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

[_bcspace]

And then there's the part where Sethbag puts his sealed box into a container of hot coffee (or other similar Brownian motion producer), gives it a really good stir, and discovers two neutrons named "Pons" and "Fleischmann".

[_Gazelam]

Evolution cannot be accepted and at the same time maintain a belief in Christ. Without a belief in both the Creation and the Fall, it is impossible to accept the Atonement of Christ. Withoutr the Creation and The Fall, there would be no need for Christ.

Also, lets not forget that evolution would also have to stem from the days of Noah.

[_bcspace]

Evolution cannot be accepted and at the same time maintain a belief in Christ.

Why not?

Without a belief in both the Creation and the Fall, it is impossible to accept the Atonement of Christ. Withoutr the Creation and The Fall, there would be no need for Christ.

Evolution precludes none of these things.

Also, lets not forget that evolution would also have to stem from the days of Noah.

How so? You have the scattering at the tower of babel which may have changed people more than linguistically and I believe it also has been established that environmental conditions changes genetics such as amount of sunlight as it relates to skin color. Moses 7:8 seems to confirm such.

A local flood would also solve it.

[_Gazelam]

1) The flood was not local.

2) Play your evolution card if you like, but I don't know how far you'll get with a 6,000 year time frame.

3) In regards to the connection of the Creation, Fall and Atonement:

http://speeches.BYU.edu/?act=viewitem&id=598

[_harmony]

Harmony, I hope that your "dunderheads" comment is not a criticism of a church leader (;=> - even if it is justified.

Why? Are you saying church leaders are never to be criticized?

Anyway, I'm sorry to say that I cannot accept your view that in making changes the prophet is "correcting the path of the church".

Gosh, I'm so surprised.

Here's why (I'm sure you'll correct me if I'm getting this wrong - please do):

1. You say "They make corrections all the time, some of which are actually warranted."
2. You also say "Often, they get it backwards ..."
3. I say that then they don't seem to know when it's a case of a warranted correction (1.) and when it's backwards (2.), otherwise they would presumably never get it backwards.
4. It's even conceivable, in this scenario, that prophet C (to expand on Chap's example) might later "correct" prophet B's "correction", and re-institute the original doctrine - kinda messy, don't you think?

Well, what can I say, malkie? They're men. They often make messes. Occasionally they get things right. It's all part of being human.

My thought is, if it's "the job of the prophet to be the leader in making these corrections", and often (or even sometimes) they get it backwards, what is the point in making "corrections" at all, if often/sometimes they are making things worse, not better.

Exactly. Especially if your name is Joseph F Smith and the incorrect correction you're making takes away power from women.

Furthermore (and no disrespect intended at all to you), I wonder how it is that you get to decide when it's a warranted correction and when it's backwards?

Because the question was put to me, therefore the answer is mine. If the question had been put to you, you would then own your answer.

All in all, "correcting the path of the church" seems to be a completely worthless activity. A religion whose doctrine is developed in this way is way beyond a joke (IMHO).

It's only worthless if men keep their fingers in it (which of course they do). We continually spend our time parseling out the doctrine of God from the doctrines of men.

[_bcspace]

1) The flood was not local.

The physical evidence seems to suggest otherwise though I will agree that no evidence for is not evidence against.

2) Play your evolution card if you like, but I don't know how far you'll get with a 6,000 year time frame.

There is no reason why we have to be bound by that time frame.

3) In regards to the connection of the Creation, Fall and Atonement:

http://speeches.BYU.edu/?act=viewitem&id=598

Selling something?

Edit: I now see the free pdf. He doesn't say anything I haven't seen before. Perhaps if you specified from it what you think makes my theory conflict......

As long as you're going non-doctrinal, around the same time BRM gave his Seven Deadly Heresies speech in which he basically admitted that as long as you believed LDS doctrine you were fine to accept evolution (though he stated reasons why he couldn't accept it). His main caveat was the denial of the Fall. Evolution does not deny or conflict with the fall.

[_Gazelam]

Evolution does not deny or conflict with the fall.

Genesis chp.1

26 ¶ And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.
27 So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.


So is God a single cell protoplasm? Or a Great Ape? Maybe one of those Amoeba with tall the squiggly legs that swim around, those are cool looking. Also the thought of a giant one swimming through the cosmos is kinda cool to imagine.

Lets try chp 2 shall we?

7 And the Lord God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.


Well, that kinda narrows the field down a bit eh?

And I believe theres some choice scriptures in the D&C that talks about the spirit of all living things being formed before the physical? And how about the fact that our spirits have no begining, and that we have always existed, we are merely progressing in knowledge.....

[_bcspace]

Evolution does not deny or conflict with the fall.

Genesis chp.1

26 ¶ And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.
27 So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.

So is God a single cell protoplasm? Or a Great Ape? Maybe one of those Amoeba with tall the squiggly legs that swim around, those are cool looking. Also the thought of a giant one swimming through the cosmos is kinda cool to imagine.

Lets try chp 2 shall we?

7 And the Lord God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.

Well, that kinda narrows the field down a bit eh?

So how does any of that preclude God from using evolution to create physcial bodies in His own image? How does a 'single cell protoplasm', evolving over time into a homo sapiens, conflict with that. Do specify.

And I believe theres some choice scriptures in the D&C that talks about the spirit of all living things being formed before the physical?

Sure. Where is the conflict?

And how about the fact that our spirits have no begining, and that we have always existed, we are merely progressing in knowledge.....

Doesn't speak to the issue. Evolution creates the physical body. God places the spirit within.

[_Gazelam]

Ok. lets opperate from this point...

Why was the Fall necessary?

[_bcspace]

Ok. lets opperate from this point...

Why was the Fall necessary?

To bring death into the created world.