Are Mormonism and Human Evolution Compatible?

[_bcspace]

Yet, I see that some Mormons claim to believe in evolution. How is it possible to square evolution with Mormon doctrine?

By realizing that when scriptures say God created man, it doesn't say how. Dust of the earth? An excellent metaphor for evolution.

Doesn't the fact that evolution is in reality the way humans came to be spell trouble for a religion which teaches God has a body

How so? God (a human from a planet where humans evolved from lower life forms) created a world wherein the same principles governing evolution exist and by it brought forth physical human bodies.

and also claims that God Himself gave Joseph Smith the eternal truths which were to be taught in the temple?

There is nothing in the temple that precludes evolution. At worst, it is simply the scriptural account with some visual details filled in that have not been established by scripture or modern revelation.

Perhaps some Mormons believe the Bible to be errant in many ways, but do they believe what is taught in the temple to be errant, also?

As an LDS person, I believe all LDS scripture and doctrine.

Not literal, perhaps?

Perhaps. For example, the word 'day' in Genesis can mean 'an epoch of time'. And I do not believe that God literally scooped His hands in the ground and made a man out of dirt or clay.

For those Mormons who believe in evolution, do you think God gave Joseph Smith incorrect information about how the earth and all it's inhabitants were formed?

No. But it is possible that God did not give Joseph Smith all the information needed to know exactly what happened and it's possible that Joseph Smith filled in the missing details with what was believed and thought gernally at the time. Besides, LDS doctrine is not defined by what this or that prophet said, it is defined by what the First Presidency and the Council of the Twelve agree to be published.

[Guest]

The main problem to overcome for an LDS person to subscribe to evolution is the fact that there was no death before the Fall. It is easily overcome with the following verse....

And now, behold, if Adam had not transgressed he would not have fallen, but he would have remained in the garden of Eden. And all things which were created must have remained in the same state in which they were after they were created; and they must have remained forever, and had no end. 2 Nephi 2:22

This state of no death is a state that occurs AFTER the creation is complete. Therefore, there must exist a state in which the creative process is not complete and therein one can have death because the details of the state of creation are not given.

Hence, one can have evolution until bodies are created fit for God to place human spirits in and then place them in the Garden into a state of no death.

Another issue used against evolution subscribing LDS is that all creatures multiply after their own kind. Of course the standard applied to evolutionists by creationists does not fit reality as there are changes and mutations all the time (microevolution).

But in macroevolution, it takes many generations to detect a change in species. So when you look at one generation, you always see that a species has multiplied after it's own kind.

Why do we not see macroevolution today? Some possible replies....

1. Who says we don't?
2. No enough time has passed for us to see it.
3. The creation, being completed, might mean that there is no more macroevolution

And thus evolution does not conflict with this gospel principle either.

[_Nephi]

All antiMormons are guilty of lazy research without exception. Evidence? Fortigurn has yet to come up with a single contrary example.

People who use all inclusive claims towards groups or individuals speak volumes about their thought processes.

[_bcspace]

All antiMormons are guilty of lazy research without exception. Evidence? Fortigurn has yet to come up with a single contrary example.

People who use all inclusive claims towards groups or individuals speak volumes about their thought processes.

This would seem to apply to you as you do not know my thought processes nor my experience (with antiMormons in this case). Since this is an issue of simple definition (an antiMormon is one who intentally lies about or negatively sensationalizes aspects of the LDS Church), I stand by my statement.

But this is a thread about evolution........

[_Nephi]

All antiMormons are guilty of lazy research without exception. Evidence? Fortigurn has yet to come up with a single contrary example.

People who use all inclusive claims towards groups or individuals speak volumes about their thought processes.

This would seem to apply to you as you do not know my thought processes nor my experience (with antiMormons in this case). Since this is an issue of simple definition (an antiMormon is one who intentally lies about or negatively sensationalizes aspects of the LDS Church), I stand by my statement.

But this is a thread about evolution........

If you mean a person who lies about Mormonism, then research has nothing to do with it. Laziness has nothing to do with it. Lying is intentionally deceiving in exchange for some other gain. Why would they be guilty of lazy research when they are not trying to research anything?

Your sig line just shows a very judgmental statement and (in turn) makes Mormonism look bad to begin with. But hey, if that is what you are trying to do, then I stand by my statement as well (you are speaking volumes about yourself).

[_bcspace]

If you mean a person who lies about Mormonism, then research has nothing to do with it. Laziness has nothing to do with it.

It has everything to do with it. All you have to do is look at the evidence proffered by such. Whether they know it is wrong or not, lazy research has been displayed.

Your sig line just shows a very judgmental statement and (in turn) makes Mormonism look bad to begin with.

Are you LDS? If so, you ought to know better as the scriptures command judgement (see the JST before you quote Matthew 7 and see also 1 Cor 6:2).

But hey, if that is what you are trying to do, then I stand by my statement as well (you are speaking volumes about yourself).

Such a neutral statement can only imply that you are afraid to express exactly what you mean by 'volumes'.

Perhaps you also disagree with my juxtaposition of evolution with LDS doctrine but couldn't find anything to gainsay my argument so you attack me on this point?

lol

[_Nephi]

If you mean a person who lies about Mormonism, then research has nothing to do with it. Laziness has nothing to do with it.

It has everything to do with it. All you have to do is look at the evidence proffered by such. Whether they know it is wrong or not, lazy research has been displayed.

Your sig line just shows a very judgmental statement and (in turn) makes Mormonism look bad to begin with.

Are you LDS? If so, you ought to know better as the scriptures command judgement (see the JST before you quote Matthew 7 and see also 1 Cor 6:2).

But hey, if that is what you are trying to do, then I stand by my statement as well (you are speaking volumes about yourself).

Such a neutral statement can only imply that you are afraid to express exactly what you mean by 'volumes'.

Perhaps you also disagree with my juxtaposition of evolution with LDS doctrine but couldn't find anything to gainsay my argument so you attack me on this point?

lol

Heh... Talk about lazy research. Did you not read the first, oh, 20 posts or so where I, and I alone, defended the idea that evolution and Mormonism co-exist perfectly? As for your judgments, they hint of pride, which I am pretty sure is a sin. Otherwise, judgment is left up to God and those of authority, which I seriously doubt anyone here has. My neutral statement is not as such. It tells me that you feel attacked by these anti's, personally, and so you decide the best way to retort is to sink to that level which you were attacked and create a blanket statement of them.

Laziness implies the ability to do the research, but a failure to do so purely because they don't have the desire to do as such, even though doing such research would improve their case. In reality, if they are creating lies, then they are not lazy, for doing such research would cause their case to fall apart in some instances. Therefore, they are selective in their research, not lazy. Such terms and name calling only shows a lack of understanding upon your part.

[_bcspace]

Perhaps you also disagree with my juxtaposition of evolution with LDS doctrine but couldn't find anything to gainsay my argument so you attack me on this point?

lol

Heh... Talk about lazy research. Did you not read the first, oh, 20 posts or so where I, and I alone, defended the idea that evolution and Mormonism co-exist perfectly?

Since I simply asked the question rather than present evidence, I cannot be guilty of lazy research.

As for your judgments, they hint of pride, which I am pretty sure is a sin.

Lexiconally, the scriptures do speak of one form of pride that is sin. I have the other form that is not spoken against.

My neutral statement is not as such.

It remains neutral.

It tells me that you feel attacked by these anti's, personally, and so you decide the best way to retort is to sink to that level which you were attacked and create a blanket statement of them.

And such a statement tells me that you have no clue what Fortigurn and I were debating about. In addition, 'sinking' to Jesus' level is not a bad thing in my book as I merely follow his example. Ever read what he had to say to the Pharisees? Ever read Matthew 10 :24? I think not.

Laziness implies the ability to do the research, but a failure to do so purely because they don't have the desire to do as such, even though doing such research would improve their case. In reality, if they are creating lies, then they are not lazy, for doing such research would cause their case to fall apart in some instances. Therefore, they are selective in their research, not lazy. Such terms and name calling only shows a lack of understanding upon your part.

Their goal is to get others to reach a certain conclusion. If the conclusion reached by selective evidence can be easily debunked, then they are guilty of lazy research. Like Fortigurn, I'll bet you can't point to a single antiMormon who isn't guilty of lazy research.

[_Sethbag]

But dude, seriously, chicks don't dig guys who claim to see God, Angels, and the Devil. That's just too far out for even most Molly Mormons to stomach, much less your garden variety, less Molly Mormon girl.

Is that all you care about? "Chicks who don't dig guys who claim...."?

Take all the bimbos you want. What really motivates you?

Been married for 16+ years, Ray, and faithful ever since. I know there's the temptation to think it's "all about me", but in this case at least, it isn't, and I was addressing Nehor and his oft-mentioned trouble finding a good LDS woman to marry. My own personal opinion is that Nehor's "spirituality" and visitations and whatnot are too creepy for Mormon women, and that's really a big part of the failure to get married. Maybe he'll find a fringe Molly who wants a guy who falls into ecstasy with every prayer, is moved beyond words at each taking of the sacrament, but who doesn't need the Prophets, Seers, and Revelators telling him what to believe and do, because he's got God himself appearing to him to tell him his own personal version of the truth.

[_Nephi]

Perhaps you also disagree with my juxtaposition of evolution with LDS doctrine but couldn't find anything to gainsay my argument so you attack me on this point?

lol

Heh... Talk about lazy research. Did you not read the first, oh, 20 posts or so where I, and I alone, defended the idea that evolution and Mormonism co-exist perfectly?

Since I simply asked the question rather than present evidence, I cannot be guilty of lazy research.

As for your judgments, they hint of pride, which I am pretty sure is a sin.

Lexiconally, the scriptures do speak of one form of pride that is sin. I have the other form that is not spoken against.

My neutral statement is not as such.

It remains neutral.

It tells me that you feel attacked by these anti's, personally, and so you decide the best way to retort is to sink to that level which you were attacked and create a blanket statement of them.

And such a statement tells me that you have no clue what Fortigurn and I were debating about. In addition, 'sinking' to Jesus' level is not a bad thing in my book as I merely follow his example. Ever read what he had to say to the Pharisees? Ever read Matthew 10 :24? I think not.

Laziness implies the ability to do the research, but a failure to do so purely because they don't have the desire to do as such, even though doing such research would improve their case. In reality, if they are creating lies, then they are not lazy, for doing such research would cause their case to fall apart in some instances. Therefore, they are selective in their research, not lazy. Such terms and name calling only shows a lack of understanding upon your part.

Their goal is to get others to reach a certain conclusion. If the conclusion reached by selective evidence can be easily debunked, then they are guilty of lazy research. Like Fortigurn, I'll bet you can't point to a single antiMormon who isn't guilty of lazy research.

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...