Complex?

[I Have Questions]

Sure there is. If evolution is the means by which we find ourselves using a device to post on this board, and if there is a creator God...then that's how God created the earth and all that is in it.

Regards
MG

Ever considered the possibility that God that is neither good nor evil but rather transcendent of such human divisions? If it is true that an all powerful creator God intentionally chose evolution as the method of creation, then that could be seen as rather cruel and cold since survival of the fittest has resulted in an extreme bloodbath and arms race since the spark of life itself. If evolution were the intelligent design then I would be much more inclined to believe in a God that does not fit into the box of ‘good’. Almost gives cosmic horror vibes like the gods of the Cthulhu mythos; uncaring cosmic entities.

That’s an interesting musing. Mormon God (if we assume the Mormon doctrine on God is correct), committed the genocide of an entire planet - men, women, and children, because they weren’t, in His eyes, playing His game properly. A bit like throwing the Risk board over when people start forming alliances that don’t work in your favour. And then, despite His God abilities of being all powerful, He doesn’t intervene to stop child abuse. No, child abuse is a feature of the game He’s devised. Would a good person devise a game where innocent and vulnerable children could and would be abused?

[Chap]

And then, despite His God abilities of being all powerful, He doesn’t intervene to stop child abuse. No, child abuse is a feature of the game He’s devised. Would a good person devise a game where innocent and vulnerable children could and would be abused?

The absence of protection for the innocent and helpless does seem to me to be a strong indication of the non-existence of a benevolent and all-powerful deity. (Here I use 'benevolent' in the common, plain, and grammatical sense, not in some 'special' way that is designed to get the alleged deity off the hook by claiming that said deity is indeed 'benevolent', but in some 'higher' way that allows innocent suffering to occur without intervention.)

[I Have Questions]

There is no dovetailing evolution and Mormonism.

Sure there is. If evolution is the means by which we find ourselves using a device to post on this board, and if there is a creator God...then that's how God created the earth and all that is in it.

Regards
MG

Gadianton is correct.
Here’s what the Church actually teaches…

Man began life as a human being, in the likeness of our Heavenly Father.

That’s not compatible with evolution’s explanation of where Man came from.

Human evolution is the lengthy process of change by which people originated from apelike ancestors. Scientific evidence shows that the physical and behavioral traits shared by all people originated from apelike ancestors and evolved over a period of approximately six million years.

One of the earliest defining human traits, bipedalism -- the ability to walk on two legs -- evolved over 4 million years ago. Other important human characteristics -- such as a large and complex brain, the ability to make and use tools, and the capacity for language -- developed more recently. Many advanced traits -- including complex symbolic expression, art, and elaborate cultural diversity -- emerged mainly during the past 100,000 years.

Humans are primates. Physical and genetic similarities show that the modern human species, Homo sapiens, has a very close relationship to another group of primate species, the apes. Humans and the great apes (large apes) of Africa -- chimpanzees (including bonobos, or so-called “pygmy chimpanzees”) and gorillas -- share a common ancestor that lived between 8 and 6 million years ago. Humans first evolved in Africa, and much of human evolution occurred on that continent. The fossils of early humans who lived between 6 and 2 million years ago come entirely from Africa.

I would also note that the theory of evolution points to Africa as ground zero for modern man. The Mormon Church wants people to believe it was somewhere in Missouri.

Although we have no contemporaneous record of Joseph Smith teaching explicitly that the Garden of Eden was in Missouri, that reading is consistent with LDS scripture, and there is substantial later testimony from Joseph's associates that he did teach such an idea.

[Gadianton]

IHAQ's and also Ego's reasons are great examples of why there is no dovetail between Mormonism and evolution. I have admitted you can believe both. But the "joint" analogy would be more like taking a splintery hardwood and attaching it's end grain to the face grain of a very smooth, hard, and oily hardwood, with kids glue. Sure, it's a joint.

An example of "dovetailing" would be organic evolution and plate tectonics. Independent lines of reasoning from either support the other; both theories are stronger together. Evolution is not illuminated in any way whatsoever by Mormonism. Mormonism is not illuminated in any way by evolution. Simply accepting both and declaring it a mystery to be revealed one day is not a dovetail.

[huckelberry]

Ever considered the possibility that God that is neither good nor evil but rather transcendent of such human divisions? If it is true that an all powerful creator God intentionally chose evolution as the method of creation, then that could be seen as rather cruel and cold since survival of the fittest has resulted in an extreme bloodbath and arms race since the spark of life itself. If evolution were the intelligent design then I would be much more inclined to believe in a God that does not fit into the box of ‘good’. Almost gives cosmic horror vibes like the gods of the Cthulhu mythos; uncaring cosmic entities.

That’s an interesting musing. Mormon God (if we assume the Mormon doctrine on God is correct), committed the genocide of an entire planet - men, women, and children, because they weren’t, in His eyes, playing His game properly. A bit like throwing the Risk board over when people start forming alliances that don’t work in your favour. And then, despite His God abilities of being all powerful, He doesn’t intervene to stop child abuse. No, child abuse is a feature of the game He’s devised. Would a good person devise a game where innocent and vulnerable children could and would be abused?

I hear two puzzles. I do not see why survival of the fittest needs to be seen as primarily a bloody war. I think of it as an ongoing adventure of expanding abilities. I think of dinosaurs as finding enjoyment in life.

I view the flood as a fiction but to be fair to the story it makes sense to stick with the reasons for God's action presented by the story. I remember the reason having to with people destroying each other. There was not a bunch of religious rules that people broke displeaasing a narrow minded god.
..., ....

Perhaps it could be added that survival of the fittest means survival by offspring of those who enjoy the most sex

[Ego]

Ever considered the possibility that God that is neither good nor evil...?

No.

...but rather transcendent of such human divisions?

I have absolutely no idea what that "transcendence" might be. Help me out.

If it is true that an all powerful creator God intentionally chose evolution as the method of creation, then that could be seen as rather cruel and cold since survival of the fittest has resulted in an extreme bloodbath and arms race since the spark of life itself.

If evolution was the ways and means by which we got here how would you suggest God could have avoided a "blood bath"?

Regards,
MG

Transcendent as is my ways are higher than your ways, my thoughts higher than your thoughts. We think in terms of good and evil but it is entirely possible that this is primitive to God.
I will say that a spontaneous creation where everything was made initially immortality like is suggested in the Book of Mormon is certainly a less blood bath version of events, too bad the evidence doesn’t support it.

[malkie]

That’s an interesting musing. Mormon God (if we assume the Mormon doctrine on God is correct), committed the genocide of an entire planet - men, women, and children, because they weren’t, in His eyes, playing His game properly. A bit like throwing the Risk board over when people start forming alliances that don’t work in your favour. And then, despite His God abilities of being all powerful, He doesn’t intervene to stop child abuse. No, child abuse is a feature of the game He’s devised. Would a good person devise a game where innocent and vulnerable children could and would be abused?

I hear two puzzles. I do not see why survival of the fittest needs to be seen as primarily a bloody war. I think of it as an ongoing adventure of expanding abilities. I think of dinosaurs as finding enjoyment in life.

I view the flood as a fiction but to be fair to the story it makes sense to stick with the reasons for God's action presented by the story. I remember the reason having to with people destroying each other. There was not a bunch of religious rules that people broke displeaasing a narrow minded god.
..., ....

Perhaps it could be added that survival of the fittest means survival by offspring of those who enjoy the most sex

Actually just doing it a lot is good for survival in that sense - there is no need whatsoever to enjoy it.

In fact, some religions/societies appear to teach that it is evil, especially for women, to like sex.

One "definition" of the doctrine of Scottish Presbyterianism, for example, is "the fear that some people somewhere are enjoying themselves".

[Gadianton]

Transcendent as is my ways are higher than your ways, my thoughts higher than your thoughts. We think in terms of good and evil but it is entirely possible that this is primitive to God.

I've come to believe that this is a critical point in the conversation about God. William Lane Craig says that God must be personable, and he notes this in his cosmological argument. It's an interesting notation, because the cosmological argument derives from Aristotle's Prime Mover. I think it's fair to say that God = Prime Mover + Personability.

But this incurs a problem. Can God be both transcendent and personable?

[MG 2.0]

Transcendent as is my ways are higher than your ways, my thoughts higher than your thoughts. We think in terms of good and evil but it is entirely possible that this is primitive to God.

I think that essentially you're right. Those that go to 'heaven' one might expect are going to be 'good' and have the inclination to get along without force or fear of punishment or any other external influence. There would most likely be gradations of beings. Not everyone will be exactly the same on all fronts. Thus, the "many mansions" concept or kingdoms of glory. It may well be that when this is the norm that each of these kingdoms will not be looked at as being good and evil...more likely, just different strokes for different folks...but all worthy of a place in God's eternal plan.

Of course, that's a bit of speculation along with some doctrine thrown in.

But the fact is, here in this sphere there IS good and evil whereas this is a 'proving ground' of sorts.

I will say that a spontaneous creation where everything was made initially immortality like is suggested in the Book of Mormon is certainly a less blood bath version of events, too bad the evidence doesn’t support it.

I'm not convinced at all that the evolutionary trajectory of animals and mankind could have stood a chance at arriving where we're at today without a LOT of gore and blood being spilled. But I'm sure at the same time that there was a certain degree of felicity and even caring even within that sphere/time of earth's existence in which animal life found an "animal version' of happiness and purpose.

I come at all this from a belief in a creator God in who's image we are created so my views are going to be at variance from those that don't believe this or don't believe in a creator God at all.

That pretty much goes without saying.

Regards,
MG

[huckelberry]

I hear two puzzles. I do not see why survival of the fittest needs to be seen as primarily a bloody war. I think of it as an ongoing adventure of expanding abilities. I think of dinosaurs as finding enjoyment in life.

I view the flood as a fiction but to be fair to the story it makes sense to stick with the reasons for God's action presented by the story. I remember the reason having to with people destroying each other. There was not a bunch of religious rules that people broke displeaasing a narrow minded god.
..., ....

Perhaps it could be added that survival of the fittest means survival by offspring of those who enjoy the most sex

Actually just doing it a lot is good for survival in that sense - there is no need whatsoever to enjoy it.

In fact, some religions/societies appear to teach that it is evil, especially for women, to like sex.

One "definition" of the doctrine of Scottish Presbyterianism, for example, is "the fear that some people somewhere are enjoying themselves".

Well there have been some people who try to resist God's obvious design that sex be enjoyable and a boon to families but I don't think it is all that common.
I also doubt the existence of such a Presbyterian doctrine but the idea is worth a chuckle. Some people may slide closer to such ideas as looking down on somebody's happiness is much cheaper way to feel virtuous than trying to help others.