Mar 15, 2008 7:29 pm

I want to sincerely thank "bc space" for making me look great on here. He even went above and beyond the call of duty and mentioned the church class vote, bolstering my point. Thanks, chum! (clink)

Hey BC - can you be a sport and do it some more? Just try tackling this one, and all my dreams will come true:

Since "The Origin of Man" is an official First Presidency statement which claims to state official LDS doctrine, would you be so kind as to post links to the equally authoritative, subsequent official First Presidency statements, which state that Mormons are NOT "duty bound to regard Adam as the primal parent of the human race?"

Good luck.

Let the official Mormon Mindgame Olympics continue!

I owe you, bc. :P

T.

Post by **_bcspace** » Sat Mar 15, 2008 7:30 pm

When things were finished according to plan, Adam was placed in the garden into a state of no death.

But .. there are all kinds of creatures, both great and all the way down to microscopically small, that depend on the death of other creatures (natural or by violence) in order to live. Presumably these creatures were excluded from the alleged garden? Otherwise, it can hardly have been a no-death zone.

Who knows? Perhaps they were exlcuded. Perhaps they really did indeed metabolize differently for a period of time. What if Adam stepped on a bug or went over a waterfall?

Here is a fun link for you...... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NMIzhxcXnxA

I highly recommend parts 2 and 3 as well

The only thing I'm arguing at the moment is that evolution is not incompatible with LDS doctrine.

Post by **_beastie** » Sat Mar 15, 2008 7:34 pm

I'm certainly no scientist, but have read quite a few books about evolution. My impression is that evolution cannot occur without death.

Post by **_bcspace** » Sat Mar 15, 2008 7:37 pm

I want to sincerely thank "bc space" for making me look great on here. He even went above and beyond the call of duty and mentioned the church class vote, bolstering my point. Thanks, chum! (clink)

Hey BC - can you be a sport and do it some more? Just try tackling this one, and all my dreams will come true:

Since "The Origin of Man" is an official First Presidency statement which claims to state official LDS doctrine, would you be so kind as to post links to the equally authoritative, subsequent official First Presidency statements, which state that Mormons are NOT "duty bound to regard Adam as the primal parent of the human race?"

Hey Tal - would you kindly point out where my theory states or implies that Adam is NOT the primal parent of the human (physical body with a spirit child of God) race?

Good luck!

Let the official Mormon Mindgame Olympics continue!

I owe you, bc. :P

T.

Not at all. I'm the one having fun exposing you for an ignoramus on LDS doctrine and what we can and cannot believe. Where LDS doctrine does not touch, one may believe what one wants as long as it's not taught for doctrine. Neither evolution or creationism is LDS doctrine, but either may fit in the areas not addressed by doctrine. I happen to accept evolution.

Post by **_Tarski** » Sat Mar 15, 2008 7:39 pm

bcspace wrote:I want to sincerely thank "bc space" for making me look great on here. He even went above and beyond the call of duty and mentioned the church class vote, bolstering my point. Thanks, chum! (clink)

Hey BC - can you be a sport and do it some more? Just try tackling this one, and all my dreams will come true:

Since "The Origin of Man" is an official First Presidency statement which claims to state official LDS doctrine, would you be so kind as to post links to the equally authoritative, subsequent official First Presidency statements, which state that Mormons are NOT "duty bound to regard Adam as the primal parent of the human race?"

.

I wonder if Adam foolishly loved his souless ape mother who no doubt sacrificed much and nurtured him like most mothers do.

Post by **_bcspace** » Sat Mar 15, 2008 7:39 pm

I'm certainly no scientist, but have read quite a few books about evolution. My impression is that evolution cannot occur without death.

Indeed. Yet death prior to the finished creation is not precluded in LDS doctrine. When death first came into the world, it was the created world. There is no such constraint on the creative state.

Post by **_bcspace** » Sat Mar 15, 2008 7:41 pm

I wonder if Adam foolishly loved his souless ape mother who no doubt sacrificed much and nurtured him like most mothers do.

You obviously do not understand evolution which has homo sapiens and apes with a common ancestor. Under my hypothesis, Adam's physical mother is a homo sapiens or scientifically indistinguishable from one.

Post by **_Tarski** » Sat Mar 15, 2008 7:47 pm

bcspace wrote:
I wonder if Adam foolishly loved his souless ape mother who no doubt sacrificed much and nurtured him like most mothers do.

You obviously do not understand evolution which has homo sapiens and apes with a common ancestor. Under my hypothesis, Adam's physical mother is a homo sapiens or scientifically indistinguishable from one.

Of course. You don't get it. You obviously don't understand that we are apes. You want to win by semantics?

The mother was a souless homo sapiens (a type of ape).

Post by **_Jason Bourne** » Sat Mar 15, 2008 7:51 pm

Not at all. I'm the one having fun exposing you for an ignoramus on LDS doctrine and what we can and cannot believe. Where LDS doctrine does not touch, one may believe what one wants as long as it's not taught for doctrine. Neither evolution or creationism is LDS doctrine, but either may fit in the areas not addressed by doctrine. I happen to accept evolution.

LDS and Christianity demand a paradisaical man who fell from grace and perfection and required a redeemer. You cannot accept the evolution of man and not run into some major modifications for the literal need for a Christ to save mankind. Now, if you argue that there were beasts out there that resembled man but were not God's children or that God even used evolution to create the first human that could be called Adam and filled with a spirit I guess that might work but it sure takes some gyrations. And no LDS leader has ever taught such. THe closest we come to anything differing from the Genesis account from LDS leaders is Birigham's ideas that Adam was a god that came to the earth with one of his wive's, ate food of this earth and became mortal, sinned, died aand eas resurrected and went back to being a god.

Post by **_Tarski** » Sat Mar 15, 2008 7:52 pm

BC

You think Adam and eve were real but that Adam's mother was souless. Adam was created in the garden was he not? What does that mean. The souless ape went into the deathless garden and had a super baby?

Why oh why go to so much trouble to reconcile realistic science with Bronze Age myths? Snap out of it and join us. The water is fine.