Are Mormonism and Human Evolution Compatible?

[_bcspace]

OMG... lol... So you think you are acting like Jesus in that statement? And you think I have never read my scriptures before? K... well, you win, Jesus...

Do you claim to be LDS and scoff when one tries to follow Christ's example and command? Do you deny the verses I gave? Of course this speaks volumes about what little you know of Christ.....

[_Sethbag]

I think it can be compatible with Mormonism and the creation of all things accept for man.

Evolution includes very long periods of things living and dying. Mormon doctrine is that nothing died on Earth until Adam's Fall. Evolution is clearly not compatible with this LDS doctrine, and the only way around it is to soft-pedal the doctrine and reinterpret and redefine it as much as is required to avoid problems like this. Basically you have to give up traditional Mormon doctrines in order for evolution and other modern scientific principles to be compatible with Mormon doctrine. Isn't that ironic?

It seems to me that if there was no Adam and Eve type then the fall and the need for an atonement become void. Course this is an issue for Christianity as well. Of course Adam and Eve could have been the first intelligent civilized humans, or maybe the first ones to start the "chosen" line or something like that.

But JFS and BRM both found evolution for how man came to be nullifying the need for Christ.

There's quite simply too much redefinition going on. Mormon doctrine is clear on the subject. God created the earth, and he created the plants and animals, but man was not found on the earth, so God created Adam. This only works with actual Earth history if all the "pre-Adamites" are redefined as "not man", and then you have this tremendous problem of what to call all the homo sapiens who had already invented written language, and the wheel, and the agricultural revolution, and had already founded the first proto-civilizations, and were already speaking proto-Indo European languages and other ancestral languages, at the time Adam came along and was the "first man".

Surely you see the problem. This reality is simply not compatible with LDS doctrine without eviscerating and utterly redefining away LDS doctrine until it can be somewhat plausible.

Why bother? What is it about Mormonism to you that it needs to remain "true" enough that you're willing to redefine all your beliefs and basically give up so much of what Mormons believe and have believed, just so that it can remain true, or at least plausible, to you? What kind of hold does Mormonism have on you that you are driven to hold onto it in this way, when it is obviously not true? What is it about the hold the ideas of Mormonism has on your mind that you, an obviously intelligent man, are willing to twist and turn so much so that these cherished beliefs can still be true?

[_barrelomonkeys]

I'm a heathen. Always have been and hate you all!



;P

*will work at being more Christ like*

[_bcspace]

Mormon doctrine is that nothing died on Earth until Adam's Fall.

As per 2 Nephi 2:22 (explained above), I don't think that is the case. The context of the scriptures is that there was no death after the creation was completed. But there doesn't seem to be any context that there was no death during the creative process.

Basically you have to give up traditional Mormon doctrines in order for evolution and other modern scientific principles to be compatible with Mormon doctrine.

How so? Do you have any quotes from a doctrinal source? Here is one I found....

When Adam and Eve were placed in the Garden of Eden, they were not yet mortal. They were not able to have children. There was no death. Chapter 6: The Fall of Adam and Eve,” Gospel Principles, 31

Seems to support 2 Nephi 2:22 in that we were created into a state of no death. But it doesn't support the notion that there was no death during the creative process which would include any evolutionary processes.

There's quite simply too much redefinition going on.

CFR

This only works with actual Earth history if all the "pre-Adamites" are redefined as "not man", and then you have this tremendous problem of what to call all the homo sapiens who had already invented written language, and the wheel, and the agricultural revolution, and had already founded the first proto-civilizations, and were already speaking proto-Indo European languages and other ancestral languages, at the time Adam came along and was the "first man".

Why couldn't the nonhuman spirits in said 'preAdamites' be intelligent?

[_Nephi]

OMG... lol... So you think you are acting like Jesus in that statement? And you think I have never read my scriptures before? K... well, you win, Jesus...

Do you claim to be LDS and scoff when one tries to follow Christ's example and command? Do you deny the verses I gave? Of course this speaks volumes about what little you know of Christ.....

Trying to be Christ like and comparing one's actions to that of the Perfect Example are two totally different things. I scoff that you think how Christ rebukes the Saudecees and how you make blanket statements about people whom you think attack you personally are very different from each other.

[_Sethbag]

Mormon doctrine is that nothing died on Earth until Adam's Fall.

How so? Do you have any quotes from a doctrinal source? Here is one I found....

When Adam and Eve were placed in the Garden of Eden, they were not yet mortal. They were not able to have children. There was no death. Chapter 6: The Fall of Adam and Eve,” Gospel Principles, 31

Seems to support 2 Nephi 2:22 in that we were created into a state of no death. But it doesn't support the notion that there was no death during the creative process which would include any evolutionary processes.

The evolutionary process requires that things be able to procreate. Not being able to have children contradicts evolution.
I'm sorry, BCSpace, but you're grasping here. You know as well as I do that the doctrine and teaching we've received from our Prophets, Seers, and Revelators, is that there was no death on Earth, period, until after the Fall. You're trying to find a loophole in 2 Nephi 2:22, but that is your invention, and is contrary to the teachings of the Lord's Anointed. The Church doesn't need ark-steadiers like you, mighty and strong in the scriptures, to set forth true LDS doctrines - that's a right they jealously claim for themselves. And it's clear what doctrines they've propagated down to us since the days of Joseph Smith and his successors.

Here's a perfect example of what I'm talking about.

The process by which mankind became mortal on this earth. The event is recorded in Gen. 2, 3, 4; and Moses 3, 4. The fall of Adam is one of the most important occurrences in the history of man. Before the fall, Adam and Eve had physical bodies but no blood [sethbag: not consistent with Evolution]. There was no sin, no death [sethbag: not consistent with evolution], and no children among any of the earthly creations[sethbag: not consistent with evolution]. With the eating of the “forbidden fruit,” Adam and Eve became mortal, sin entered, blood formed in their bodies, and death became a part of life [sethbag: just plain whacky]. Adam became the “first flesh” upon the earth (Moses 3: 7), meaning that he and Eve were the first to become mortal [sethbag: with respect to JBS Haldane, who needs fossil rabbits in the pre-Cambrian when they've got Adam and Eve in the late Neolithic?]. After Adam fell, the whole creation fell and became mortal. Adam’s fall brought both physical and spiritual death into the world upon all mankind (Hel. 14: 16-17).
The fall was no surprise to the Lord. It was a necessary step in the progress of man, and provisions for a Savior had been made even before the fall had occurred. Jesus Christ came to atone for the fall of Adam and also for man’s individual sins.
Latter-day revelation supports the biblical account of the fall, showing that it was a historical event that literally occurred in the history of man.[emphasis added]

With all due respect, BCSpace, you may be a nice guy, but nobody gives a damn what is the Gospel according to BCSpace. This message board is about discussing the Gospel according to the LDS Church. I know that you've got a better grasp of the Scriptures than the Lord's Anointed, but we're not really here to argue with your own personal version of the Gospel, are we?

This only works with actual Earth history if all the "pre-Adamites" are redefined as "not man", and then you have this tremendous problem of what to call all the homo sapiens who had already invented written language, and the wheel, and the agricultural revolution, and had already founded the first proto-civilizations, and were already speaking proto-Indo European languages and other ancestral languages, at the time Adam came along and was the "first man".

Why couldn't the nonhuman spirits in said 'preAdamites' be intelligent?

And why couldn't monkeys really fly out of my butt? Dude, you're trying to paint a picture that looks exactly as if human beings evolved over eons of time, just the way the scientists said we did, and even invented written languages, the wheel, and civilization before God came down, changed the world into an immortal paradise, and then added something to one man, Adam, who apparently was born sterile but not for long, which made him truly "man" when all the other humans weren't. And all of these intelligent non-man humans just stopped killing animals for food, stopped killing each other in whatever wars and skirmishes they fought with each other, whatever conquests they were making, etc., and didn't resume any of this death and killing until Adam decided to eat a certain piece of fruit? Can you actually just stop and try to think objectively about this for one minute?

[_bcspace]

Do you claim to be LDS and scoff when one tries to follow Christ's example and command? Do you deny the verses I gave? Of course this speaks volumes about what little you know of Christ.....

Trying to be Christ like and comparing one's actions to that of the Perfect Example are two totally different things.

Incorrect. One must make such comparisons in order to try in the first place.

I scoff that you think how Christ rebukes the Saudecees and how you make blanket statements about people whom you think attack you personally are very different from each other.

A strawman based on an assumption. A typical antiMormon tactic is to use a strawman......

[_Nephi]

I think what BCSpace and I are alluding to is that most LDS do NOT believe in the literal fall of Adam and Eve. We see it symbolically.

[_Sethbag]

I think what BCSpace and I are alluding to is that most LDS do NOT believe in the literal fall of Adam and Eve. We see it symbolically.

In my experience in the church, I believe you are wrong. I'm quite sure that most Chapel Mormons really, truly do believe in a literal Fall of Adam, and question any science that suggests otherwise.

Also, Nephi, how do you explain the last sentence I quoted from the Bible dictionary, which says that these events are known through modern-day revelation to be literally true? Are you suggesting that the modern-day revelation, received by the Lord's Anointed, the Prophets, Seers, and Revelators, is wrong, and you're right, about what LDS "really" believe?

[_bcspace]

The evolutionary process requires that things be able to procreate. Not being able to have children contradicts evolution.

Except that 2 Nephi 2:22 says that they were created into that state. It says nothing of the sate before where the creation was taking place. Hence, there is nothing to preclude birth or death before the creation was finished.

I'm sorry, BCSpace, but you're grasping here. You know as well as I do that the doctrine and teaching we've received from our Prophets, Seers, and Revelators, is that there was no death on Earth, period, until after the Fall.

CFR from official sources please.

Here's a perfect example of what I'm talking about.

And here is a perfect example of lazy research for Nephi. The introduction to the Bible Dictionary says....

"It is not intended as an official or revealed endorsement by the Church of the doctrinal, historical, cultural, and other matters set forth."

You should be using the Guide To The Scriptures instead.

With all due respect, BCSpace, you may be a nice guy, but nobody gives a damn what is the Gospel according to BCSpace.

As it should be.

This message board is about discussing the Gospel according to the LDS Church. I know that you've got a better grasp of the Scriptures than the Lord's Anointed, but we're not really here to argue with your own personal version of the Gospel, are we?

I've never presented evolution as doctrine. I've simply shown that LDS doctrine doesn't preclude it.

Why couldn't the nonhuman spirits in said 'preAdamites' be intelligent?

And why couldn't monkeys really fly out of my butt?

Too tight?

Dude, you're trying to paint a picture that looks exactly as if human beings evolved over eons of time, just the way the scientists said we did, and even invented written languages, the wheel, and civilization before God came down, changed the world into an immortal paradise, and then added something to one man, Adam, who apparently was born sterile but not for long, which made him truly "man" when all the other humans weren't. And all of these intelligent non-man humans just stopped killing animals for food, stopped killing each other in whatever wars and skirmishes they fought with each other, whatever conquests they were making, etc., and didn't resume any of this death and killing until Adam decided to eat a certain piece of fruit?

I'm not limited to a 4004 BC date for the Fall. BRM and Cleon Skousen might be, but the Church is not so limited. You seem to have a fundamental ignorance of what the Church considers doctrine. I suggest you start on the path to understanding this by reading D&C 107.

Can you actually just stop and try to think objectively about this for one minute?

In my minute of objective thinking, I came across the thought that perhaps you can't think objectively at all.