Finrock

Good afternoon Soulsearcher! :) I would hope that there is no risk of wrath. I'd be disappointed if people reacted wrathfully to what you posted. So, what evidence do you have (a general prejudice against religion is not evidence), that Monson made the story up just to inspire religious people? (Should you wish to answer) Regards, Finrock

Why is it odd to consider whether you believe Monson is a prophet or not? It is a fundamental question that all ought to consider and decide what they believe. I don't think it is heretical to pursue the discussion. Believing LDS can view this as an opportunity to teach and testify about prophets. Regards, Finrock

Vort clarified what he meant. There is no need to try to decipher implications. Vort, being the author, knows what the intent is. Why further an implied point when an explicit point has been provided? Regards, Finrock

Good afternoon Corvus! :) Thank you for sharing your experiences with us. I've grown up with parents who were members but we weren't always active in the Church. It wasn't until I was maybe 11 or 12 that I began to go to church regularly and really begin to learn about my religion. For me I've never had one single grand event that has assured me of the truthfulness of the gospel of Jesus Christ or the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. Instead, I've had small events over the years, small assurances, and some beautiful experiences of the Spirit confirming things to my heart, that when taken together have built a strong testimony of the Church and what it teaches. Although many have great experiences where they have all things confirmed to them at once, I think we can also build our testimonies one step at a time. For me it has been key to just continue obeying and striving to live the commandments I understand with faith. I'm genuinely happy to know you are beginning to learn about the gospel! Kind Regards, Finrock

Good afternoon all! :) It seems to me that distinct terms with distinct meanings are being used interchangably. I think Dravin's post addresses this distinction. I agree with Dravin. I quote checkerboy who quoted Elder Oaks with an added emphasis: The ultimate and only requirement is for us to conform to God's commandments. Not all "traditions of our fathers" are contrary to God's commandments. For instance, there is no commandment that requires a priesthood holder to keep their left hand behind their back when passing the sacrament. Likewise there is no commandment that requires a priesthood holder to say "...which we hold" after pronouncing the authority by which a blessing is occurring. Clearly, Mormons in general, have traditions and customs that vary from location to location which aren't required by commandment or forbidden by them. God's Church can accomodate those things. The short and the sweet of it is this: If a tradition isn't contrary to God's commandments, as Elder Oaks states, there is leeway in how it is handled. The assumption that "the traditions of our fathers" are equal to "contrary to God's commandments" is a faulty assumption. Regards, Finrock

Good afternoon dahlia! I hope you are doing well. :) Here is how I view things. It is our duty to find out what God's plan for us is. He's given us scriptures. He's given us prophets and apostles. He's given us the gift of the Holy Ghost. All of these are ways in which we can discover God's commandments and His desires for His children. When we know what God's desires are, it is then our responsibility to conform our lives to His will. This means making whatever changes are necessary in our personal conduct, personal philosophies, and personal desires in order to conform. This is where our faith comes in to play because we must trust that God's direction is the best direction despite our personal reservations. It is helpful also to remember that Heavenly Father's Plan is also called the Plan of Happiness, because that is the ultimate end of God's desires for us. He wants us to be happy and He knows precisely how we can achieve it in this life and in the next life. So, our conforming to His will isn't so as to inflate the ego of some infinite being but it is so that we can experience the type of peace, joy, and happiness that God knows. "Happiness in family life is most likely to be achieved when founded upon the teachings of the Lord Jesus Christ" (Family Proclamation). The direction God has given us concerning the family and the role of mothers and fathers, is plainly given in scripture. "By divine design, fathers are to preside over their families in love and righteousness and are responsible to provide the necessities of life and protection for their families. Mothers are primarily responsible for the nurture of their children. In these sacred responsibilities, fathers and mothers are obligated to help one another as equal partners" (Family Proclamation). Of course, God recognizes our individual and family circumstances: "Disability, death, or other circumstances may necessitate individual adaptation" (Family Proclamation). Thus, each person, each family, when they understand the principles God has provided, and to the extent their circumstances allows it, determines to what extent they will conform their lives to God's way. Regards, Finrock

Good afternoon mormonmusic! :) Calling central components of the Plan of Happiness, marriage and family, simply "norms" seems to somehow suggest that they are just social constructs with only relative importance rather than them being a necessary part of the ultimate purpose of our existence. Exaltation does not occur without marriage. Further, part of our priesthood oath and covenant is to help bring about God's work which is to bring to pass the immortality and eternal life of man. Thus we are obligated, by an oath, to rear children in the covenant if it is at all possible, to whatever extent that we can. The Church doesn't emphasize these things because they help ensure the Church's membership. They emphasize it because it is eternal truth and because it is the direction God has given to us to live by. So, the emphasis just doesn't "seem" to be for father's to provide for their families, but it is in actuality an emphasis by virtue of it being a commandment. Obviously, as attested by reality and by prophetic direction, individual circumstances dictates to what extent we can fulfill this direction. The Family: A Proclamation to the World lays out the ideals and without equivocation lays out God's desires and plan for His children concerning this matter. Personal experiences, when speaking about a group, are anecdotal. One can hardly use them to define the "mainstream life plan of the Church". The Church gives us general guidance and principles. It gives us doctrine. Our duties as members are to try to conform our lives as best as possible to the principles and commandments of God as they have been revealed through His Church. Because of so many variables in terms of culture, circumstance, trials, personalities, etc. one will be hard pressed to find a actual "mainstream life plan" in the membership of the Church. Regards, Finrock

Good afternoon Lucread. It is a pleasure to meet you! :) I think it's important to define what you mean by murder. What is murder? More importantly, how does God define murder? Not to put to fine a point on it, but your argument is circular. You are defining Nephi's actions as murder, therefore proving that Nephi was commanded to murder. Instead, you need to prove that Nephi's action is murder. Asserting that it is murder, is insufficient. Regards, Finrock

Thanks for the response. :) Perception of time is exactly the question. How we perceive time is exactly what muddles things up. Our perception of time is an illusion. It's presumptious to believe that our perception of time, which is an illusion, constitutes the actuality of time. Cyclical time predicts that eventually all things will be restored to there proper order, that entropy isn't permanent. Further, scientifically there is no reason why time is synchronous, unlike the rest of the phenomenon in the universe. Again, it is only because of entropy and the fact that we can't seem to escape entropy, that we perceive time as being irreversible. Exaltation is a condition that doesn't experience entropy, ever. Exaltation is permanent. Now I'm not claiming that I have the absolute answer to time, but I want to illustrate that it is somewhat naive to believe that our perception of time accurately reflects the reality of time, when in fact the reality of time is not as clear as we like to pretend and there is science to indicate that things are quite fantastical when it comes to time, if time even exists at all! Regards, Finrock

Good afternoon Seminarysnoozer! I hope you've been doing well. :) I think your understanding of time is presumptious. First, how do you know time is linear or synchronous? Also, "time" travel is far from science fiction. Third, our sensation of the "passage" of time is closely associated with entropy. Entropy creates the illusion that events are irreversible. You may be surprised to know that anciently mankind was more prone to accept a cyclical concept of time rather than a linear one. This cyclical understanding of time is actually supported by science. I'll provide some references when I get home. In any case, this linear, irreversible passage of time that can be precisely measured by atomic clocks is a modern invention that although useful in providing a semblance of order, it isn't really an accurate portrayal of time. Regards, Finrock

Good afternoon Kamperfoelie! It is a pleasure to meet you. I hope you are having a great day. :) To answer your original question, the answer is no. Having the priesthood does not necessarily or automatically make someone a Priest, which is an office of the Aaronic priesthood, which I describe in more detail below. You've received some good answers. More precisely there are two priesthoods that we speak about and believe in, although both stem from the same tree or power. There is the Aaronic priesthood and the Melchizedek priesthood. The Melchizedek priesthood is the greater of the two priesthoods and it is the priesthood by which all things in the earth are directed and governed. Instead of levels, more appropriately there are various "offices" within each priesthood. For the Aaronic priesthood there are the offices of a Deacon, Teacher, and Priest. For the Melchizedek priesthood there are the offices of elder, High Priest, patriach, Seventy, and Apostle. Each office of each respective priesthood differs only in which priesthood functions one is authorized to perform. A Priest is an office of the Aaronic priesthood and under the direction of the presiding priesthood authority they are authorized to perform all of the functions of the Deacon and Teacher, plus they are authorized to bless the sacrament, baptize, and ordain others as Deacons, Teachers, or Priest. To answer your hypothetical question, it is possible to have 3 Priests living under the same roof. Regards, Finrock

Good afternoon dahlia! It is a pleasure to meet you. I hope you are having a wonderful day. :) Judging from your posts I think the most important thing for you is to understand and accept that the most important thing for your conversion is not to be intellectually convinced but rather it is to to spiritually convinced. My saying this is not intended to completely disregard the role of intellectually pursuing questions and concerns, but rather it is intended to stress the greater relevancy of the Spirit in the conversion process. Teaching the gospel requires that one knows and understands the gospel. To a large extent the more informed a missionary is about the gospel, the more effective they will be in teaching it. Of course, as you have mentioned, the missionaries will generally not have all of the life experiences and scholarly background of someone who is older than they. But the question is, "Is having great life experiences and an abudance of intellectual knowledge necessary to teaching the gospel with power and authority?" I suggest that these things are not necessary. God requires a willing and humble heart. Those that come to Him in their weakness, with humility and faith, will be qualified. The most important question in this regard is, "Can the missionaries teach with the Spirit?" If the missionaries are teaching with the Spirit, then the only thing left is for you to ensure that your are sufficiently humble and willing to hear and feel those truths as the Spirit testifies through the words of the missionaries. Kind Regards, Finrock

Good afternoon kimiko! It is a pleasure to meet you. :) I believe the experience you have had is one of the main reasons why new converts at least leave the church. This is been a big concern for the leaders of the church for many years. Over and over again you hear the counsel from the prophets that all new converts need a friend, a calling, and teaching from the scriptures. I've seen it often myself how new members are fellowshipped and supported up until their baptism and it seems that after baptism they are forgotten. It is really sad and discouraging at times, although much of the reason I believe that this happens is not because people are bad, but because they don't fully understand the needs of most new converts. One thing I'll always remember that my older brother taught me on my mission and it set the stage for my missionary efforts, is to be a friend first and forever. Fellowshipping shouldn't just be about getting a person baptized. It should be genuine and real so that a person has a true friend who is genuinely concerned for them and wants them to be happy and strong in the gospel. This is what it takes. Too often I've witnessed fellowshipping being treated as some sort of task that has an end point. True friendship doesn't end after baptism and that is the dreadful mistake that happens too often. This can leave the new convert feeling betrayed, lonely, and exiled. As a Church I think we need to just be more cognizant of how a new member might feel. Like I mentioned earlier, I don't think people are being malicious or mean, it's just a lack of understanding what a new convert is experiencing. On the other hand, it is a lovely and wonderful thing to see a new convert come in to the Church and they have true friends who take over when the missionaries leave and make sure the new member has all of the support they need. It truly should be for the new member a feeling of coming in to a loving and caring family. Heavenly Father wants us to "[t]hink of [our] brethren like unto [ourselves], and be familiar with all..." (Jacob 2:17). To me being "familiar with all" means to put away haughtiness and pride and treat all people as if they were a member of your immediate family. Kind Regards, Finrock

Good morning Snow! I hope you are doing well. :) The only appropriate answers to this question is "Yes" or "No". To the other questions the only appropriate answer is "Yes" or "No" and an explaination as to why "Yes". No other assumptions about my stance or belief need to occur. Have a great day! Kind Regards, Finrock P.S. I prefer Cow over Bull, btw.

Snow! :) Thank you for the response. Sigh... Nope, that is not what is going on. I've never denied the evolution of man in general. I've persistently claimed that I believe in the evolution of man, although I may not believe in all elements of evolution of man. And I've only ever said that much not because my argument actually denies the evolutio of man in general, but because people kept saying I was denying the evolution of man. But, in order to respond to my point no one ever needed to address the evolution of man at all because the origin of man does not equate to the evolution of man. However, apparently, you and others are simply unable to see the distinction and therefore unable to detach the evolution of man from my statement. So, at this point, I want to know why you believe FS entails a denial of the evolution of man or why FS entails a statement about the Church officially denying the evolution of man? I've been thinking about this discussion a lot, in fact, and it seems to me that you and others think that my statement entails a denial of the evolution of man either because you misunderstand my statement, you do not recognize the distinction between the origin of man and the evolution of man, or you misunderstand what evolution, generally speaking, but also in how it applies to man, actually entails or a combination of any of the above (note: I'm assuming all objections have been sincere). Actually, here is an alternative question that may be even better than the others. Do you believe that the evolution of man necessarily entails speciation? So, there, now you have a choice of questions. If you decide to answer, you can choose which one of the two sets of questions you prefer to answer. :) Regards, Finrock

Good evening Snow! :) Thank you so much for taking the time to respond. Crazy that another week has already gone by. I hope yours has been a wonderful one. It's not nonsense. It's very sensical. OK, however you prefer to mention it, that is fine with me. When I say evolution I mean the evolution of man. So, if you prefer that I say "evolution of man", then when I address you I'll specify the "evolution of man". My argument never was about denying the evolution of man, so I haven't deferred, I've simply dealt with relevant data. At this point, after realizing that no matter how much I deny that I'm speaking against the evolution of man people will continue to assert that I ma, so I'm now trying to understand why you and others keep thinking that my statement denies the evolution of man. This whole exercise has the purpose of eventually clarifying and specifying, exactly what you seem to desire. I hope to fulfill your desire in this. I've also been wondering why people keep telling me that the Church isn't against the evolution of man when I haven't been saying that it is. But, I have been interacting responsibly with the actual discussion, I've just tried real hard not to deal with irrelevant arguments. And, I am not obfuscating. So, now that you understand that when I say evolution, I mean the evolution of man, please, if you don't mind, will you answer the questions so that many of the concerns that you bring up in this post can begin to be resolved? I mean, there has to be a reason why my statements receive responses that deal with the evolution of man. :) Thanks again, for your time. Regards, Finrock

Greetings Everyone. I hope all of you have had a great week! :) When I posted my original position on post #102 I wasn't making an argument against evolution in general. I even stated this before I gave my position. Since then, I have received many responses. Most of these responses have said something to the effect that "The Church has no position on evolution" or "The Church is neutral on evolution" or "It is illogical do deny evolution" or "The Church is not against the evolution of man". These particular objections to my statements have left me, for the most part, scratching my head wondering why people are writing about evolution when I wrote a post about the origin of man and specifically stated that I wasn't denying evolution. So, in an attempt to get this cleared up I want to ask all of you who have objected to my post by claiming that my position is wrong because the Church is neutral on the question of evolution (or some variant of this objection), to please answer two questions. Presented below is my stated position. Below that, is the question I would like for you to answer. Finrock's Statement (FS) "The LDS Church's official and doctrinal position on the origin of man is that (1)Adam is the first man on this earth and (2)Adam did not develope from lower orders of the animal creation." Questions to be Answered 1. Do you believe that FS is an argument against evolution or that FS claims the Church is against evolution? 2. If you believe that FS is an argument against evolution or that FS makes a claim that the Church is against evolution, then will you please explain why you believe FS is an argument against evolution or that FS claims the Church is against evolution? I thank you in advance for taking part in this exercise. I will respond to those who have answered these questions to address any specific points they bring up. I hope this exercise will facilitate greater understanding (mostly me trying to understand) on what is being said. Regards, Finrock

Evening Moksha! I hope you are happy. :) That is an interesting hypothesis. Regards, Finrock

Evening Snow! There are many posts that I'm trying to respond to. I've provided proof for my perspective, even though you claim that I have not. I think the claim that I have not demonstrated my point is unfair. You may not accept my proof, but I have not simply made assertions without providing the supporting data. Now, you have provided some quotes that challenge my claim that Church doctrine teaches that Adam did not develop from lower orders of the animal creation. Not all of them have I addressed. Most of them I will not address because they are irrelevant to my point. That is because most of your rebuttals are talking how the Church is neutral on evolution even though I do not claim otherwise. My post is not about evolution but about the origin of man. Your posts seem to equate the two as corralaries, however, your posts and those of others, seem to have misunderstood what evolution actually addresses. All of you who have objected to my post on the grounds that my position denies evolution, seem to be confusing abiogenesis with evolution. "Abiogenesis...or biopoesis is the theory of how life on Earth could have arisen from inanimate matter. It should not be confused with evolution, which is the study of how groups of already living things change over time..." (Source; emphasis added). In other words, evolution doesn't speak to the origin of any living thing. Evolution only attempts to describe the variation of living things on the planet. In fact, neither evolution or science can explain the origin of any creature, including man. This is why it doesn't make any sense to associate a denial of evolution with my claims or to persist with the claim that the "evolution of man" and "the origin of man" are synonymous. They are not synonymous. There is a mixing of these two concepts going on in this discussion that is causing all sorts of complications and misunderstandings. Understanding the difference should now clear up some other points, I would hope. Now, I am in the process of investigating the quotes you provided that are actually relevant to my claim. I want to read them from the source, if possible, so that they can be read in their complete context. I've already found a couple of your quotes that mean something quite different when read in context. Once I'm done and when I have time, I'll respond to your counter claims. I do have a life outside of the forum. I only state this because don't think that because I haven't responded yet to a particular point that I haven't read it or that I don't intend to consider it. Regards, Finrock

Good afternoon Godless! I hope you are happy. :) Although you were quoting Snow, I'm going to assume this was addressed to me. If I'm wrong, then you can discard this post. First and foremost, my position is nowhere close to what you're describing. A. I believe Adam existed and continues to exist. B. I don't deny that lifeforms are evolving. C. I do believe that God is the creator. So, I have 1 out of the 3 criterias in common with what you find problematic. How does agreeing with 1/3 of the "troublesome" position equate to being "one step" away from the troublesome position? Rhetorical question so I'll answer: It's not. Now, you make another interesting claim in your post. Apparently you believe that one must either completely accept or completely reject a theory, or otherwise one is being illogical. I'm not sure your logic follows. I mean, you seem to be using the statement, "Partial acceptance of a theory is simply illogical", as an axiom. Such a notion doesn't seem obviously true to me. Hypothetically speaking, if the actual evidence or lack of evidence justifies it, then partial acceptance of a theory seems perfectly reasonable to me. Accepting a theory completely, regardless of sufficient reason to question parts of it, seems unreasonable to me. Also, speaking hypothetically again, it seems to me that if scripture represents eternal truth, then how could I rationally accept scientific data that contradicts scripture? What kind of sense does that make? You see, in this case it comes down to what we consider as king. God's word or man's word. If we consider man's word king, then, when there is an apparent conflict between the two, we will make God's word bow done to man. If we consider God's word king, then, when there is an apparent conflict, we will make man's word bow down to God. Thanks for the dialoge. out. Regards, Finrock

Good morning Snow. It's a nice day today where I'm at. I hope it's the same for you. :) If I say the A teaches X; here is why... The only sensible response if you disagree is to say, no, A does not teach X; here is why... What's been happening mostly from your posts and from others, is that they are wanting to show how B indicates that Y is true. They are completely speaking past the point I'm asserting. True, your post has made attempts at proving how my position isn't doctrinal, but it has gotten my position wrong. Your proofs have been speaking about evolution and how the church is neutral on evolution. Once you've made this point, you declare victory, that your position has been proven and my position is false. The only problem is that I haven't been arguing against evolution or making claims about the church's position on evolution. So, why the persistent confusion? I'm beginning to sense a reason. It seems because you feel that a claim saying that Adam did not develop from lower orders of the animal creation entails an argument against evolution in general, then such a position isn't acceptable to you. In fact, it seems that such a thought is so reprehensible to your sense of reason that you would rather deal with the perceived consequences of such a position rather than deal with the actual content of the argument. This seems to be the feeling of several others taking part in this discussion as well. I would further speculate that such feelings are motivated by a dogmatic belief in evolution. Well, whether my speculation above is accurate or not, it still appears from the content of your posts, and this applies to some others here as well, that you believe evolution only entails speciation. If this is true, then you should understand that evolution does not only entail speciation. In fact, the vast majority of observed examples of evolution do not involve speciation at all. Changes in traits and genetic mutations that result in adaptations or extinctions are things that occurs in populations all of the time, without speciation. In other words, a creature does not need to be evolving from one order of lifeform to another to be experiencing evolution. Hence, your statement labelled 1 doesn't correctly reflect what I've spoken to. You've simply assumed, or misapplied a conclusion because of a misunderstanding of evolution, that because Adam did not develop from a lower order of the animal creation, that this means Adam was "excused" from evolutionary processes. When you understand that speciation does not have to occur in order for a population to experience the effects of evolution, then clearly, stating that "Adam did not develop from a lower order of the animal creation" is not a statement that denies evolution in general or that evolution doesn't apply to Adam. I'll address your other points as I have time, but right now I must end this post. Hey, and in case there is any misunderstanding, I don't mind your criticism of my position. I appreciate the discussion and you taking the time to interact with me. Regards, Finrock

Good evening Snow. I hope you've enjoyed your day and are doubly enjoying your evening. Here is my claim in totality: The Church teaches that Adam was the first man and that Adam did not develop from lower orders of the animal creation but rather man began life as a human being. I therefore claim that "if any member of the Church perpetuates the idea that Adam was not the first man (Moses 1:34) or that Adam developed "...from lower orders of the animal creation", they are perpetuating false doctrine because the scriptures and official statements of the Church teach otherwise." Evolution, as it is currently understood, can still occur given my statements above. Possibly questions about speciation in certain cases could be affected, but my claims do not deny the concept of evolution. A discussion on evolution is irrelevant to responding to my claims. It speaks to what the Church teaches about Adam. A counter response would only need to speak to what the Church teaches about Adam. A note about the way you are defining race as it is used in the statement, "The Origin of Man." Your definition is out of context. Race also means, "humans considered as a group" or the human race. It is obvious in context that race was not being used to designate the caucasian race or african race, etc. It clearly means the "human race". In other words, the statement is saying that Adam is the primal parent of the human race/human beings/human species. One last note, your post takes my comment from speaking about Adam not developing from lower animal creations, to me claiming that the church teaches against evolution. There is no such connection between what I'm claiming and what you are arguing that I am claiming. This is clearly a distortion of what my argument says. Yet again, your posts wants to deal with issues that I have not made instead of just simply dealing with the text. Your post is apparently attempting to assume something in to my comments that doesn't belong. Why not simply deal with the stated claim as written? Evolution has not part in addressing my claim. It can be addressed without involving evoltion. I can even show you, if you wish? What a strange thread this is starting to become. Regards, Finrock

Helllo Traveler. I hope this evening finds you healthy and happy! :) In my post #102 I have a direct link to the statement found on lds.org. If you still can't find it, I can PM you a link. I haven't claimed that evolution is not possible. In fact this is my sixth or seventh time (I've lost track) that I've explicitely stated that I believe evolution, for the most part, to be an actual phenomenon. I don't know how else to make it any more clear that I am not trying to "completely discount evolution." I have no idea how this all occurred either, but I do know two things about the origin of man that the Church teaches; *Adam was the first man and that Adam was not a " development from lower orders of the animal creation" but rather "man began life as a human being in the likeness of Heavenly Father." Even if one accepts these statements made by the Church, it doesn't deny that evolution occurs. It may deny certain aspects of evolution, such as certain claims regarding speciation, but evolution isn't just about speciation and not all speciation is the same (i.e. spotted moth to dark moth vs. fish to mammal). But, all of this talk about evolution, in the end, is irrelevant to my claim because I'm not claiming to know how evolution works or how it jives with the Church's position. I'm simply stating that this* is the Church's position concerning Adam and to claim otherwise is false. If evolution turns out to be the absolute truth, which I mostly agree that it is truth, then whatever that actually entails in totality, when all the mysteries have been revealed, it will accomodate the concepts that Adam was the first man and that Adam did not develope from a lower order of the animal creation but rather man began life as a human being. Regards, Finrock

Terve Maya. Toivottovasti voit hyvin! :) Siella tontilla on jarvi. Jos siella on myos sauna niin mina sanon osta! Mutta todellisesti tama riipuu taysin siihen vastaukseen minka sina saat Jumalalta. Se on todella kaunis tontti ja mina rakastaisin asua siella! Mutta sinun taytyy paattaa rukouksen kautta jos se on oikea juttu tehda. Tiedan etta tama ei ole paljon apua mutta ei minulla ole mitaan taman syvempaa tarjottavana. Toivon etta selivitat sinun ongelman pian. Terveisin, Finrock

Hello again Seminarysnoozer. :) Even though a big part of what you are describing I think is addressed in my last post to you, I did want to specifically deny two assertions your posts associates with me. 1. I don't know how else to state this than how I've stated it, but I am not arguing against evolution. I have not been using the statements that "we are the offspring of God" as a proof against evolution. I have been using it as a proof against the perpetuation of the idea that Adam was not the first man or that Adam evolved from "lower orders of the animal creation." 2. I've never suggested that we are begotten sons and daughters of God in the flesh. Hopefully as we explore my other post, we can clear up any further misunderstandings between us. :) Regards, Finrock