Mormonism and Evolution

[_bcspace]

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).

I agree that death came into the world via the Fall. How does this preclude evolution and preAdamite homo sapiens?

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.)

The context here is the already finished and created world just as the manual on D&C 77 states that all this does not include the time prior for the earth to be prepared as a dwelling place for man.

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

Answered above.

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

Answered above.

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

See above. Notice that this one says "all things were created so that....." Back to 2 Nephi 2:22 you go. Evolution could have brought about the finished state of all things that ultimately went into the garden state.

Notice also the use of temporal. This is explained the D&C 77 manual which I have posted over and over again. The spiritual creation was a physical creation. Temporal merely refers to time as it relates to the 7000 years.

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

Answered above.

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

Answered above.

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.

Not at all. There is clear doctrine on the matter and I've referred to it on numerous occaisions.

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

I state the same in my hypothesis (allowing for either a complete earth garden state or local as the case may be).

So in short, you have not presented any examples yet.

Next.

[_bcspace]

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

Return and report.

Okay guys. An hour and forty five minutes of mostly (so far after 20 mins of listening) non-sequitur stuff. If you come across something you think I should speak to, please notify me of what time segment in the podcast you want me to listen to or explain it in your own words.

[_moksha]

I applaude efforts by Dan Wortherspoon amd the BYU scientists to help bring Mormons around to accepting evolution.

Mormons took some time to warm up to Galileo and the abandoning of the geocentric Universe. Likewise, even after Columbus returned from his voyage of discovery, some Mormons insisted he had dropped off the edge of the Earth and had returned with devilish tales. Even now some of us Mormons insist that fossils are merely the sedimentary composite remains of creatures from long extinct worlds that did not acheive celestial glory or else are misleading evidence planted by Satan herself.

Please BYU scientists, pull us all into the 21st Century.

.

[_Darth J]

You are not reading these words, and I have not posted them on the internet.

[_Darth J]

So in short, you have not presented any examples yet.

Next.

The Mormon Apologetics Articles of Faith

12. The plain, obvious meaning of the words someone said are not a reliable indication of what they meant.

[_Darth J]

Old Testament Student Manual, Genesis--2 Samuel, "Genesis 1-2---The Creation" (the quote is under Points to Ponder (2-18))

“Of course, I think those people who hold to the view that man has come up through all these ages from the scum of the sea through billions of years do not believe in Adam. Honestly I do not know how they can, and I am going to show you that they do not. There are some who attempt to do it but they are inconsistent—absolutely inconsistent, because that doctrine is so incompatible, so utterly out of harmony, with the revelations of the Lord that a man just cannot believe in both.

“. . . I say most emphatically, you cannot believe in this theory of the origin of man, and at the same time accept the plan of salvation as set forth by the Lord our God. You must choose the one and reject the other, for they are in direct conflict and there is a gulf separating them which is so great that it cannot be bridged, no matter how much one may try to do so. . . .

“. . . Then Adam, and by that I mean the first man, was not capable of sin. He could not transgress, and by doing so bring death into the world; for, according to this theory, death had always been in the world. If, therefore, there was no fall, there was no need of an atonement, hence the coming into the world of the Son of God as the Savior of the world is a contradiction, a thing impossible. Are you prepared to believe such a thing as that?” (Smith, Doctrines of Salvation, 1:141–42.)

[_The Dude]

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?

It is conflicting in the sense that most Mormons understand God's image to be essentially a human male capable of flesh and blood acts like sexual intercourse. Hence we are literally God's image, literally God's children. That is irreconcilable with a scientific understanding of evolution.

Unless you invoke time travel.

[_Darth J]

“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. … How it took place no one can explain, and anyone who would attempt to make an explanation would be going far beyond anything the Lord has told us. But a change was wrought over the whole face of the creation, which up to that time had not been subject to death. From that time henceforth all in nature was in a state of gradual dissolution until mortal death was to come, after which there would be required a restoration in a resurrected state. …

See? Plenty of room for death before the Fall.

[_Darth J]

Here's some interesting quote mining from the FAIR wiki:

http://www.fairwiki.org/Brigham_Young/A ... reationist

Critics try to portray Brigham Young as a "young earth creationist" (YEC). This is someone who believes the earth was created in the recent past, usually 6-7,000 years ago, based upon a literal and fundamentalist reading of Genesis.

They hope that by making Brigham appear uninformed about scientific matters, they can challenge his status as a prophet.

The FAIR wiki purports to refute the criticism with this quote:

“You take, for instance, our geologists, and they tell us that this earth has been in existence for thousands and millions of years. They think, and they have good reason for their faith, that their researches and investigations enable them to demonstrate that this earth has been in existence as long as they assert it has . . . In these respects we differ from the Christian world, for our religion will not clash with or contradict the facts of science in any particular. You may take geology, for instance, and it is a true science; not that I would say for a moment that all the conclusions and deductions of its professors are true, but its leading principles are.”

See, you're supposed to infer from this that Brigham Young was amenable to scientific ideas about the origins of life on this planet, since that's the real issue with young earth creationism. But here's another quote from Brigham Young that the FAIR wiki decidedly omits:

http://brighamyoungacademy.org/index.php

"We have enough and to spare, at present in these mountains, of schools where young infidels are made because the teachers are so tender-footed that they dare not mention the principles of the gospel to their pupils, but have no hesitancy in introducing into the classroom the theories of Huxley, of Darwin, or of Miall, and the false political economy which contends against co-operation and the United Order. This course I am resolutely and uncompromisingly opposed to, and I hope to see the day when the doctrines of the gospel will be taught in all our schools, when the revelation of the Lord will be our texts, and our books will be written and manufactured by ourselves and in our own midst. As a beginning in this direction I have endowed the Brigham Young Academy at Provo.” (Brigham Young, Letters of Brigham Young to His Sons, p. 200)

ETA: The FAIR wiki entry to which I have linked in this post actually has the chutzpah to quote mine Harold B. Lee in support of the assertion that the Church has "no official doctrine" on the age of the Earth, which is a shockingly disingenuous statement. The official Harold B. Lee Sunday school manual quotes Harold B. Lee for the proposition that the Church does have an official position as to the age of mortal life on this Earth, which is the salient issue in evolution vs. young earth creationism.

[Guest]

There are two problems with evolution and the church.

(1) Did the leaders, or do the leaders, really leave room for accepting it? Probably not, but there is some wiggle room as time goes on and the Church tries to cut its losses here and there.

(before I get to the other objection, consider that I can start a new cult right now that demands 11% of your income, but agrees with evolution and all mainstream notions of science of this day. After all, if I don't disagree with basic science, then wow, it's gotta be more in the running than it otherwise would be, right? Get your checkbooks out!)

(2) Is evolution really compatible with the Church, even if the leaders shrug their shoulders and accept it?

Most definitely not.

But go ahead and believe that over the course of millions or billions of years, random mutations and selections of organic matter happened to shape one out of millions of present-day species to the chiseled likeness of a Nordic, Dolph Lundgrenesque Heavenly Father and Jesus Christ.

LOL!