Mormonism and Evolution

[_bcspace]

I listened for about a half hour in the garage while working on my latest guitar amp project, and then had to stop to go watch a movie with my wife. I'll finish it up tomorrow. So far I've heard a lot of interesting historical stuff, but nothing yet has really dealt with the problem of existing church doctrine that conflicts with how evolution occurs, eg: death before the Fall. I will return and report tomorrow the rest of the story.

I'm glad I've been able to reconcile it to the satisfaction of most who take the time to understand my hypothesis. And those who aren't are usually left with no adequate argument to cling to. I am looking forward to listening to the podcast, but first, my Sunday duties call and that includes some sleep beforehand.

[_Sethbag]

I listened for about a half hour in the garage while working on my latest guitar amp project, and then had to stop to go watch a movie with my wife. I'll finish it up tomorrow. So far I've heard a lot of interesting historical stuff, but nothing yet has really dealt with the problem of existing church doctrine that conflicts with how evolution occurs, eg: death before the Fall. I will return and report tomorrow the rest of the story.

I'm glad I've been able to reconcile it to the satisfaction of most who take the time to understand my hypothesis.

I'm glad for you too. Heaven forbid you should ever realize someday that the church you believe in was making it all up as they went along, as every other church in the world, throughout history, has done.

And those who aren't are usually left with no adequate argument to cling to.

I'm not one of those people. I view your "reconcilation" as tantamount to your own invented religion, and as with all religions, there's no particularly good reason why anyone else should believe it.

I am looking forward to listening to the podcast, but first, my Sunday duties call and that includes some sleep beforehand.

Return and report.

[_Jason Bourne]

First of all thanks for all the comments. I am about 2/3 of the way through the podcast. The main reason I posted about this here is to just see what thoughts are. I am not an expert on the science of evolution. Well I am not an expert on science at all. I would like to learn more about so many things and this is one. I have read some online and I like to read National Geographic though I feel it is sort of elementary on a lot of subjects. No that it is a bad publication. It is just more basic.

But I found it interesting that those on this podcast are scientific and they feel quite fine in taking a position that evolution and an old earth does not have to be conflicting with an LDS person's faith. In fact one commented that for a Christian based faith (please no arguments about the LDS church's Christian base or not here) the LDS Church has many less problems than other Christian based faiths.

And I found it interesting the conflicting views various prominent LDS leaders have taken as well as the carefully crafted statements by the FP about evolution, old earth and pre-adamites, death before the fall and so on. Really the top leadership has said it has no position either way, which I believe our good BC Space has been arguing for some time. Perhaps he is correct-one can hold some of the positions he has held and be quite fine and not out of line with church doctrine. I have not taken the time to read all the statements other than what has been referenced here in the past. But they seem to allow for much more than perhaps some argue.

However the other problem that arises, as has been shown here, by Darth J in particular,m is the continued teachings in LDS manuals that continue to reinforce a more literal view of the Bible teachings about Adam and Eve and even a young earth.

Is it incorrect to say that the Church is sort of all over the place on this? I think many sitting in the pews on Sunday are more literal in their views on this subject. Others may not be but I think they may be fewer. Still it is not something I discuss a lot with members but I might be fun to explore.

For me really, as maybe some of you have noticed, it is more and more difficult for me to reconcile science about these things with what I always believed as a TBM. In particular as I have mentioned in the past what this may do for a literal Adam and Eve and fall of man. Some more liberal leaning Christians here seem to think no Adam and Eve and no literal fall is not a problem. Others do. LDS doctrine certainly seems to need a literal fall of man. Some seem to be able to reconcile death before Adam and the fall with a literal Adam but it seems to take a lot of mental gymnastics to do so.

So I am more interested in discussion and have no passionate position on this topic. Just trying to learn and be open.

[_bcspace]

However the other problem that arises, as has been shown here, by Darth J in particular,m is the continued teachings in LDS manuals that continue to reinforce a more literal view of the Bible teachings about Adam and Eve and even a young earth.

They're too well counter balanced by neutral statements and even outright openings for evolution to run through for one who actually knows LDS doctrine to honestly defend the literal young earth view as official doctrine.

[_The Dude]

I guess you could say God is a shapechanger and nobody knows his true form.

When he speaks to human prophets, he says he created us in his image, but that's not literally true because he used evolution and let it run free until intelligent beings arose and he decided it was time to contact them. When he appears to human prophets he morphs into a human form, which is really just a branch of primate. Not his true form.

Is this what the podcast people are saying? Are they engaging the problem of God being a human if evolution is true?

[_Jason Bourne]

They're too well counter balanced by neutral statements and even outright openings for evolution to run through for one who actually knows LDS doctrine to honestly defend the literal young earth view as official doctrine.

But BC why does the church dodge? The FP statements simply say "We don't know so we take no position for or against." And yet manuals seem support literal biblical views. So the Church creates the problem. Why not just take a stand. Say the Church accepts evolutions and all it entails.

[_Darth J]

However the other problem that arises, as has been shown here, by Darth J in particular,m is the continued teachings in LDS manuals that continue to reinforce a more literal view of the Bible teachings about Adam and Eve and even a young earth.

They're too well counter balanced by neutral statements and even outright openings for evolution to run through for one who actually knows LDS doctrine to honestly defend the literal young earth view as official doctrine.

1. I do not dispute that the One True Church sometimes contradicts itself in its official teachings. I have started several threads about that.

2. Despite the Church occasionally insisting that it "does not take a position" on evolution, it makes certain assertions of fact regarding the origins of mortal life on this planet that cannot be reconciled with evolution. To make these assertions, but then speciously claim not to "take a position," is like saying you do not take a position on Obama's presidency while campaigning for Mitt Romney.

[_Darth J]

even outright openings for evolution to run through for one who actually knows LDS doctrine to honestly defend the literal young earth view as official doctrine.

Yes, there are certainly many outright openings in LDS doctrine for homo sapiens to have been living, breeding, and dying for thousands of years before Adam and Eve.

[Guest]

When he speaks to human prophets, he says he created us in his image, but that's not literally true because he used evolution and let it run free until intelligent beings arose and he decided it was time to contact them.

How is it conflicting to say that God created man in His own image via evolution?

I do not dispute that the One True Church sometimes contradicts itself in its official teachings.

Do you have an example of this vis a vis evolution?

Despite the Church occasionally insisting that it "does not take a position" on evolution, it makes certain assertions of fact regarding the origins of mortal life on this planet that cannot be reconciled with evolution.

Such as?

But BC why does the church dodge? The FP statements simply say "We don't know so we take no position for or against." And yet manuals seem support literal biblical views.

The manuals state that there is no doctrine on the age of the earth, that we don't know the details of how God created man, and that the seven thousands years (D&C 77) do not include the time used to prepare the earth as a dwelling place for man. The doctrine on Eve being taken from Adam's rib is that it's figurative. How does that support "literal" Biblical views?

Say the Church accepts evolutions and all it entails.

The Church accepts that evolution is not precluded as the method God used because it's impossible to use LDS doctrine to rule it out.

Yes, there are certainly many outright openings in LDS doctrine for homo sapiens to have been living, breeding, and dying for thousands of years before Adam and Eve

You're the one who qualified with "many". So waht is many? I listed three above. Another is 2 Nephi 2:22 wherein we see that everything was reated before being placed in the state of no death. If the process was evolution, then yes, we can have preAdamite homo sapiens. In a relative sense, I'd agree four is "many" in this case.

[_Darth J]

I do not dispute that the One True Church sometimes contradicts itself in its official teachings.

Do you have an example of this vis a vis evolution?

No. Do you? This would be an example where the Church says there was death anywhere on this planet before the Fall, or that there were human beings before Adam and Eve, for example.

Despite the Church occasionally insisting that it "does not take a position" on evolution, it makes certain assertions of fact regarding the origins of mortal life on this planet that cannot be reconciled with evolution.

Such as?

Book of Mormon Teacher Manual (2009)

“The plan required the Creation, and that in turn required both the Fall and the Atonement. These are the three fundamental components of the plan. The creation of a paradisiacal planet came from God. Mortality and death came into the world through the Fall of Adam. Immortality and the possibility of eternal life were provided by the Atonement of Jesus Christ. The Creation, the Fall, and the Atonement were planned long before the actual work of the Creation began” (in Conference Report, Apr. 2000, 105; or Ensign, May 2000, 84).

CES Manual: Old Testament, Section 2-16

"Adam was the first of all creatures to fall and become flesh, and flesh in this sense means mortality, and all through our scriptures the Lord speaks of this life as flesh, while we are here in the flesh, so Adam became the first flesh. There was no other mortal creature before him, and there was no mortal death until he brought it, and the scriptures tell you that. It is here written, and that is the gospel of Jesus Christ.” (Seek Ye Earnestly, pp. 280–81.)

Bruce R. McConkie, “The Caravan Moves On,” Ensign, November 1984

There is no salvation in a system of religion that rejects the doctrine of the Fall or that assumes man is the end product of evolution and so was not subject to a fall.

True believers know that this earth and man and all forms of life were created in an Edenic, or paradisiacal, state in which there was no mortality, no procreation, no death.

In that primeval day Adam and Eve were “in a state of innocence, having no joy, for they knew no misery; doing no good, for they knew no sin.” (2 Ne. 2:23.)

But in the providences of the Lord, “Adam fell that men might be; and men are, that they might have joy.” (2 Ne. 2:25.)

By his fall, Adam introduced temporal and spiritual death into the world and caused this earth life to become a probationary estate.

Lesson 4: “Because of My Transgression My Eyes Are Opened”, Old Testament Gospel Doctrine Teacher’s Manual

The Fall of Adam and Eve brought physical and spiritual death into the world. Physical death is the separation of the body and the spirit that occurs at the end of our mortal lives......

To help explain that Adam and Eve did not sin when they partook of the forbidden fruit, read the following statement from Elder Dallin H. Oaks:

“It was Eve who first transgressed the limits of Eden in order to initiate the conditions of mortality."

Bruce R. McConkie, “Christ and the Creation,” Ensign, Jun 1982

Mortality and procreation and death all had their beginnings with the Fall. The tests and trials of a mortal probation began when our first parents were cast out of their Edenic home. “Because that Adam fell, we are,” Enoch said, “and by his fall came death; and we are made partakers of misery and woe.” (Moses 6:48.) One of the most profound doctrinal declarations ever made fell from the lips of mother Eve. She said: “Were it not for our transgression we never should have had seed, and never should have known good and evil, and the joy of our redemption, and the eternal life which God giveth unto all the obedient.” (Moses 5:11.)

And be it also remembered that the Fall was made possible because an infinite Creator, in the primeval day, made the earth and man and all forms of life in such a state that they could fall. This fall involved a change of status. All things were so created that they could fall or change, and thus was introduced the type and kind of existence needed to put into operation all of the terms and conditions of the Father’s eternal plan of salvation.

This first temporal creation of all things, as we shall see, was paradisiacal in nature. In the primeval and Edenic day all forms of life lived in a higher and different state than now prevails. The coming fall would take them downward and forward and onward. Death and procreation had yet to enter the world. That death would be Adam’s gift to man, and, then, the gift of God would be eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord.

Thus, existence came from God; death came by Adam; and immortality and eternal life come through Christ......

Thus we learn that the initial creation was paradisiacal; death and mortality had not yet entered the world. There was no mortal flesh upon the earth for any form of life. The Creation was past, but mortality as we know it lay ahead. All things had been created in a state of paradisiacal immortality.

Lesson 6: The Fall of Adam,” Aaronic Priesthood Manual 3

Explain that physical death, known also as temporal death, was introduced into the world as a consequence of the Fall. As a result of the Fall, all people and all forms of life upon the earth must suffer a physical death, a separation of spirit and body.

Chapter 3: "The Lamb Slain from the Foundation of the World,” Teachings of Presidents of the Church: Harold B. Lee

Besides the Fall having had to do with Adam and Eve, causing a change to come over them, that change affected all human nature, all of the natural creations, all of the creation of animals, plants—all kinds of life were changed. The earth itself became subject to death.

The manuals state that there is no doctrine on the age of the earth, that we don't know the details of how God created man, and that the seven thousands years (D&C 77) not not include the time used to prepare the earth as a dwelling place for man. How does that support "literal" Biblical views?

You're still equivocating between the age of the big rock hurtling through space that we call the Earth, and the age of mortal life on this Earth.

The manuals state in no uncertain terms that there was no death ANYWHERE ON THIS PLANET FOR ANY FORM OF LIFE before the Fall.