Went through the Temple last week...

[_squawkeye]

It is believed that pre-adamites existed. Believed by a few high ranking LDS authorities. What is not believed is what ParanoidBoyd says, humand didn't evolve from slime mold.

Mankind is still evolving. Stronger, bigger and the whole Wide World of Sports thing. doesn't mean he is changing into anotherl species, just evolving over time.

[_Dr. Shades]

Your first paragraph is spot on. But I'm wondering if you could provide references for the A, B, and C, assertions in the second paragraph?

You'll find those elucidated in great detail in Whitmer's own An Address to All Believers in Christ, reprint in my possession, but found in various and sundry places around the 'net.

Dr. Shades, I think it is possible that Whitmer may have had problems with the developmental views of God as Mormonism moved along. . . The question could be asked whether Whitmer may have had a difficult time with moving from trinitarianism to the later Mormon views (King Follett) concerning God.

I'm afraid that that's unnecessarily speculative from my point of view, since A) Whitmer left the church during its Missouri days, before the church's concept of God had changed beyond standard Trinitarianism, and B) he didn't mention any changing notion of the Godhead in his list of grievances as outlined in An Address to All Believers in Christ.

[_silentkid]

Mankind is still evolving. Stronger, bigger and the whole Wide World of Sports thing. doesn't mean he is changing into anotherl species, just evolving over time.

Try not to view evolution as a linear process. Changes do occur within species (as you noted above), but speciation is a branching process. Descent with modification looks more like a tree with many limbs. Also, evolution occurs at the population level, not the individual level. Many forces act to change genetic frequencies in populations, especially natural selection. When the genetic differences are great enough and some sort of isolation splits the original population, speciation can occur. The fossil record and modern genetics support this. The problem with trying to predict future human evolution is that we, as a species, have learned how to manipulate our environment. We can combat natural selection by changing our surroundings. If it gets too cold, turn on the heater, light a fire, layer up. If you have asthma, take medication. Lots of factors play a role in speciation. It's not a simple process.

[_Ray A]

William Law had problems with the King Follett discourse (and polygamy), not David Whitmer.

Not sure where you got this from Shades, but polygamy was one of David Whitmer's huge problems with Joseph Smith. Unless I'm misreading you.

[_Analytics]

It really is not that complicated or sinister. When I said I TEND to share Elder Packers sentiment, I meant that I TEND not to believe that man evolved from slime. That's all.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

I figured that is what you meant and I didn't mean to imply that your point was sinister. It's just ironic that Packer is so dogmatic not only about how evolution is false, but also about how irreverent people are who accept the findings of mainstream science. If you held an attitude like Packer's on these points, it most certainly would pertain to your spiritual growth.

In fact, if you care about the spiritual growth of Mormons, you ought to suggest that they don't emulate Packer in his attitudes of pride and judgementalism.

[_wenglund]

It really is not that complicated or sinister. When I said I TEND to share Elder Packers sentiment, I meant that I TEND not to believe that man evolved from slime. That's all.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

I figured that is what you meant and I didn't mean to imply that your point was sinister. It's just ironic that Packer is so dogmatic not only about how evolution is false, but also about how irreverent people are who accept the findings of mainstream science. If you held an attitude like Packer's on these points, it most certainly would pertain to your spiritual growth.

In fact, if you care about the spiritual growth of Mormons, you ought to suggest that they don't emulate Packer in his attitudes of pride and judgementalism.

I think you are reading way, way too much into Elder Packer's brief comment and, ironically, harshly judging him. But, it's not a point that I see much value quibbling over.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[_Lamanite]

You'll find those elucidated in great detail in Whitmer's own An Address to All Believers in Christ, reprint in my possession, but found in various and sundry places around the 'net.

I'm new here so perhaps things are done with a certain relaxed attitude. That's cool.


I did want to share that Mark Twain read the Book of Mormon and commented on it's absolute authenticity.

The priesthood ban actually began with a suggestion by Lucy Walker to get rid of the "mud people".

The Adam God theory was never taught by BY, and I have seen a signed affidavit that it was mean to be a joke and was made up by one of the Pratts.

Do you want references and documentation? Oh, it's in books I have in my possession. It's common knowledge though. Plus you can find it on the Net. Do your own homework.

Big UP!

Lamanite

[/Sarcasm]

[_Droopy]

Doesn't it seem strange, though? The temple and the scriptures, God's bestest and most inspired words, present the "up close" view, where nothing significant can be noted. The "step back over thousands of generations" view instead comes from Darwin and science. God is getting scooped by mortals.

What's strange about it? Evolutionary theory has nothing whatever to do with answers to the "terrible questions" and the underlying meaning of existence.

Why should the Temple ceremony concern itself with evolution?

[_Droopy]

Sounds very much like Gould's NOMA theory.

NOMA is, however, a Trojan horse. Once accepted at face value, a LDS (or other Christian) must cede virtually all of his core religious conceptions to science. This is because Gould was very clear that the scope of empirical science is all of reality, leaving to religion nothing more than ethics and values.

This is wise, as science cannot provide values. However, the Restored Gospel is hardly limited to prescriptions regarding ethics and values. It is about teleology. It is about creation. It is about ontology. It is about the origin, nature, and destiny of mankind. It is about the meaning of the universe and our relationship to it. It is about eternal progression, the purpose of mortality, and about becoming like God. It is about the plan of salvation of which evolution is a part (science tells us that evolution occurred and, to a greater or lesser degree at a surface level, how it occurred. The Gospel will ultimately tell us why it occurred and how the principles of evolution were organized and structured to produce the conditions and outcomes desired, and for what purpose).

[_Droopy]

Who said anything about believing in absurdities? I know I have not advocated such, nor have I seen any indication that BC has done anything of the sort.

So you believe that the Garden of Eden was in Missouri? Do you believe that homosexuals can be "cured"?

If they desire to change and are uncomfortable with SSA, all available evidence indicates that for these, change is indeed quite possible.

I see no problem with the Garden of Eden being in Missouri. Where would you like it to be?