Finrock

Good morning Seminarysnoozer. I hope you've been doing well! :) I've been trying to pay my response debt in the last few days, so I apologize for the late response. Thank you for taking the time to do this exercise and for trusting that I'm not trying to set you up. Since you agree with 5, I'll consider question 4 moot, even though you were uncertain. What I wanted to do was establish if and where, we disagreed. Based on your responses we both believe in the same things up to this point, so any disagreement doesn't exist in where we derive our identity from, which is our spirit. It is here where I believe you are misunderstanding what I'm saying, or missing the point. Are you familiar with Plato's Theory of Forms? Perhaps a discussion of Plato's forms will be helpful in illustrating my point. Plato describes that the, "...forms are eternal and changeless, but enter into a partnership with changeable matter, to produce the objects and examples of concepts, we perceive in the temporal world. These are always in a state of becoming, and may participate in a succession of forms. The ever changing temporal world can thus, only be the source of opinion. Plato likens the opinions derived from our senses, to the perception of shadows of real objects, cast upon the wall of a cave. True knowledge however, is the perception of the archetypal forms themselves, which are real, eternal, and unchanging (Plato's Theory of Forms, Ian Bruce). When I speak of the "form" of our body, I am suggesting that our physical bodies are patterned after the unchanging and eternal archetypal form of Man, which archetype is God's body. Thus, all things, all creatures, have been physically patterned after their eternal forms, all things in their sphere (D&C 77:2). This doesn't mean that the physical body or structure of a thing perfectly matches the eternal form that it is patterned after, but that it is in it's likeness and in a "state of becoming." Now, before I take my comments to their logical ends, I want to inquire to see what you understand and feel about my comments in this post? Regards, Finrock PS This post should also encompass the comments in your latest post to me.

Good evening Snow! :) The evolution of man in it's broadest sense isn't in debate, at least it isn't with me. Attributing this to my speech is arguing a strawman. In actuality what I have argued is that there is a doctrinal position on the origin of man, which the statement titled "Origin of Man" speaks to, which represents an official interpretation of scripture. My claim is simply 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. If you disagree with my conclusion, then demonstrate how it is false. It's not complicated at all. :) To do this you'll need to deal with the actual content of my post. Second, no proof by assertion allowed. It's just not polite and ultimately meaningless. Lastly, there is no need to lean on ad hominems, strawmen, or red herrings! Facts and reason will speak for themselves. Now, simply demonstrate that the scriptures and official statements of the Church either actively teach that Adam was not the first man and that he developed from lower orders of the animal creation or that they support such a position. If you are right and I am wrong, you should have no trouble demonstrating it from the scriptures and official statements of the Church. :) Good luck and I truly look forward to a response that deals with the actual content of my post and demonstrates its contradiction. Regards, Finrock

Good evening Moksha! :) Actually, the authorship is appropriately attributed to the First Presidency of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. This distinction constitutes an official declaration and not a personal opinion. It entails binding doctrine. The "Origin of Man" declaration has not been superceded. The link I provided in post #102 is from a 2002 Ensign article which featured the "Origin of Man". It was preceded with the following explanation: "In the early 1900s, questions concerning the Creation of the earth and the theories of evolution became the subject of much public discussion. In the midst of these controversies, the First Presidency issued the following in 1909, which expresses the Church’s doctrinal position on these matters" (First Presidency, “The Origin of Man,” Ensign, Feb 2002, 26; Bold added). Regards, Finrock

Good afternoon Traveler. I hope you are well! :) See post #102. Presented are some scriptures and the official declaration, "Origin of Man", by the First Presidency. Regards, Finrock

Good afternoon Moksha. I hope you are doing well today! :) I don't think I could nor do I think I have to, as far as my position is concerned, that is. :) Regards, Finrock

Good afternoon Snow. I hope you enjoyed your weekend! :) Some would debate that, but thank you. It might be helpful to declare an assumption. My basic premise is that scripture and official declarations of truth from the Church constitutes the word of God, which trumps secularly reasoned facts in all cases and in all circumstances. My argument about the origin of man doesn't deny or confirm the general process of evolution as an actual phenomenon. In short, my argument says that whatever the case may be regarding any explanation as to the origin of man, it is a fact that Church doctrine and scripture officially teaches that (1)Adam was the first "man", that (2)Adam did not evolve from a lower species, and the third claim, although analytically contained in the first claim, is that (3)there was no "man" prior to Adam. As a consequence of this prophetically revealed and doctrinally binding truth as to the origin of man, any explanation that contravenes one or more elements of this doctrinal and scriptural truth, must be false. I justify my claim that my argument about the origin of man doesn't deny or confirm the general process of evolution as an actual phenomenon, because there is nothing in the scriptural and doctrinal fact about the origin of man that would automatically eliminate evolution as a phenomenon, although it may require that certain understandings regarding evolution be rejected in light of revealed truth. As far as your other questions...I don't have any specific or single hypothesis that I subscribe to as to how the scriptural and doctrinal position of the Church regarding the origin of man fits in to currently accepted scientific understanding of evolution. This should not be misunderstood to mean that I accept everything about the currently accepted scientific understanding of evolution. Please understand, as well, that this subject matter of evolution and the subject matter of the questions asked in your post, constitute a different subject matter and argument than what I was originally, and that I am currently, postulating. Although I have no objection to exploring my beliefs on evolution, I don't want to abandon the discussion of my original point. Regards, Finrock

Good evening all! I hope everyone has had a good week. :) I owe some responses, but I've had enough posting for this week. I will not be spending my weekend posting any more to this forum! Thus saith the Finrock! I'm just sayin', in case anyone is waiting for a response from me, it will be forthcoming next week. Enjoy the weekend! Regards, Finrock

Good evening RRR1! I hope you've had a good day. :) We believe the Bible to be the word of God as far as it is translated correctly. We do not believe that the scriptures, not even the scriptures that are unique to us, like the Book of Mormon, are innerant. We love the Bible and believe it contains the gospel of Jesus Christ and many, many truths. But, we also recognize that the Bible isn't the final word. Neither is it the complete word. I believe it has been miraculously preserved so that we have what we have of the Bible today. Even with it's mircaculous preservation, the Bible, in its current form and because of man, is incomplete. We believe in living prophets, the same type of prophets who received revelation thousands of years ago and wrote those revelations down in to the Bible. We believe that God continues to speak to His prophets today and we have an open canon of scripture. God's prophets are authorized to receive revelation and they can add new scripture to the volume of scripture we currently have. This has been a wonderful blessing because it has allowed us to discover truths and mysteries that have been lost and hidden away for hundreds of years. I am speaking of things that the Bible does not clearly explain, like the role of the Seventy. Or things that the Bible only hints at, like the need for temples and temple worship. These are not things that take away or destroy the Bible, but they complete it. They strengthen it. They testify of it. The Bible is a wonderful source of doctrine, of truth, and of learning about the life of the Savior Jesus Christ. We should read it, cherish it, believe in it. We believe it is scripture, yes. We believe it contains truth, yes. But, we do not believe it is inerrant and we just do not believe that it is the final word on all things pertaining to God. :) Regards, Finrock

Evening Dravin. I hope you've had a good day. :) It's all gravy. :) Regards, Finrock

EDIT: I changed the yes and no continuation of question 3 to make sense. If you've already answered, ignore the previous version and use only the edited version. Hello Seminarysnoozer. :) You're welcome. Before I go any further, I just want to know what your answers are to a few questions so that we can establish a baseline or troubleshoot where the disagreement lies. I hope you don't mind doing this exercise: 1. Do you believe that stating "I am a child of God" correctly describes one's identity? If yes, then continue to the next questions. If no, then answer no more questions because we'll need to start from another baseline. 2. Do you believe that a spirit child of God constitutes a person that is either a man or a woman? If yes, continue. If no, then you may stop here. 3. Do you believe that when a spirit person obtains a physical, mortal body that the spirit's identity as a child of God, as a person, and their identity as a man or a woman ceases to be the case? If yes, you may stop. If no, please continue. 4. Can the physical body live without the spirit? If yes, please continue. If no, you may stop. 5. Do you agree with the following statement? A spirit child of God obtained their identity as a person and as a man or as a woman long before they received their physical body, therefore the spirit of a person, and not their body, is the essential component of a person's identity. Thank you for your time and consideration. Regards, Finrock EDIT: I changed the yes and no continuation option of question 3 to make sense. If you've already answered, ignore the previous version and use only the edited version.

Good afternoon Seminarysnoozer. I hope your day has been a good one! :) I suppose I don't seperate the spirit from the physical body in the way that you are. You seem to be speaking of the physical body as a separate entity, apart from the spirit which resides in it. The physical body has no life without the spirit. Therefore the essential part of man's identity does not reside in the physical body, it resides in the spirit. So, I guess I need to ask if you agree with that statement? I don't think the status of our physical bodies are relevant to the question of our species. Science only recognizes the physical organism, but we know better. We know that the physical organism has no life without the spirit. Therefore science is incorrect in classifying a species solely based on it's physical aspects. When science catches up to truth, then science will recognize that identity of an organism lies in it's spirit and it's physical body has been formed to match it's spiritual identity. Species, therefore, is contingent on spirit identity rather than on the physical. This is why we can claim that we are of the same species as God, because our spirits are the offspring of God. For the sake of illustrating my point, even if my current spirit were to reside inside of the physical body of a dog, I would still be a Man, because it isn't my physical body that determines my species, or my identity. It is my spirit that determines my identity. In your claim that Gods cannot interbreed with man, your statement is simply assuming that Man and God are a different species. Because I have a mortal body and God has an immortal body does not change my species or God's. My body doesn't identify my species, my spirit does. In any case, if we replace "God" with His name, Man of Holiness, then the perceived distinction between the two entities (Man and God) isn't as cut-and-dry: "Man cannot interbreed with a Man of Holiness." This is akin to saying: "A human slave cannot interbreed with a human king." I would say, why not? If that statement is true, however, it would not be true because Man and Man of Holiness are a different species, it would be true for some other reason (likely because God is Holy and we are not). Now, you mentioned the birth of Christ, but your post seems to brush aside the implications. I don't think this can be reasonably done because it is an example of an immortal interbreeding with a mortal. The specific mechanism of such "interbreeding" are irrelevant to the fact that it is possible for a God to interbreed with a woman (just using woman here to avoid saying anything sacrilige). Other than our bodies not being immortal, not being perfect, and not being glorified, our bodies are exactly the same as God's body in their type. The bodies form/type isn't different, it's status is different. Hypothetically speaking, if I were looking at a picture of the body of a mortal and a picture of the body of God, and I was asked to identify to which species do these two bodies belong to, I would identify both bodies as belonging to the human species. If we were to compare strictly the outside attributes of our physical bodies to the outside attributes of God's physical body we would find no distinguishing features that would dictate that the two belonged to a different species. We would identify them as belonging to the same species. Regards, Finrock

Good evening Dravin. I hope you are well. :) Apparently I did. I offer you my apologies for not being thorough. Regards, Finrock

Hello Snow. I hope you are well this evening! :) Thank you for taking the time to respond to my post and also for describing in more detail what your concerns are in regards to what I've posted. So, here is how I'm going to respond. First, I'll respond to specific points that I think need clarifying. Second, I'll provide a more general response to your post because I don't want to get weeded down in trying to respond point-for-point. I agree that evolution is an actual phenomenom. I don't necessarily agree with some ideas that biology postulates in regards to evolution, but I do not deny that evolution is a an actuality. Again, my post wasn't intended as an argument against evolution. Another important fact I want to point out. In your responses to my questions, you spoke of "pre-historic" humans. So, my last post that was addressed specifically to you was written with the assumption that you were speaking of "pre-historic" humans and not "pre-Adamic" humans. The two concepts are not synonymous. I have no problem with Adam being placed on this earth during "pre-historic" times. I do not subscribe to a young earth ideology. If your position is that there were pre-Adamic humans, then depending on how you define "human" I might find that problematic in my view. Actually, I defined Man as the species known to science as Homo Sapiens Sapiens (this was not a typo) or anatomically modern humans. But, more importantly, I defined Man as the same species as God the Father. There is a reason why I numbered my definitions and a reason why I added the phrase, "known to science" in my definition of man. I numbered them because the 1st definition is what I consider to be the significant and important definition of Man and it is that part that I have used in my subsequent posts on this matter. I stated "known to science" because science doesn't know of the species of God, but the species that science classifies as Homo sapiens sapiens, is the species Man, which is the same species that God is a member of. I wanted to make sure that people understood that when I say Man, I am speaking only of the same species of Man that God is a member of and which we are a member of because we are the spiritual offspring of God. So, don't get stuck on the Homo Sapiens Sapiens part. I would rather you focus on Man being the same species as God the Father, because it is here where the essence of what I am contending lies. This isn't exactly what I posted. I did not deny the evolution of anything else. I'll quote my claims again from post #102: "I...think that to postulate that (1)the first "man" was some other species than the anatomically modern human being or (2)someone other than Adam or (3)that Adam evolved from a different species, is to postulate a belief that contravenes the revealed scriptures and doctrines of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints." Point 1 essentially means that only a being that is the same species that Heavenly Father is, can correctly be called "man" (look back on how I defined man and how I was using it). Point 2 essentially means that Adam was the first man on this earth. And, remember that by man, I mean the same species that Heavenly Father is. Point 3 essentially means that Adam did not evolve from a different species. I mean, of all the possible reasons for me asking questions, why would you settle on the one that is nefarious in nature? You aren't alone, of course, in this tendancy to assign wicked designs to others on chat forums. I don't know if this is because of the anonymity, because we aren't dialoging face to face, or because there are so many bad people in the world, or for some other reason, but I'm constantly disappointed that I can find no relief from the pessimism of discussion forums, not even in a community made up of my brothers and sisters of the Church. Sadly, in this respect, the LDS community does not distinguish itself from other communities. Snow, I tried to understand the ambiguous statements you made. I initially intended to explore why you felt that certain beliefs constituted "backwards ideological beliefs" and what you felt were scientific facts and how you determined they were facts. I'm not going to focus too much more on your attacks against my character, though. The reasons you provided as to why you feel I am being dishonest aren't reasons at all, just assumptions you've decided to accept as truth for one reason or another. What can I say other than I won't treat you the same way. Know that I'll always give you the benefit of the doubt. :) Now, my more generalized statement about your post. Your post has incorrectly attributed beliefs and views to me. I was not speaking to evolution in my post other than to claim that Adam did not evolve from a lower species. I did not claim that nothing else has evolved. In my post I was not trying to claim that evolution is false. I would not make such a categorical claim about evolution because I do not believe such a statement to be true. I did not claim that the church has an official stance on evolution. I claimed that the church has an official stance on the origin of man. Man, being the species that God the Father is a member of. I was not addresing evolution. In your post you are arguing a Red Herring, and have not addressed the views that I have expressed. Here, again, is my claim restated: No person can claim that revealed scripture and doctrine of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints teaches that: 1. man is some other species than the species that God is 2. the first man was someone other than Adam 3. Adam evolved from a lower species. I further claim that such views contravene revealed scripture and doctrines. See post #102 for my evidences. Other than stating that Adam did not evolve from a lower species, my expressed views in the posts I have contributed in this thread thus far, make no claims about evolution. Again, if one believes that my argument is false, then they would have to show that LDS scripture and doctrine teach the views being denied in my argument and they would have to demonstrate that these views do not contravene revealed scritpure and doctrine. So, Snow, are you finally going to demonstrate why my position is incorrect instead of arguing red herrings and strawmen? Regards, Finrock

Good evening Seminarysnoozer! I hope you've had a good day. :) You are welcome. What is a physical body without a spirit in it? It's dead. Obviously the essential component of man is the spirit. You are right, however. There are different ways of using "man", which is why I've tried to be clear in how I am using the term. In post #102 I defined how I was using man in hopes that it would be more clear. Well, no, God is not our earthly father. He is our Heavenly Father. He is the Father of our spirits. But, it isn't our physical bodies that makes us Man, as was pointed out ealier. The essential part of our identity lies in our spirit, not our physical body. But, we have the physical body that we have because of who we are. Our physical body is the physical body of the species Man precisely because we are Man by virtue of our spiritual lineage (meaning the lineage of our spirits). That is why I think the scripture in D&C 77:2 is significant to this part of the discussion and should not be overlooked. "That which is spiritual being in the likeness of that which is temporal, and that which is temporal in the likeness of that which is spiritual." Temporal things are patterned after spiritual things, and vice versa. If our physical bodies are patterned after our spiritual bodies, then how we are in our temporal state is a likeness to how we are in our spirit state. If our spirits are the species of God, and it is within our spirits where our identity essentially resides, then our identity and our species doesn't change because we've taken on us a physical body. Our physical body just becomes a part of who we are. It is just another step in our progression in reaching the pinnacle of Manhood. Of course there are differences between our physical body and God's physical body, but I don't believe the differences are relevant to the question of our lineage or species. The form of our bodies are not foreign in the eternal scheme. Our body is imperfect and mortal, yes, but it is in the form of what will be a perfect and immortal body (I'm assuming all of us are making it to the Celestial Kingdom ). Our physical bodies are in the form of Man, just as God's body is in the form of Man. When the status of our physical body changes to a glorified and perfected state, our essential form will still remain the same as it was when we lived in mortality. I appreciate the discussion. :) Regards, Finrock

Good afternoon Seminarysnoozer. I hope you've had a good day. :) Thank you for reading and responding to my post. I understand your concern. I don't mean to imply that because we are the same species as God that we are equal with God in our progression. I think what you are describing is progression within a species. The First Presidency in the proclamation "Origin of Man" gave the following explanation: "True it is that the body of man enters upon its career as a tiny germ embryo, which becomes an infant, quickened at a certain stage by the spirit whose tabernacle it is, and the child, after being born, develops into a man. There is nothing in this, however, to indicate that the original man, the first of our race, began life as anything less than a man, or less than the human germ or embryo that becomes a man." I'm certain you've heard this before, but we can consider ourselves as gods in embryo. Our divine potential exist because we are of the same species as God the Father, we are His offspring. If we were of some lower class of species, or, saying it another way, if we were a lower class of intelligence, than we would have no such potential, just like the embryo of an elephant has no potential of developing in to a man, and neither does an elephant have the potential of developing in to a Man of Holiness; It is outside of the scope of it's species. For us, becoming a Man of Holiness is not outside of our scope, precisely because we belong to the same species as God the Father. Because the fact that we are God's children is not allegorical, but is literal, this denotes that we are of the same species as God (Heb. 12:9). "Gods and humans represent a single divine lineage, the same species of being, although they are at different stages of progress" (EoM, 6th para.; See also Rom. 8:29; 2 Cor. 3:18). Further, consider the name of Heavenly Father. He is named Man of Holiness. Likewise, the name of His Only Begotten is the Son of Man (Moses 6:57). God is an exalted and glorified Man . He is a man, like we are man, the difference being that God is an exalted and glorified Man. And, we, because we are man, can, like Him, become an exalted and glorified Man. God represents the pinnacle, the epitome, of what the species Man can become. No other species, no other intelligence, can become a Man of Holiness. When the scriptures speak of us having been created in God's image, it means our physical bodies were created in the likeness of His physical body. Our bodies look like God's body (Ether 3:15-16). Let me quote further from the First Presidency in the Origin of Man: "The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, basing its belief on divine revelation, ancient and modern, proclaims man to be the direct and lineal offspring of Deity. God Himself is an exalted man, perfected, enthroned, and supreme. By His almighty power He organized the earth and all that it contains, from spirit and element, which exist coeternally with Himself. He formed every plant that grows and every animal that breathes, each after its own kind, spiritually and temporally—“that which is spiritual being in the likeness of that which is temporal, and that which is temporal in the likeness of that which is spiritual.” He made the tadpole and the ape, the lion and the elephant, but He did not make them in His own image, nor endow them with godlike reason and intelligence. Nevertheless, the whole animal creation will be perfected and perpetuated in the Hereafter, each class in its “distinct order or sphere,” and will enjoy “eternal felicity.”" Notice the line, "that which is spiritual being in the likeness of that which is temporal, and that which is temporal in the likeness of that which is spiritual." That is actually a quote from D&C 77:2. This verse, directly after the portion above, continues, "...the spirit of man in the likness of his person, as also the spirit of the beast, and every other creature which God has created." So, what is my point. My point is that the reason why our physical bodies were created the way there were, is because of the way our spirit bodies were created. The form that we have, both spiritually and physically, is the form of the species Man. Every man will have the same form. The physical bodies of beasts did not receive our form because their spirit bodies were not of that form. The beasts do not belong to the class of Mankind. But, God, or Man of Holiness, belongs to the class of Mankind and so do we because we are literally God's offspring. Our difference in progression with God, of course, is infinite in scope. We have yet to mature to our potential, but our potential is divine because our lineage is divine. Regards, Finrock

Good morning Snow! I hope you are doing well. :) Thank you for taking the time to reply to my post. I'm not sure I'm following you. What is laying it on thick and why? How is it (whatever it is) wrong and disingenous? It is not enough to assert a position and provide no evidence to justify it. What questions are you referring to? Are you referring to the questions I asked you? If so, why are they clumsy and why do you believe they were presented with guile? Again, it is not enough to assert a position and provide no reason to justify it, especially when you are accusing a person of being dishonest or in any way morally deficient. Further, I haven't provided a response to your post #101. In fact, because you've clarified your position based on the questions I asked you, I see your claims as a different class of claims than what I'm addressing in post #102. For instance, your claim about science having evidence to suggest pre-historic humans is not an issue that I am particularly concerned about nor have I addressed. I'm not speaking to claims of pre-historic humans. Now, I am claiming Adam was the first "human" but, I'm not speaking to when Adam was placed on this earth. In fact, I don't necessarily have any specific claim as to when Adam was placed on this earth. My claims are more precisely dealing with what type of being Adam was and his origin. Well, yeah. It's a method of writing I learned in high school and college. You begin a thesis by stating what you intend to write about. Next you provide the proof. Lastly, you close a thesis by restating your conclusion. Do you find this method of writing problematic in some way? This may be true. But, then again, I wasn't speaking to evolution, per se, except in part to address how it applies to Adam. I was speaking to the status of Adam, his origins, etc. I'll restate what I stated in the beginning of post #102, that my intention is not to debunk evolution. I think you've misunderstood the point of my post because your quote speaks to LDS who "eschew" the theory of evolution on theological grounds. What I've presented isn't intended to "eschew the theory of evolution". In my post I defined the term "man" so that readers would know what I mean when I use the term. I presented a list of specific claims and in the body of my text I provided evidence to support those claims. These claims had to do with the origin of man and not evolution. The scriptures are clear as to the origin of man. Further, the Church has interpreted scripture that sets forth the official stance on the origin of man. This official stance is: 1. Adam did not evolve from a lower species. 2. Adam was the first man on this earth. 3. Only man was created in God's image on this earth. If you disagree with the claims concerning Adam, then you would need to provide the counter evidence in scripture and doctrine indicating that Adam is not the first man, that Adam evolved from a lower species, and that other creatures were created in God's image, other than man. I've categorically denied that such evidence exist. If you think otherwise, show me the money! One last note, although unrelated to the subject matter, but as an appeal for rational discourse, please consider for the future that if you have an issue with what I've written, take some time to address my evidences (a.k.a. premises) rather than attacking my character. Further, rather than assuming that I am being deceitful or disingenous, why not exercise charity and give me an opportunity to clarify myself? This is the hallmark of rationality and reasoned discourse. I promise to treat you the same way as I would want to be treated. It is, in fact, the reason why I ask questions so that I do not make incorrect assumptions. In the end, it is only one's own position that is weakened when it is supported with ad hominems and with arguments of irrelevancy and, furthermore, it does nothing to advance the discussion. Regards, Finrock

Good evening all. I hope everyone has had a great day and is doing well! :) First, before I get in to the meat of my post, I wish to define a term so that it is clear as to what I am speaking to: Man - 1. The species that Heavenly Father is. 2. The species known to science as Homo Sapiens Sapiens (or anatomically modern human). Second, my point is not to discount evolution or science or anything of the sort. I believe all truth, whether found through science or revelation, is circumscribed in to one great whole. There is no conflict between true religion and true science. I believe that our religion can accomodate scientific truths, but I do not think all scientific beliefs necessarily constitute actuality. Science is useful, for sure, but it has it's limits. This means that there are beliefs that science postulates that contradicts revealed scripture and doctrine. In those cases, I will always defer to what scripture reads and what the position of the Church is. Although I respect the agency of others to believe what they wish to believe, I also think that to postulate that (1)the first "man" was some other species than the anatomically modern human being or (2)someone other than Adam or (3)that Adam evolved from a different species, is to postulate a belief that contravenes the revealed scriptures and doctrines of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. One is sure to find all sorts of scientific data to support this claim, but they are not going to find scriptural or doctrinal support for it. Not because it is hidden, a mystery, etc., but because it doesn't exist, and I state this categorically. So, one may believe as they desire and they may say that science believes (I am using "believe" purposefully here) that claims 1, 2, and 3, are the truth, but they cannot claim that this is what revealed scripture and doctrine of the LDS Church claims as truth. This is what scripture has to say about the matter: Heavenly Father is Man of Holiness (Moses 7:35). He is Man, in fact, He is the epitome of the species Man. As the literal offspring of Heavenly Father, we are of the same species as Heavenly Father. There is no man, but that man is the same species as God the Father. Adam and Eve's physical bodies were created in the image of God's body (Gen. 1:27). The scriptures teach that God's body has never been nor will it ever be in the form of Homo Erectus or in the form of any other species of animal (1 Jn. 3:2). It is in the form of Man and we, as Man, are in the form of Man. The following describes the official doctrinal position of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints in regards to the origin of man. "Adam, our first progenitor, “the first man,” was, like Christ, a preexistent spirit, and like Christ he took upon him an appropriate body, the body of a man, and so became a “living soul.” The doctrine of the preexistence—revealed so plainly, particularly in latter days—pours a wonderful flood of light upon the otherwise mysterious problem of man’s origin. It shows that man, as a spirit, was begotten and born of heavenly parents and reared to maturity in the eternal mansions of the Father, prior to coming upon the earth in a temporal body to undergo an experience in mortality. It teaches that all men existed in the spirit before any man existed in the flesh and that all who have inhabited the earth since Adam have taken bodies and become souls in like manner. It is held by some that Adam was not the first man upon this earth and that the original human being was a development from lower orders of the animal creation. These, however, are the theories of men. The word of the Lord declared that Adam was “the first man of all men” (Moses 1:34), and we are therefore in duty bound to regard him as the primal parent of our race. It was shown to the brother of Jared that all men were created in the beginning after the image of God; whether we take this to mean the spirit or the body, or both, it commits us to the same conclusion: Man began life as a human being, in the likeness of our Heavenly Father. True it is that the body of man enters upon its career as a tiny germ embryo, which becomes an infant, quickened at a certain stage by the spirit whose tabernacle it is, and the child, after being born, develops into a man. There is nothing in this, however, to indicate that the original man, the first of our race, began life as anything less than a man, or less than the human germ or embryo that becomes a man. Man, by searching, cannot find out God. Never, unaided, will he discover the truth about the beginning of human life. The Lord must reveal Himself or remain unrevealed; and the same is true of the facts relating to the origin of Adam’s race—God alone can reveal them. Some of these facts, however, are already known, and what has been made known it is our duty to receive and retain. The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, basing its belief on divine revelation, ancient and modern, proclaims man to be the direct and lineal offspring of Deity. God Himself is an exalted man, perfected, enthroned, and supreme. By His almighty power He organized the earth and all that it contains, from spirit and element, which exist coeternally with Himself. He formed every plant that grows and every animal that breathes, each after its own kind, spiritually and temporally—“that which is spiritual being in the likeness of that which is temporal, and that which is temporal in the likeness of that which is spiritual.” He made the tadpole and the ape, the lion and the elephant, but He did not make them in His own image, nor endow them with godlike reason and intelligence. Nevertheless, the whole animal creation will be perfected and perpetuated in the Hereafter, each class in its “distinct order or sphere,” and will enjoy “eternal felicity.” That fact has been made plain in this dispensation (see D&C 77:3). Man is the child of God, formed in the divine image and endowed with divine attributes, and even as the infant son of an earthly father and mother is capable in due time of becoming a man, so the undeveloped offspring of celestial parentage is capable, by experience through ages and aeons, of evolving into a God (First Presidency, Origin of Man). The scriptures and our doctrine are clear on the origin of man. The Church's position is clear. One is free to believe what they wish to believe, but they are not free to postulate that views that are in contradiction to revealed scripture and doctrine of the Church are views that are in harmony with the Church. Adam did not evolve from a lower species. There was no man prior to Adam on this earth. Adam is the first man on this earth. No other creature was created in God's image, but man. Regards, Finrock

Good afternoon RRR1. I hope you are having a good day! :) First, I appreciate you taking the time to ask and to understand what we believe. Actually you aren't wrong about works being a part. I don't want you to misunderstand what I've written earlier so allow me to clarify further, if I can. Ultimately we gain access to Heaven because of the atonement of Jesus (and I'm purposefully using Heaven generically even though the Mormon understanding of Heaven is a bit more thorough). I emphasise "ultimately" because without Jesus Christ, there would be absolutely no possibility of us ever being saved from sin and death. However, to gain access to all of the effects of the atonement requires work on our part. Meaning, we must do something in order for us to have access to all of the effects of the atonement. Now, I am purposefully distinguishing between having access to a part of the atonement and all of the effects of the atonement. Mormons believe that all mankind will enjoy a part of the atonement, regardless of who they are or what they do in this life. Particularly, all mortals will eventually be resurrected. By resurrection, I mean all mortals will eventually have their spirits and their bodies reunited to never be parted again. All mortals will gain immortality. This is the absolutely free gift of the atonement. It requires neither faith nor works to receive. In Mormon speech when we speak of Heaven, we are speaking most often about what we call the Celestial Kingdom. It is the greatest degree of salvation that mankind can take part in. Again, to keep things more simple, let us just focus on the Celestial Kingdom for the time being. To be saved in the Celestial Kingdom (Heaven) requires the atonement. To gain access to the effects of the atonement that allows us to be saved in the Celestial Kingdom requires us to do our part. The easiest way, I think, to understand this is to understand that we gain access to this part of the atonement through covenants. Covenants are promises between a person and God. When we make a covenant, we promise to do certain things. For instance, in the covenant of baptism, we promise God that we will always remember Him, that we will stand as witnesses of God, and that we will always keep God's commandments. God's promise to us in this covenant of baptism is that He will bless us with the Holy Spirit and that we can gain access to the Celestial Kingdom. Now, because this is a covenant, it requires that both parties stay true to the covenant, else the promises of the covenant are void. We know God will be absolutely true to His part of the covenant. The question becomes then will we keep our end of the covenant? Obviously, we can not and so it seems that we are doomed. However, God, knowing that we could not keep the covenant perfectly, prepared a way for the demands of justice to be fulfilled and for mercy to be extended simultaneously. This was accomplished through the atonement of Jesus Christ. But, in order for God to forgive us of breaking our covenant with Him, we must live our end of the covenant to the best of our ability. It is only on that condition, that we are fulfilling our covenant as best as we can, that God's grace is sufficient for us. This is what the scripture in Nephi means that I quoted to you in my last post. So, in order for us to gain access to all of the effects of the atonement, requires that we enter in to a covenant relationship with Heavenly Father and that we strive to fulfill our part of that covenant. When we are striving to fulfill our part of the covenant, even though we will fail at times, the atonement of Christ will make up for our failures, and we will gain access to the full effects of the atonement, allowing us to go to the Celestial Kingdom (Heaven). Regards, Finrock

Good morning dizzysmiles! I hope you are happy and well today. :) Wasn't this post originally much "bigger" with more content? Regards, Finrock

Good morning Snow! I do hope your day has started out well. :) I do not need to hash it out any more than I need to take part in a discussion on a forum. But, I am taking part in a dicussion forum and if I am going to understand a perspective then I do need the other party to provide an explanation of their point when it isn't clear and precise. I'm asking you to clarify your position because I'm interested in knowing what you mean and what you believe. I'm not sure. Maybe I can, but it is your position I'm trying to understand. I'd rather have you explain it to me in your own words so I can be sure I know what you mean. In this respect I'm a bit baffled by your questions. I mean, why the reluctance to explain vague and ambigious statements so that your position can be understood better? In any event, your post did provide a bit more detail as to what you mean and I do thank you for taking the time to explain it to me despite your seeming reluctance to do so. That is kind of you. :) OK. So, to be sure I understand, is it your position then that: 1. People who believe that there were no pre-Adam humans are people who subcribe to "backwards religious ideology"? 2. Science proves that there were pre-Adam humans, therefore anyone who rejects science in this matter is either, a) ignorant, b) dishonest, or c) dishonestly ignorant? Did I correctly restate your position? Thank you again for your time. Regards, Finrock

Good evening Forte. It is a pleasure to meet you and welcome to the forums. :) I'll do what I can to answer your question. First, in case you do not already know this, I wanted to point this out because it might be helpful to realize that the chapter in question is actually a copy of the text of the Book of Isaiah. There are several portions of Isaiah that Nephi felt were important enough that he wrote them down in the Book of Mormon. So, it is in the Book of Mormon, true, but it isn't original Book of Mormon text as it is being copied from already existing scripture. However, 1 Ne. 20:8, in my understanding, is speaking about the fact that all mankind are born in to a fallible state. Although all of us are affected by the Fall, it does not mean we are predestined to damnation or sin. We are simply born in to a fallen state, but which can be overcome through the Atonement of Jesus Christ. Further, it is our doctrine that the Atonement satisfied the demands of justice for little children who have not reached the age of accountability (we believe this age is 8 years old) and that they are incapable of sin and are clean and pure by virtue of the atonement. For 1 Ne. 20:10, I believe this is a reference to the children of Israel being chosen to be God's people and that God is working to make them pure by refining them through their afflictions. Regards, Finrock

Good evening Snow. Thank you for responding to my post. :) This narrows it down a bit. Do you mind being a bit more specific? I mean, what constitutes "backwards religious ideology" could be anything and is largely subjective. What specifically did you have in mind as being "backwards religious ideology"? Science constitutes a broad category of professions of all types. What specifically are the things you believe are factual that science dictates that is supposedly contradictory to the "backwards religious ideology"? Thank you for your time. Regards, Finrock

Good evening RRR1. It is a pleasure to meet you and welcome to the forums! :) Ultimately it takes the atonement of Jesus Christ to get to Heaven. We gain access to the atonement by having faith in Jesus Christ, by repenting, by being baptized, by receiving the gift of the Holy Ghost and then by enduring to the end. In the Book of Mormon a prophet named Nephi stated it this way: "For we labor diligently to write, to persuade our children, and also our brethren, to believe in Christ, and to be reconciled to God; for we know that it is by grace that we are saved, after all we can do" (2 Ne. 25:23). Regards, Finrock

Good afternoon Hemidakota. I hope you are doing well. :) Please allow me to ask, where in scripture did you find the idea that the elements "failed to obey" God? I've read the Book of Abraham and the account of the creation. I've read the part where it reads that, "the Gods saw that they were obeyed." But, I haven't read the part where it says that the Gods were not obeyed. Thank you for your time. :) Regards, Finrock

Good afternoon Snow. I hope you are having a good day. :) What beliefs and what facts? Regards, Finrock