Old Testament Issues That Unnecessarily Challenge Faith
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 30 сен 2024
- This video reviews many of the top Bible stories from the Old Testament that are used to ridicule or attack Christianity. The ‘new atheists’ are called ‘new’, because the new approach is to view religion as an enemy that needs to be destroyed. Christianity is one of their big targets, and certain stories from the Old Testament in the Bible are used as one of their biggest weapons. Challenges of faith can arise from these attacks, which don’t need to happen with a greater understanding of the text, including where it came from, when and why it was written, and the assumptions we might be bringing to these stories which might need re-evaluating, without giving up any of the messages or doctrine being taught.
VIDEO EDIT NOTE: In the video, I referred to a Dr. Kelly Ogden, which should have been stated as Dr. Heath Ogden
HERE IS A DIRECT LINK TO THE TRANSCRIPT OF THIS VIDEO FROM THE WEBSITE
latterdaysaint...
Resources:
Books:
Jeffrey Bradshaw - In God’s Image and Likeness, Volumes 1 & 2
Peter Enns - The Bible Tells Me So: Why Defending Scripture Has Made Us Unable To Read It
Paul Copan - Is God a Moral Monster?
David Bokovoy - Authoring the Old Testament: Genesis - Deuteronomy
John Walton - The Lost World of Genesis 1, The Lost World of Adam & Eve, The Lost World of the Flood, The Lost World of the Israelite Conquests
Watch for coming book from Ben Spackman on Genesis 1!
Websites/Articles:
Ben Spackman sites:
benspackman.com
www.patheos.co...
Jeffrey Bradshaw - Science and Mormonism 1: Cosmos, Earth and Man; FAQ about Science & Genesis
www.templetheme...
interpreterfou...
www.fairmormon...
www.fairmormon...
www.fairmormon...
www.deseret.co...
eom.byu.edu/in...
www.washington...
en.wikipedia.o...
Podcasts:
LDS Perspectives - Episode #45 Misunderstanding the Bible with Ben Spackman
ldsperspective...
LDS Perspectives - Eposide #71 Genesis 1 with Ben Spackman
ldsperspective...
LDS Perspectives - Episode #84 Violence in the Bible with George Pierce
ldsperspective...
LDS Perspectives - Episode #70 The Documentary Hypothesis with Cory Crawford
RUclips Videos:
Transcript of Ben Spackman at 2019 Fairmormon Conference presentation: A Paradoxical Preservation of Faith: LDS Creation Accounts and the Composite Nature of Revelation
www.fairmormon...
Heath Ogden: Evolution & Faith: Perspectives from an Evolutionary Biologist (who is also currently a Latter-day Saint Bishop)
• Evolution and Faith: P...
Heath Ogden interviewed by Terryl Givens at Faith Matters Foundation:
Can Our Faith Embrace Evolution: • Can Our Faith Embrace ...
Does Evolution Enrich Our Theology: • Does Evolution Enrich ...
Jeffrey Bradshaw: Science & Genesis, A Personal View (from the Science & Mormonism Conference in 2013)
• Jeffrey M Bradshaw on...
Anything from any of the Science & Mormonism Conferences
See also all of the resources listed under this other video from Latter-day Saints’ Q&A --: Science & Religion: Seeing With Both Eyes
I came across this quote some time ago and I really enjoy it. Maybe you will, as well.
"Christianity and science are opposed... but only
in the same sense as that which my thumb and forefinger
are opposed- and between them, I can grasp everything."
Sir William Bragg, Nobel Prize for Physics (1915)
Love it!
I'm late to the comment section, but you should check out Simcha Jacobovici and his estimations and theories (with findings) regarding the Exodus. Very good stuff and some fantastic evidence to prove the actuality/reality of the Exodus.
I would go on about some of the other points made in your video, but I will say this: there are other sources that well explain several points in the Bible (and Book of Mormon) that are not LDS or even Christian/Jewish; just a bunch of Atheists unwittingly proving the Gospel true; who knew?
I've found that throughout my lifelong study of the Gospel, that one needs to step outside of what the mainstream tends to regurgitate -and that's a fairly accurate word. That's not to say that one should not build one what came before (because you "should"), but that sometimes, the foundation was cracked from the start.
I'm not referencing quacks, but legitimate studies and theorists that are lesser known.
9:20 1831? 1931? Joseph Fielding Smith and BH Roberts.
Thank you for catching that - yes, I meant to say 1931!
Loving this video! Jeffrey Bradshaw, Ben Spackman, all these guys I love their works. Thanks for the video links, can't wait to watch them. A bit jealous of your library, but we are getting there slowly but surely! Thanks again.
Thank you and yes, those scholars were invaluable in this video!!
I've always had interesting thoughts about Canaan after reading the OT very closely again. Here were a few: regardless of how everything happened, Canaan was destroyed for good reason; they were evil by that time. However, if you continue reading for context, you will find that back in earlier Genesis, in the story of Sodom and Gomorrah, Abraham is told that he cannot inherit Canaan yet, because their "sins are not yet full." Then of course there is also Rahab in the spy chapters of the Bible, that illustrates, that if any of them had repented God would have let them not be destroyed. Then on top of that, God specifically tells Israel, that they are only to attack the people that attack them first while they march through the land. The fact that God told them they would eventually destroy the Canaanites and run them out of the land, seems to be more from the foreknowledge of God on what the Canaanites choices would be (like with the JSTs on Egypt's choices), and less on the idea of God telling a rival tribal group just to "go in slaughter everyone because it's supposed to be their land."
On Jonah, I don't know the complete history of parables in the OT, but it does seem on that point, that he and Job were probably real people who had things happen to them, but those things were exaggerated and put more in verse for the sake of telling a compelling story to make a point. As far as Jonah is concerned, his story illustrates much of the same as Canaan's actually. He was preaching to Ninevah, the capital of Babylon (or was it Assyria? I always forget which kingdom was northern and southern). Anyways, Jonah isn't just motivated by racial hatred, but by real justified hatred essentially. These were the people that came in and destroyed his people, "and now he's expected to go preach to them repentance, like they deserve it?!" Jonah actually has an interesting thought process. He thinks that if he doesn't preach, then the people will remain wicked, and then God will be forced to destroy them too! Obviously, God shows him this isn't the right way of thinking.
What do both of these stories actually show? To me, they show that if we just look at the Bible objectively, God was actually fair to everyone "both Jew and Gentile." Whether or not they had the Gospel or not. When they were righteous, they prospered, and were shown mercy, and when they were wicked God would either withdraw the spirit and let them destroy themselves as happens in the BoM, or he would withdraw His spirit from the neighboring nations, and let them grow in anger until they destroyed the noted people. God eventually does the same with the Israelites themselves, and really continues to work this way today if we think about it. The problem arises because the way the OT was written, compiled, and translated, by people who were either of their time, or others who were evil removing plain and precious truths. In this case, it's not so much the problem of just bad language, but also the wrong emphasis provided on stories. We see things only from the limited perspective of the Israeli's, and how they wrote at the time, and not from any form of objective perspective, unfortunately.
Do you have any videos that address the issue of Deutero-Isaiah in Book of Mormon?
Yes I do - it was one of my earliest videos, which I entitled “What’s the Bible Doing in The Book of Mormon”. Here is a direct link:
ruclips.net/video/bAt-fuFbtBI/видео.html
Another video I did which can be helpful on this topic, where I explore the concept that the Book of Mormon was not only written for our day, but also translated for our day, is the video I entitled “Understanding Book of Mormon Word Choices”:
ruclips.net/video/YwkWBSZdimY/видео.html
I usually enjoy your take on the subjects you talk about, but..... I’m really struggling with this one. Not that things may have been a bit different than the Bible describes, but that so many are being explained away as just metaphors for righteous living. Even if the Biblical accounts were exaggerated or based on the geographical knowledge of the day, why should they be explained away as mere parables? This attitude shakes my faith more than the possible exaggeration of the Bible stories. Perhaps then, you’re suggesting that Jesus’ miracles weren’t real either. Or perhaps, you could say that Jesus himself was just a figment of someone’s imagination, a character made up for the purpose of good story telling. What then, is the point of taking these accounts on faith and not scientific proof?
Thank you for your comment/question. My objective in this video was to address the handful of Old Testament stories that are being used by critics to attack the faith of many Christians today. I wanted to show that just because science may conflict with some literal details of a story, THAT DOES NOT MEAN THAT THE STORY IS NOT REAL. The Biblical authors may have been explaining things with their limited understanding (see D&C 1:24) and, in a number of cases, writing about events several thousand years after they happened. Brigham Young said to read the Bible as though you were in their shoes. Once we understand all of this background, then the very same attacks to faith can be viewed through a different lens - still real but with maybe different aspects than our modern day thinking might lead. Now there may also be places where parables are being used - the example I gave of a possibility of this was Jonah. I even shared this quote:
“While they [the First Presidency] thought Jonah was a real person, they said it was possible that the story as told in the Bible was a parable common at the time. The purpose was to teach a lesson, and it ‘is of little significance as to whether Jonah was a real individual or one chosen by the writer of the book’ to illustrate ‘what is set forth therein.’ They took a similar position on Job. What is important, Penrose and Ivins insisted, was not whether the books were historically accurate, but whether the doctrines were correct.” (BYU prof. Thomas Alexander, Mormonism in Transition, p283, a history of the…Church from 1890-1930, originally commissioned by the Church)
A key towards understanding some of those possibilities is the concept of scriptural genre, which I discuss towards the end of the video. I also share there this quote from John A. Widtsoe:
“As in all good books, every literary device is used in the Bible that will drive the lesson home. It contains history, poetry and allegory. I would expand the genres far beyond those three. These are not always distinguishable now that the centuries have passed away since the original writing.”
One last thing that I am hoping will be very comforting to you with the concerns you have mentioned. Please listen to this LDS Perspectives podcast interview with Ben Spackman - the episode is entitled “Misunderstanding the Bible”. He is a faithful Latter-day Saint with an amazing scholarly background combination and does a lot of justice to this topic. Here is the link:
ldsperspectives.com/2017/07/19/genre-bible/
I confided to a friend that as a gospel doctrine teacher I was struggling teaching the OT, particularly about the Great Flood. This friend, a former missionary companion of Jeffrey Bradshaw (we were all on the same mission) sent me the volumes that you displayed, both in hardback form. Talk about a friend.
Amazing friend! ...and those volumes are awesome!
@@latterdaysaintsqa One not is that the American Indian was not there in America in Josephs time because they are the decedents of Joseph. The Jaradites were in ancient Americas at that time. The usage of some words and meaning are different even there ancient meaning. Some parts were corrupted or changed by the craftiness of the adversary.
Remember revelation is important to understand the things of God. Joseph Smith jr. Translation of Genesis 1:1 "In the beginning the head God of the gods called forth the gods in council", this is a true translation and is correct.
It's the same as the ancient meaning of the word translation, which more deeper in meaning than just translating from one language to another. Another meaning is "conferring to the mind the meaning" of things.
Thank you Jeff for the video. Have you seen the RUclips channel Answers in Genesis? It is run by Evangelican Christian researchers that have attempted to correlate scientific evidence to support the writings in Genesis. If you haven't I recommend it. They have argued for a young chronology of human history through genetics as well as proposed the layers in geology as evidence for a worldwide flood. Although some may consider their theories unorthodox I believe many of these are plausible.
Thanks for the comment and sharing the resource. I seem to recall watching a documentary years ago with a similar topic. One of the main reasons I made this video, along with the video entitled "Science & Religion: Seeing With Both Eyes" is to make it clear to church members, especially younger members, that you don't have to try and reconcile scientific history with the Bible. While there may be some ways to do this, it isn't considered credible by the majority of scientists and thus can create a faith crises over something that doesn't need to be an issue. Here is a nice link to an article Ben Spackman wrote on this topic, with some helpful links (one is to a presentation he made on the topic as well): benspackman.com/2018/04/the-scientific-deformation-and-reformation-of-genesis-how-science-messed-it-up-but-also-fixes-it/
@@latterdaysaintsqa Thank you. I understand what you mean. We could get carried away from the essential things. Nevertheless I invite you to look into the channel. In my view their ideas are plausible, and to be honest very intriguing, and should be reviewed with care before they're ignored or rejected. I love your enthusiasm in your videos. I look forward to more.
I also recommend watching this video about the Flood:
ruclips.net/video/Oc9II-XY12g/видео.html&feature=share
It's from a different channel and a few ideologies mentioned (not dealing with the Flood) differ from those of the Church but I believe it's relatively easy to understand and is comprehensive. It lasts an hour or so but I'm pretty sure you'll find it worth it. The actual start of discussion starts at the 7:30 minute mark.
So essentially the New Atheists and the LDS church are in agreement: The Bible is not the infallible and literal word of God.
Latter-day Saints love, respect and honor the Bible and treat it as scripture. Our 8th article of faith states in part "we believe the Bible to be the word of God, as far as it is translated correctly". Please watch the video I did on New Testament Issues that Challenge Faith where I address this more specifically. This video is focused more on interpreting or understanding the context of what was written, a little more than translation problems (although some may just chalk it all up to a translation categorization viewed broadly).
@@latterdaysaintsqa Yes. I'm familiar with the articles of faith, I've been attending church for many years. I'm also very familiar with atheistic arguments against the old and new testaments. Overall, I feel like you did a very good job of presenting the information and creating a substantial defense of the LDS faith against THESE atheistic arguments. I think you were successful. Sorry if my original comment appeared hostile.
However, it seems like these types of atheistic arguments are more specifically aimed at Christians who accept the bible as perfectly inerrant. These atheistic arguments would be catastrophic to anyone who accepts the bible as literal, perfect, and infallible.
In summary, it seems like the LDS defense against these atheistic arguments is essentially: The Bible isn't the perfect and literal word of God. A claim that most atheists would love to see Christians accept.
Rama bhakta Hemphill Basically saying the Bible as we currently have it is not perfect and most certainly not literal.
There's a great book by an LDS author that shows that there's perfect harmony between the prophetic statements concerning the garden of Eden being in Missouri and the Old Testament account concerning the garden of Eden. It's called 'Canaan, Babylon, and Egypt A Comparative Theological Analysis on Creation' sold by Eborn Books.
Thanks for sharing
@@latterdaysaintsqa Thanks for being a positive voice for the Restoration. God bless you brother.
Thank you!
I appreciate your videos and I get the point. I’ve listened to many make similar arguments. I get that there is a lot of good in science and that not everything in the Bible may be literal, but where does it stop? Are we later going to make the argument that Jesus may not have actually resurrected because there’s no scientific evidence to support the idea of a resurrection? Can’t we just argue that perhaps there may be more to our reality than we know or understand, while we respect the work of scientists?
I agree with what you are saying that there is a slippery slope in acknowledging some of these things as symbolic, non-literal or as meaning something different today than they meant at the time they were written. I think it is important to acknowledge many non-negotiable truths in the scriptures, the greatest of which was the example you gave. The purpose of this video, which I tackled a little more directly in my other video, “Science and Religion - Seeing With Both Eyes”, is that many people today, especially young adults, come to the conclusion that you have to make a choice between science and the scriptures. We need to make it clear to them that a decision doesn’t need to be made - both can be right and co-exist without conflict.
Great material and topics. I love the podcasts. I have a humble request though, can you please, please, please, please, pllllllllease speak slower? You get talking and reading so fast you don't pause between words, your words run intoeach other and its really hard to follow along.
I agree the pace was a little too rushed on this video. I have done this several times when I have had a lot of material and wanted to keep it to a target range for length for wider audience appeal. I agree it would have been better to just let the video go longer and speak slower (I have a natural fast cadence anyway so it is even worse when I then pick up the pace purposely). One solution that works well on RUclips is to change the playback setting. If you click on the settings (the wheel icon in the bottom right corner of the video screen itself on a computer, or if on a phone its the top right corner 3 dots), you can select the playback speed and you slow things down in increments (the next step down from normal would be .75x or 25% slower).
One other helpful thing - I now have transcripts for all the video on the website latterdaysaintqa.com under the section ‘read the blog’
@@latterdaysaintsqa haha nevermind! I just figured out how to slow the playback speed on RUclips 2
@@latterdaysaintsqa now that I can do this I can slow down some of the ones that I really want to follow the details of what you present you do a great job and I love your videos thank you so much!
Enjoying what I have seen so far. Thanks for your time & effort along with attention to detail!
Have you read The Adam And Eve Story: The History of Cataclysms book by Chan Thomas?
I am not familiar with it
I've always read the Bible, especially the Old Testament, with skepticism as I believe the teachings of following God's commandments were inspired and are true but the historical writings are often exaggerated, embellished and sometimes, made up as oral histories tend to change over time, which is where much of the Old Testament came from. A regional flood that destroyed Noah's world/region, is the most likely. The Exodus of ~20k Israelites from Goshen, Egypt, camping throughout the Sinai region, as Bedouins have done for many millennia, is most likely. Small town overthrows, skirmishes and assimilation, into the lands of Canaan/Israel, are most likely, and the list goes on. It's healthy to accept archaeological and anthropological evidence with what 5th-6th Century Jewish Bible writers were trying to write via oral histories, that were also meant to scare their enemies from attacking them again, to understand the full meanings of ancient writings. The most important take away from scriptures is, to understand God's commandments and teachings and work to live by them and live better lives. However, my dad's still bigger than any other dad. :)
The scriptures mention that there was also water above the skies. If suppose that there was a global flood as originally thought to be, could the water above the skies account for the water that appears to be missing?
I suppose anything is possible, but I wouldn’t want to promote a theory like that. The ancient understanding of the cosmos was not scientifically correct, but it is the way they thought of things at that time (but were without modern day tools which help us to understand things in a much deeper way). Here is a helpful link to an article from a Latter-day Saint scientist named David H. Bailey discussing this ancient understanding of cosmology:
www.sciencemeetsreligion.org/theology/bible-cosmology.php
If you want to go really deep on the topic here are 2 helpful books:
“The Biblical Cosmos: A Pilgrim’s Guide to the Weird and Wonderful World of the Bible” by Robin Parry
“Scripture and Cosmology: Reading the Bible Between the Ancient World and Modern Science by Kyle Greenwood
Also it is helpful to remember that God speaks to his children in a language that they understand. Two helpful sources on that:
D&C 1:24 Behold, I am God and have spoken it; these commandments are of me, and were given unto my servants in their weakness, after the manner of their language, that they might come to understanding.
Joseph Smith: “This is the principle on which the government of heaven is conducted--by revelation adapted to the circumstances in which the children of the kingdom are placed.” (Teachings p256)
I was a student under Ogden, he was one of my favorite professors.
Awesome! He was an excellent resource for some of this video!
11:40 "long ago" What proof was Hugh Nibley using to conclude that? The Bible believing thing to believe about Neanderthals were fully human and probably lived soon after Noah's flood. Young Earth Creationists love Neanderthals and don't have hate like Nibley inferred us to have!!!!! Has there been a dramatic change over several decades?
see my reply to your first comment
I listened to Bro Ogden's discussion, and want to disagree about the flood not being a global thing! Wasn't the flood the baptism of the earth, as was needed for it's eternal progression?
I talk quite a bit about all of this in the video, sharing a number of different possibilities, from appx 18:30 to 28:00 of the video. I talk about the baptism of the earth (inherited from the protestant tradition) for the last 2 minutes of that section. Here are 2 helpful links I would also refer you to -
rsc.byu.edu/let-us-reason-together/was-noahs-flood-baptism-earth
benspackman.com/2018/02/09/gospel-doctrine-lesson-6-moses-819-30-genesis-65-22-71-10/
Didn't Joseph say something about the ark and Carolina in the US?
From what I can tell, the source on this seems fairly sketchy - it appears to be second hand (from Oliver Huntington) and nearly 50 years later. It certainly isn’t considered church doctrine or teaching.
A thought on geology. We know that there are fossils on the top of mountains. This means IMO that they were either transported up there somehow or more likely that the height of that material changed dramatically though some action. So we could easily assume that the Earth was relatively flat requiring little (in relation) extra water. Don't know, don't care. Importance is the Doctrine and Covenants of God for our Salvation.
Scriptures>
Can't go wrong with Bradshaw and I gotta love me some Ben Spackman.
Couldn't agree more!!!
Please explain about Lilith Adams first wife?
Here is a link which you should find helpful with some quick answers:
xaskgramps.org/is-there-any-truth-to-the-story-about-lilith-being-adams/
I did a copy/paste of one of the most important sections for quick reference here:
History is full of the legends of mythical figures which have been invented to satisfy apparent need. Greek lore is full of such mythical figures. They mostly represent various deities and other figures that provided rationale for the otherwise unexplained mysteries of life. Such mythical figures have extended into our own day, including such figures as Pan, Cupid, Santa Claus, the Boogy Man, etc. Lilith is just such a figure from Hebrew lore.
There is an interesting theory that (and this is me being super basic about it, but you can look up Randall Carlson to really go into details) that about 12,500 years ago, a meteor may have hit along or burst above the North American Ice sheet and caused incredible heat which caused the ice sheets to melt very rapidly.
As a result, it scarred much of the land in the US, the scab lands in the upper west states like Washington and Idaho were particularly effected.
Melting ice of that scale would have flooded many parts of the Earth, destroyed plenty of evidence of early human life. A catastrophe of that scale could easily seed the flood stories throughout the world, as well as reset humanity in the way described as destroying all the wicked.
Fascinating - thanks for sharing!
This is a terrific video with so much insight into the scriptures I had never considered before. Thank you!
Thank you so much!
11:00 How was the earth unfit for human habitation when there was life? Was James E. Talmage saying dinosaurs breathed chlorine gas?
see my reply to your first comment
I think it’s possible that Jonah (assuming it’s a historical story) died and was risen from the dead on the third day, hence the “sign of Jonas”. His days pleaded with God could’ve been him in spirit prison.
Or it happened like in the bibld
I was disappointed that Moses 3:5 wasn't cited. That verse reconciles a contradiction in The Bible.
The subjects brought up aren't a problem because there is good scientific evidence for it. The many layers of sedimentary rock layers are best explained by a worldwide flood. Speciation has been documented at rates that make the timing and size of Noah's Ark plausible. Languages change rapidly enough, especially with help from God, to have all languages come from The Tower of Babel.
see my reply to your first comment
5:00. The Bible can be not a scientific textbook and accurate about things it says. James Talmage presented a false dichotomy.
My purpose in doing this video, as well as the religion and science video, is to make sure when science and religion/scripture conflict, one doesn’t feel like they have to choose one over the other. A choice doesn’t need to be made; it is possible that both can be right. While young earth creationism can be one solution to the conflict, it is not accepted by the majority of the scientific world and so it sets up our members, particularly our youth and young adults going to college, to have cognitive dissonance and feel like they have to make a choice as I mentioned earlier. I also shared in both of these videos that we shouldn’t claim to ‘know for sure’ either way since D&C 101:32-34 makes it clear it won’t be revealed until the Second Coming (yet we are nevertheless told to study these topics in D&C 88:78-79). I would like to share a piece from one of my favorite authors and speakers, Ben Spackman, see specifically his section on ‘concordism’ or trying to make modern science fit into non-scientific ancient scripture. He has some great links to conference presentations he has also given on this topic. Here is the link:
benspackman.com/2018/09/03/genesis-and-evolution-a-guest-lecture/
@@latterdaysaintsqa I see you are trying to help. I would tell people who are at universities that we are in the world but not of the world. We will hear the worlds ideas and don't need to repent of hearing those ideas. It is like learning about how many drinks it takes to get drunk because the world drinks. I can't get a driver's license without learning that information. I should feel the same about learning ideas of the world about the past when those ideas conflict with scriptures. I hope people won't start having drink mixing classes so we don't have cognitive dissonance next.
Hamann9631 it is true we shouldn’t overly concern ourselves and we should stick with the basics. With that being said we are told throughout scripture that we are to obtain knowledge, therefore expanding our own understanding of the world. We should be prayerful about our thoughts and be cautious with the power of our tongues, and make sure to be as sensitive to the Holy Spirit as possible when learning these things. In order for us to grow we must stay at Gods side as we dive into learning so we can be sensitive to truths.
@@Chillymosquito Very True! we must keep ourselves open to learning what else God is trying to reveal to us, and be willing to accept that there are many details and contexts that we are no where near understanding yet. It's humbling and we should consider it fundamental to the ongoing Restoration.
Hey, I love the channel! I’ve been investigating the church for a while now and even though I feel like I’m leaning towards the conclusion that it is true, lately I’ve been struggling coming to terms with the idea that Joseph Smith and early leaders such as Brigham Young taught that the Garden of Eden was in Missouri, as this seems to be in conflict with current scientific data (with the first humans arising in Africa), and I suppose I’ve been wondering if there is a way to reconcile this in your opinion? It seems to be a very complex topic haha.
Glad you found the channel Rebekah and happy to hear you are investigating the church. I hope the channel has been helpful in your investigation (my top video recommendation for you would be in the "evidences" series, called Book of Mormon, Match It!). Based on your question I would also point you to a video I did in the "answering questions" series called Science & Religion - Seeing with Both Eyes).
With regards to your specific question you asked here, I am going to do a copy/paste from somebody else who asked a similar question recently:
I think science can certainly give us some insights into what God may be doing, but, as I mentioned in the video, we won’t know until the Second Coming so I try to not get to dogmatic with any particular view. As far as reconciling some of these things, I share a few things in the video, and make a strong suggestion to reference a video of the Latter-day Saint evolutionary biologist Heath Ogden (also a bishop) who gave a presentation at UVU and half of it was Q&A, in which he shared many ways he reconciles these things (you can find the video link in my resources section of the video, under the description).
Here is another resource I love - sciencemeetsreligion.org and then the subsection labeled lds. Here is a link directly to a piece at that site that I find helpful with reconciliation ideas (this is from Dr William S. Bradshaw (a retired BYU molecular biologist) - his piece is called: Biological Evolution: Toward a Reconciliation of the Science and Our Faith
www.sciencemeetsreligion.org/lds/bradshaw-evolution.php
Here is a copy and paste of the most relevant section from this linked article which relates directly to your question/comment:
Q: How does the Garden of Eden fit in? Where did Adam and Eve come from? (What are the possible models to explain the creation of humankind?)
A: The scriptural accounts of the creation of man are beautiful, inspiring, and provide indispensable doctrinal insights about the purpose of life and our relationship with God. It is not appropriate, however, to interpret them as a scientific description of the creative process. Several of the concepts are stated figuratively and are important for the spiritual truths they convey symbolically. The truth is, we don't know the details of how Adam and Eve were introduced into mortality. In spite of our ignorance, the religious principles and the scientific evidence are not mutually exclusive and can be reconciled. Accepting Eden doesn't require rejecting evolution or vice versa.
Let's begin by attempting to describe a broad overview of what may have happened. The earth was formed nearly 5 billion years ago, and chemical and biological events proceeded as proposed in the evolutionary scenario. A great diversity of plant and animal life was the result. Organisms were born and died. New species arose, and many became extinct. Observing the process God asked, "Is man found on the earth?" The answer was no, but at the appropriate moment in time, when "the earth had brought forth" creatures -- hominids -- whose physical characteristics were compatible with the spirits who are the offspring of Heavenly Father, the decision was made to introduce that lineage, beginning with the man Adam and the woman Eve.
It is a fact that on the earth several million years ago there were living organisms that closely resemble modern men and women. The evidence is indisputable. What should we call these creatures? The designation man or human or protohuman seems appropriate because of their obvious physical similarity to ourselves. From the viewpoint of LDS theology, however, there is a critical distinction that can be made: the spirits that animated "Lucy" (a famous African fossil of the species Australopithecus afarensis) and other prehistoric "humans" were the creations of God, while the spirits possessed by Adam and Eve and their posterity were his literal offspring. One is an artistic production (even if achieved through a natural process) the other is a child. Only the latter can exercise agency and be held accountable; only the latter can attain godhood. Although the fossil record clearly shows a temporal connection between early prehistoric "humans" and the subsequent appearance of modern man, the question is whether or not there was a genealogical connection or some other type of relationship. It is about the events at the historical interface between these two types of beings that we are particularly ignorant.
It seems to me that there is a very modest requirement if one is to reconcile "Lucy" and Adam: permit Adam and Eve to inhabit a very special place or state as inhabitants in an immortal Eden that is located on an otherwise mortal planet where evolutionary processes have previously been going on for many years. It is true that some LDS writers have insisted that before Adam the whole earth exhibited the deathless state of Eden. [10] However, the one scriptural statement always marshalled in defense of this view, 2 Nephi 2:22, seems to refer specifically to the conditions in Eden. It is the things in the Garden which would have remained in an unchanged state if Adam had not transgressed. In addition, one has to ask why, if the earth were uniformly immortal and paradisiacal, was Adam placed in one particular portion of it; why was Eden needed in the first place? And again, why after the Fall did our first parents have to leave Eden (there were sentinels guarding the Tree of Life) if conditions in and out of Eden were the same? And why was the earth outside of Eden designated as the "lone and dreary world" if there were not an important difference between the two places?
What, then, was the mechanism through which Adam came? Was he born to prehistoric parents? Was he transported with a body to this planet from some other sphere? [11] Did God fashion his body in a one of a kind, miraculous, creative act? What other possibilities can we imagine? We have neither memory nor experience with the immortal; it would not be surprising if the actual process were incomprehensible to us. Perhaps this is why the scriptural language is figurative: "God formed man of the dust of the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life"; "And the rib, which the Lord God had taken from man, made he a woman" (Genesis 2:7, 22). But no matter which of the alternative explanations may be appealing or unlikely to us, none of them invalidates evolution. As long as we recognize Adam's unique position as a spiritual son of God, there is no violation of a fundamental religious principle.
Some people have seen in evolution a threat to the doctrine of the Fall of Man. I am unable, however, to discover a logical line of reasoning leading to the conclusion that evolution invalidates the principles of the Fall and the Atonement. Neither Adam and Eve nor any of us who have followed them can be saved or exalted without divine help. The problem is sin. If we wish to benefit from the Savior's atoning sacrifice, we are required to repent -- of violating the commandments, but not to repent of the fact that we have physical bodies or repent because of the mechanism through which we obtained them, regardless of how that was arranged. "And I, the Lord God, formed man from the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul, the first flesh upon the earth, the first man also" (Moses 3:7). In these words the spirit children of Elohim become mortal, without the process for obtaining flesh being specified. Thus fallen, and unthreatened by the attendant biology that was required, Adam and Eve become candidates for redemption and exaltation.
And so the only beings capable of repentance, and of becoming gods, are those who are spirit offspring of the Father, a principle that is not in question. It seems to me that concerns that biology will undo these true religious principles are easily removed (or at least suspended) by simply allowing for God to introduce man into the special conditions of the Garden of Eden (or for Adam's transition to mortality) following a lengthy prior period of life, death and evolution. Likewise the principle of priesthood sealing of the generations into eternal families remains intact. This blessing is available only to those in the lineage of the Father's spiritual offspring; the spirits of the animals (including "Lucy"?) are qualitatively different -- no matter what actually transpired during the transition from Homo erectus, etc., to Homo sapiens sapiens.
I believe there is a very important point to be made here. One strategy that has frequently been used in searching for truth between religion and science is inappropriate and harmful. One ought not to hold up a spiritual principle such as the reality of God, Christ as Creator, or the Fall and test its validity against an observation of science. These principles are true, affirmed to individuals by a witness of the Spirit of God. Scientists do not have at their disposal a special technology to investigate these principles; they must rely on faith, the same as any other people. When a principle of science is also confirmed as true it will not be in conflict with such religious doctrines. All that is needed is sufficient humility to acknowledge one's relative ignorance in both fields of endeavor and the patience to wait for a clearer understanding. With respect to the creation of man, failure to do this has unfortunate consequences. Those who claim that a reconciliation between theology and science is impossible or who are unwilling to suspend judgment are left to ignore the scientific evidence, argue that it is invalid (or selectively choose only that part of science that confirms one's prejudices) or ridicule it. All of these inappropriate responses to science are unworthy of people committed to exercising "heart, might, mind, and strength" in pursuit of truth (see D&C 4:2).
Latter-Day Saints’ Q&A The channel has been super helpful in my investigation, the evidence in favour of the Book of Mormon and Joseph Smith is what is leading me to believe that the Church is true even though I still have some things to get my head around 😃 I’ll be sure to check out the resources, thank you so much!
I am so glad the channel has been helpful in your journey - let me know if you have any follow up questions on any of the video topics
Latter-Day Saints’ Q&A will do! Thanks again 😃