Evolution For Coggies

[_bcspace]

Ever been through the temple ceremony?

Yep. No conflicts.

Oh, really? So, when the ceremony shows the casting out from the Garden of Eden, at what point in the evolution of life on earth did that take place?

Evolution would have simply resumed in my hypothesis.

And when did Adam and Eve actually live, and did they have parents? What does the theory of evolution say? What does the temple ceremony say?

They could have existed over just about any timeline you prefer. I posit a creative state prior to the created state (which is the only state in whic no death is specified) as per 2 Nephi 2:22.

Hence, there was evolution until bodies were ready (and any other conditions that may have been required) for God to place His spirit children within. Therefore, you could entertain the possibility of 'pre-Adamites', genetically indistingushable from us or not.

All that is need is a state prior to the finished creation where 'no death' is not specified and one can fit all manner of theory and hypothesis, scientific or not. Indeed we have such a state thanks to the Book of Mormon.

Creationism is getting farther and farther removed from the realm of plausibility now that we understand that science does not conflict with LDS doctrine and scripture in any way.

[_LCD2YOU]

LCD2YOU,

Which if true (and it isn't) means that nobody ate. There were no carnivores as if they ate meat, then something had to die to feed them. Which begs the question, did lions, tigers and bears (oh my!) even have serated teeth? If this creator god gave them claws and teeth for eating meat before the fall, it seems as if this god was setting man up to fail.

But here's another rub, plants are alive, right? So what did anyone eat? Did this creator god have a soup of amino acids, enzymes and vitamins for the creatures to eat?

I have no idea what the pre/post design of carnivores consisted of. Perhaps the tools grew in after the fall, I dunno.

I've heard that Orson Pratt specualted on what food in heaven will be like. I have no idea what fuel source a celestialized body runs on, if indeed it needs any at all.

Actually we do. The fossils show that carnivores with some combination of claws, jaws, fangs, teeth, etc., have been around at least 650 Million Years ago.

Was the fruit of the tree literal or figurative?

Well it has to be literal. If the fruit was figurative, what else in the Bible is figurative? The whole thing could be figurative and 100% open to personal interpretation and can mean whatever one wants it to be.

[_The Nehor]

Coggins, what is your position on Temple work for the Neanderthals?

Different world....someone else's problem.

Last I heard, Neanderthals were our cousins, not our ancestors. I guess that means someone else can do their temple work.

If it's our problem, we'll probably have to wait for their names.

[_Gazelam]

Gazelam wrote:
Was the fruit of the tree literal or figurative?

Well it has to be literal. If the fruit was figurative, what else in the Bible is figurative? The whole thing could be figurative and 100% open to personal interpretation and can mean whatever one wants it to be.

In a gospel sense fruit tends to represent the outcome of an action. as in "by their fruits ye shall know them". So the Father telling them to eat of many fruits, except for the fruit of a certain tree, could also represent instruction in regards to actions they could take.

As in, you are free to live after this manner, but if you do these certain things, you will receive a different outcome.

[_Doctor Steuss]

[...]Well it has to be literal. If the fruit was figurative, what else in the Bible is figurative? The whole thing could be figurative and 100% open to personal interpretation and can mean whatever one wants it to be.

I think this is a bit of a false dichotomy.

[_Sethbag]

[...]Well it has to be literal. If the fruit was figurative, what else in the Bible is figurative? The whole thing could be figurative and 100% open to personal interpretation and can mean whatever one wants it to be.

I think this is a bit of a false dichotomy.

Not really. The Bible contains descriptions of things, as if those things really happened. If one is free to simply pronounce that any such description is in fact merely figurative, then there's really nothing stopping them all from being figurative, or nothing stopping anyone picking and choosing what is figurative and what isn't. You've got no defense against it except testimony.

Was Christ's death figurative? Did the Romans pound nails into his hands and feet and wrists only figuratively? Did Jesus appear to the 11 apostles and Mary and others after the resurrection only figuratively? Is Jesus only figuratively the son of God? If one insists that, say, Noah's Ark is only figurative, or Adam and Eve and the fruit in the Garden of Eden is only figurative, or the Earth being only around 6000 years old as calculated through the generations listed back to Adam being only figurative, then maybe Jesus is only figurative too. All you've got to contradict that notion is your testimony.

[_Doctor Steuss]

[...]Well it has to be literal. If the fruit was figurative, what else in the Bible is figurative? The whole thing could be figurative and 100% open to personal interpretation and can mean whatever one wants it to be.

I think this is a bit of a false dichotomy.

Not really. The Bible contains descriptions of things, as if those things really happened. If one is free to simply pronounce that any such description is in fact merely figurative, then there's really nothing stopping them all from being figurative, or nothing stopping anyone picking and choosing what is figurative and what isn't. You've got no defense against it except testimony.

Was Christ's death figurative? Did the Romans pound nails into his hands and feet and wrists only figuratively? Did Jesus appear to the 11 apostles and Mary and others after the resurrection only figuratively? Is Jesus only figuratively the son of God? If one insists that, say, Noah's Ark is only figurative, or Adam and Eve and the fruit in the Garden of Eden is only figurative, or the Earth being only around 6000 years old as calculated through the generations listed back to Adam being only figurative, then maybe Jesus is only figurative too. All you've got to contradict that notion is your testimony.

I was mostly referring to the statement that either it has to be literal or "The whole thing could be figurative and 100% open to personal interpretation." I'm pretty sure no one here will aruge (at least I hope) that there aren't aspects of the Biblical narative that cannot be figurative and are pretty limited in regards to the realm of personal interpretation.

I see your point that there is a lot that could potentially be figurative if you admit that one aspect is. But there are things that are most definately figurative (Christ the chicken), and things that are most definately not (unless someone is into the whole Bible-code, hidden message in everything junk).

[_Sethbag]

Ok, who can credibly list out what is figurative and what isn't? Where's the Table of Contents to the Bible which sets out the figurative parts from those that aren't? That's just the problem, the Bible doesn't actually say that these things are figurative. There's nothing official, nobody who can credibly tell figurative from not. Which means that it's all up for grabs if you admit that any of it really is just figurative.

In theory, if you believe in the LDS church, you'd have to expect that maybe the Prophet, alone or maybe in concert with the Quorum of the Twelve, would be able to pronounce on the Bible and which sections are to be taken literally and which aren't. But they haven't done that, have they? And they aren't likely to, either, if past behavior is any indicator of likely future behavior.

The last LDS prophet who seemed willing to actually state anything with any kind of certainty seems to have been Joseph Smith. In my opinion, this circumstance is congruent with the notion that Joseph Smith was making it up as he went along, and knew that and was OK with that, but his successors were true believers, and they simply don't know that the way revelation worked in the church was to make it up. They keep waiting for God to actually reveal hard-core stuff to them like he appeared to have done with Joseph Smith, and it's simply not happening. They don't "get it" the way Joseph did. He'd see a skeleton and tell you it was Zelph, the great white Lamanite, and he'd tell you how he died, and under whom he served, and how famous he was, and yada yada. He'd see a pile of stones and tell you it was Adam's altar. He'd see some Egyptian papyrus and tell you it was written by Abraham and Joseph.

Our modern-day LDS prophets aren't even willing to admit that the global flood of Noah described in Genesis didn't actually happen, despite mountains of evidence against it. The list of things "we don't know" is staggering, when it seems Joseph Smith knew, or could know, almost anything anyone wanted him to know.

[_Doctor Steuss]

[...]That's just the problem, the Bible doesn't actually say that these things are figurative. There's nothing official, nobody who can credibly tell figurative from not. Which means that it's all up for grabs if you admit that any of it really is just figurative.
[...]

And here's the bit of a false dichotomy. It isn't all up for grabs if you admit that any of it really is just figurative. I recently did a thread at MA&D on a Roman historian that corroborates the parenthetical statement in Acts 18:2. Using the converse of the dichotomy that’s being proposed: If the parenthetical statement in Acts 18:2 is literal (and historical), then the statement in Matthew 26:26 must be literal as well. An Old Testament example would be when Jeremiah speaks of Zedekiah being apointed "king" (although "king" may not be the most accurate description for his political office) of Judah, it is literal (and I really don't see how it can be anything but, as the historical record attests).

Just because we cannot definitely give a list of everything that is figurative and everything that is literal does not mean that believing a particular aspect is figurative necessarily opens all of it up for figurative interpretation.

[_Doctor Steuss]

Sethbag,

I hope you don’t think I’m disagreeing with you just for the sake of disagreeing with one of you frightful heathens. Upon reflection, I can see how my responses can potentially be viewed as slight-of-hand semantics. This is not my intention. I just don’t feel that acknowledging the potentiality of symbolism (1-see footnote) nesseciates a Pandora-esque opening of the figurative box. I think there are ways (especially within a “believing” paradigm) to establish what is literal (beyond the black-and-white historical examples I provided earlier). In many of the Biblical narratives regarding Christ, there are multiple “eye-witnesses” (I’m using the term from a believer standpoint) that attest to seeing the same event. In such instances, it is fairly certain that such events are meant to be interpreted as “literal.” Much of the early Old Testament narrative is purportedly authored by Moses, who was not an “eye-witness” to the events, but most likely received it in a vision. Visions are usually by nature symbolic.

I agree that there is the potentiality of opening the figurative coliseum to monumental battles that normally wouldn’t occur prior to “an inch” being given. But, I don’t think it necessarily opens up the battle-ready cells to an all-out every-man-for-himself figurative battle (sorry, I don’t know why I’m compelled to get all metaphorical there).

-Stu

Footnote:
(1) On the symbolism that spurred this particular conversation (i.e. “the fruit”); within Mormonism there is a prime example of a “fruit” (and not the Richard Simmons variety) being figurative. Namely Lehi’s/Nephi’s vision/dream. Also there are examples within the Ancient Near East (ANE) of tree/fruit symbolism. Uncle Dale (although only a cursory tale regarding tree/fruit symbolism) actually has a short little article on his website that I stumbled upon about a year ago: http://www.sidneyrigdon.com/DRB/BEGIN/sycamore.htm It isn’t by any means the most extensive example (and overall it isn’t even necessarily completely pertinent to the current conversation… mostly I just try to drive traffic to his site whenever possible).