Three Heavens or Degrees of Glory

[_huckelberry]

It will not make everybody happy but it is possible to view the fall story as a parable about the human condition. It introduces an image of our propensity to sin. Viewed that way it does not have to refer to a specific event in time or to a specific human couple. It simply is about us.

[_ClarkGoble]

At what point in the evolutionary chain going back would this no longer be an option that is allowed?

That's the key weakness in the theory - or strength depending upon the perspective I guess. It just talks about pre-adamites without addressing the issue of when a suitable spirit enters into such beings (as well as leaving open when a historic Adam lives).

Of course the hand waving type of response is more or less akin to the beginning of Kubrick's and Clarke's 2001: A Space Odyssey. There you have proto-man and the monolith comes down and modifies them genetically in some fashion to enable tool and language use. Now from a evolutionary psychology perspective tool use just isn't as an abrupt change as Clarke portrayed it. Even chimps use tools. However for language there's more of a debate and usually it is portrayed as some unique mutations that allow for big changes. Typically some mutations for the throat/voice box and then some for the brain. My favorite author along those lines is Michael Tomasello, although that more or less just privileges what side in the debate I find most persuasive. His Cultural Origins of Human Communication, while now a bit dated (it came out nearly 20 years ago) still is the best at orienting the debate. (in my opinion) The big problem is getting the time right since once language use develops you end up enabling cultural evolution and things develop very quickly. So it pretty well has to happen within the last 100,000 years and perhaps more recently for the full set of mutations.

Now I should add that we don't need intervention ala Kubrick here. It could just be a mutation that allows this to be useful. After all God might well be allowing life to evolve on billions of worlds and just doing minor interventions. It may well be that language could evolve in humanoid like creatures sufficient for his purposes independent of intervention. It would seem though the key issue is that change in gene whether it arose by way of natural mutation or genetic engineering or something in between. (Say God increases the radiation in an area increasing mutation rates - something that seed companies often do)

I'm not saying this is the only solution. The other obvious one is a halfway position between Genesis 2 as archetype myth and historical. In that case Adam's real in some sense but most of the story about him is figurative. I don't embrace that view but mainly just because of a burden of proof position I take. If there is a naturalistic explanation that explains the evidence (as I think there is) then I tend to prefer that. But of course I'm always open to further evidence.

Are animals previous to the era of Adam allowed into heaven as well?

I don't know, but a common interpretation of Joseph Smith's comments about Revelation being figurative but done by real beasts is that there are animals in heaven. That seems reaching a bit, but I do tend to believe animals have spirits and thus are in heaven. I like to imagine my dogs will be there with me. But I would never claim to know. Exactly what the relationship is or how that lines up with evolution isn't clear to me. Of course for a model like Orson Pratt's this isn't an issue since everything has and is spirit. But there are pretty good reasons to be skeptical of Pratt's model which was always pretty speculative.

The main issue with animals is the issue of premortal life. Often the JST transition between the two creation accounts is seen as treating the initial creation as spiritual. (As many have noted it has some resemblance to Philo's writings on the subject as well, suggesting the original creation was more a platonic creation or at least just organizing in the sense of planning) This is less of an issue for traditional Christianity as they have spirits created at the moment of conception whereas for Mormons all spirits are eternal. It would seem to follow that animal spirits are also eternal, although there's no real formal doctrine on that as I can tell. And of course what that means varies. Brigham Young had a mostly physicalist ontology and just thought uncreated intelligence was the building blocks out of which spirits were made. Thus he thought sons of perdition would eventually be annihilated as persons by being returned to their constituent parts. Most Mormons adopt an intelligence as something eternal though.

I assume you know this, but many don't, but there's actually much more diversity of thought in Mormonism here than most realize. It's really far less certain than some portrayals make it. Even McConkie, while more or less adopting a tripartite ontology of self, tends to leave alone what intelligences are for the most part. I suspect that folk theology here mostly comes out of Orson Pratt and B. H. Roberts in a kind of muddled incoherent fashion.

[_Maksutov]

Interesting comments, Clark. Glad you're hanging out with us.

[_spotlight]

Hi Clark. Thanks for the reply.
GMO humans? My wife will not approve of this idea at all, she won't even let me buy Round-Up, and now, no Bayer products which could really help about now.
I have some things to post for you to consider both about this religious model and the idea of the existence of spirits but it's the weekend and the only time we have to enjoy some time together without distractions.

[_spotlight]

Hi Clark, (I'm dropping all sarcasm and snark), As you mentioned that only looking at what we can establish from the evidence kills the discussion and allows us only to talk about the mundane, I must point out by noting that if we are allowed to make things up at will the discussion likewise must die.

What can we do then in order to have a discussion? If we are not to follow the scientific method nor a religious model that is unfalsifiable is there a way to have a discussion?

The only way I can think of is to look at evidence that must contradict the religious model or consider parts of the model that are ad hoc.

So in order to have a discussion we must have a particular model. Otherwise we are constantly moving on before we have finished the discussion and all we are really doing is having a faith promoting chat after a fireside (do they use that term anymore?). This is evasive and a distraction. After we look at a particular model and can safely set it aside then and only then should we move on to consider the next possible model.

You are juggling all of these possibilities and choosing one to address any particular issue then promptly setting it aside to select the next invention to deal with the next problem from the science.

This is the same way YECs use to debate, derail the discussion or deal with the problems of science. It leaves them free from having to tie all of the facts of science together into a coherent whole. It allows them to ignore the issue of consilience between otherwise disparate fields and facts.

Thoughts?

[_ClarkGoble]

What can we do then in order to have a discussion? If we are not to follow the scientific method nor a religious model that is unfalsifiable is there a way to have a discussion?

The only way I can think of is to look at evidence that must contradict the religious model or consider parts of the model that are ad hoc.

I certainly agree and those are the discussions I like the best. They're always by their very nature somewhat speculative but attempting to find constraints on religious belief. However inherent to such discussions is not having a position but looking at the wide range of possibilities.

A lot of people hate that and consider it intrinsically a dodge.

You are juggling all of these possibilities and choosing one to address any particular issue then promptly setting it aside to select the next invention to deal with the next problem from the science.

That to me is just inherent to analyzing vague claims. I think it's a logical implication. I can certainly raise a model, but I always have to have a certain tentativeness to any such model and not take it too seriously.

I understand why critics often want to first deny that claims are actually vague at all. It makes life much easier. However just looking at the epistemological issues let alone the textual and hermeneutic issues, it's hard to escape that things are much vaguer than many people initially assume. Take the example I've given before of a spirit. To many they think they have a pretty definite and clear idea of what they mean. However read the history and it's pretty clear no one has a clear idea of what a spirit is. Even the material claim Mormons use to differentiate our conception of spirit from say a Cartesian or Thomas soul is much, much more muddled than it appears at first glance. A critic may not like that, but it's just the reality of the texts.

The implication therefore is that while we can engage a reading there will always be other readings. Now some see that as a flaw - my sense is you do. I don't and see it as a way to try various readings and throw out the ones that don't work.

This is the same way YECs use to debate, derail the discussion or deal with the problems of science. It leaves them free from having to tie all of the facts of science together into a coherent whole. It allows them to ignore the issue of consilience between otherwise disparate fields and facts.

I disagree. YEC usually singularly deny basic facts or refuse to analyze them. There's a few who might be a bit more honest and raise things like God creating everything as if the basic history of evolution and geology happened. But they tend not to be willing to follow through the implications of that. Also YEC are notoriously lame at hermeneutics or analyzing their own readings of texts.

[_spotlight]

Thank you for taking the time to engage with me Clark. Muddled is a key concept here. It's what allows a peep stone to evolve into a Urim and Thummin.

The evolutionary process from the science side involves no end goals while the addition of divine intervention introduces such goals. This changes the issue by throwing in improbable odds that must be surmounted. Then to use those improbable odds as an argument becomes problematic. If you need a Royal Flush or any other particular hand the odds are quite different than the odds that you will get dealt some sort of a hand.

So now God creates Adam with "compatible DNA" (after a manner not unlike traditional fundamentalist Christianity's version of creation) with the existing DNA that he labored over great periods of time to modify along the way to arrive at some form of body plan that is convergent enough to pass as an image of the diety all for the purpose of remaining hidden from view. Meanwhile the terrestrial body that his spirit migrated from to enter the mortal body is put into cryogenic suspension(tongue in cheek) to be utilized later.

Why did Adam fall? To enable procreation. Also it had to be his choice. But procreation is already in play. And those who will be adopted into Adam made no such choice (to fall, that is to say from a terrestrial state, rather they are pre-existent spirits). If animals have no spirits, then the parents of those first to receive a suitable spirit are some sort of unconscious zombies. But it's not apparent to their offspring whom they raise until they are at an age of sufficient maturity to decide whether or not they would like to be adopted by Adam and Eve. Some decide to be adopted while others choose not to be. And to throw a little sarcasm back in here, perhaps because they would prefer to avoid the hassle of learning the pure Adamic language. (Sorry couldn't resist. I'm working on it).

What other speculations can we come up with? How about this one? The last spirits assigned to come down to earth (not Saturday's Warriors but at the end of the millennium) will have no children. So what type of eternal family can they look forward to? Plot holes - how can we fix this? I know, let's seal Adam and his adopted kin to them as children making one eternal round. Problem solved. We can maintain our faith and continue believing the church is true.

How did I do?

[_ClarkGoble]

Thank you for taking the time to engage with me Clark. Muddled is a key concept here. It's what allows a peep stone to evolve into a Urim and Thummin.

Have you read Don Bradley's thesis? He offers pretty compelling reasons to think the seer stones were U&T from the period of Book of Mormon translation and not just the later 1835 use.

The evolutionary process from the science side involves no end goals while the addition of divine intervention introduces such goals.

Depends upon what you mean. Humans got involved early on shaping evolution. Thus bananas, wheat, domesticated animals like dogs, horses, or cows, etc. That's all evolutionarily developed though through selection.

So to say evolutionary forces which in themselves are random never develop along a teleology ignores these selection forces by humans not to mention things like sexual selection. Evolution is random. Selection isn't. (Depending upon what one means by random I suppose)

This changes the issue by throwing in improbable odds that must be surmounted. Then to use those improbable odds as an argument becomes problematic. If you need a Royal Flush or any other particular hand the odds are quite different than the odds that you will get dealt some sort of a hand.

Note I'm not making any kind of anthropic reasoning here. I'm not saying the current situation is so unlikely that interference was necessary. That is I'm not attempting to prove this claim via statistical argument.

Why did Adam fall? To enable procreation. Also it had to be his choice. But procreation is already in play. And those who will be adopted into Adam made no such choice (to fall, that is to say from a terrestrial state, rather they are pre-existent spirits). If animals have no spirits, then the parents of those first to receive a suitable spirit are some sort of unconscious zombies.

This is more touching upon the exegetical issues. You're more or less buying into the No Death Before the Fall readings to make the above. The thing to remember, particularly from the temple, is that each of us is an Adam and Eve that choose to fall and be born here. There's a strong typology. Mormon theology (in most readings) however also requires a real Adam who is the head of the human family that falls. This is just dealing with those.

Now what I think you might be trying to say is that no spirit could come into a body without Adam and Eve first falling. That is no spirit from heaven could enter a human body until after Adam and Eve fell. I'm not sure that's true though - particularly if we're dealing with a block 4D universe and a move from an other universe. (I'm not saying that's the case - just that there are a lot of temporal assumptions being made in the requirement that Adam and Eve fall first if that's the claim)

What other speculations can we come up with? How about this one? The last spirits assigned to come down to earth (not Saturday's Warriors but at the end of the millennium) will have no children. So what type of eternal family can they look forward to? Plot holes - how can we fix this? I know, let's seal Adam and his adopted kin to them as children making one eternal round. Problem solved. We can maintain our faith and continue believing the church is true.

The "last child" problem is an interesting one. But say they don't have children but adopt some spiritually. What's the problem with that? (I'd add that while the end times literature is ridiculously vague, it does appear to involve a lot of war so I'm not sure it's theologically as big a problem as you suggest)

[Guest]

Hi Clark. Thanks again for the ongoing replies.

To clarify, selection is a part of the evolutionary process hence the term natural selection. This is also why (natural) evolution is not a random process. The mutations are random while the selection for that which maintains or improves reproductive viability is not random. If we were to introduce an intervening agent, i.e. a god, then he must meddle in such a fashion that is indiscernible from a wholly natural process else we violate the divine hiddenness theory. Everything we want to use to justify our world view must fit together without contradiction which is why I suggested considering a single model at a time so as not to lose track of this requirement.

The Omphalos hypothesis has been around for some time. Why not just use that to surmount all the issues with science since you are using it anyhow when you have a god create a body for Adam with compatible DNA? His DNA must contain the same ERVs in all the correct locations, LINES and SINES, junk DNA, and pseudogenes, etc.

Consider the pseudogene from our evolutionary past for laying eggs to get a clearer picture of what I am getting at here.

Why the effort to create a model compatible with science when you will still believe whether or not you are successful? Are you attempting to dress a pig in a tuxedo in hopes that those with poor eyesight will not notice it is a pig?

Now if Adam is created as an adult rather than being born as you or I then the problems get worse. His neural net must be made in a manner as though he had taken the time to learn to crawl and gain manual coordination of his limbs. His neural connections must be arbitrarily arranged as though he had learned to acquire language.

Next is the problem of the spirit. If you are attributing consciousness to the spirit then what about the animals without spirits? Specifically the parents of those pre-Adamites who don't have a spirit but give birth to those who will be adopted into Adam? If they can have a mind because they have a brain and a mind is what the brain does then what does the spirit do? If the spirit is necessary for a mind to exist how can a brain function without one?

[_spotlight]

For a long time I have wished that someone more capable than I would write a defense of the fundamental principles of the Gospel for the benefit of our youth who are confronted in their studies in high schools and universities with the modern theories of so-called science and philosophy which are in conflict with the revealed doctrines of the Church.

http://www.sainesburyproject.com/Mormon ... estiny.pdf

I know, I know unfortunate dark times for the church. But,

Succession in the Presidency of the Church has been established by the Lord. The Church is never without inspired leadership, and there is no reason for speculation or controversy over who will become the next President of the Church. President Harold B. Lee (1899–1973) explained: “[The Lord] knows whom he wants to preside over this church, and he will make no mistake. The Lord doesn’t do things by accident. He has never done anything accidentally” (in Conference Report, Oct. 1970, 153; or Improvement Era, Dec. 1970, 127). President Ezra Taft Benson (1899–1994) taught that “God knows all things, the end from the beginning, and no man becomes president of the church of Jesus Christ by accident, or remains there by chance, or is called home by happenstance” (“Jesus Christ—Gifts and Expectations,” New Era, May 1975, 16–17).

https://www.LDS.org/manual/teachings-of ... 3?lang=eng

Throughout Church history, “it has been most evident that the man who is chosen as the president of the Church was foreordained and was the man for the hour” (N. Eldon Tanner, “Chosen of the Lord,” Apr. 1974 general conference). President Nelson has been called by God to be the man for this hour on the earth, and he will act and speak as God would have him act and speak.

https://www.LDS.org/youth/article/how-i ... n?lang=eng

Abraham 3:23
And God saw these souls that they were good, and he stood in the midst of them, and he said: These I will make my rulers; for he stood among those that were spirits, and he saw that they were good; and he said unto me: Abraham, thou art one of them; thou wast chosen before thou wast born.

Is God not able to get these chosen spirits into the leadership roles Clark? If he places them there, then whose responsibility is it that we had those unfortunate dark times?