zlllch
-
Posts
57 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Everything posted by zlllch
-
Ok what are the "grand conclusions" that prove an intelligent Creator but haven't been accepted by mainstream science then?
-
So you think science will one day come around and prove the truthfulness of scripture? Although science and religion will be fully reconciled in the end, I don't think science will ever conclusively prove or disprove religion, at least in mortality. If it did, our faith would be destroyed.
-
Well in that case I don't think there is a scientific principle which proves the existence of God. That's why we have to have faith. Science proves things with empirical evidence, and there isn't any for the existence of God. Any evidence we have for God's existence is individually attained and non-transferable from person to person. When I said religion and science are two sides of the same coin, I intended for that coin to represent truth in general, not necessarily the same truths.
-
Haha I didn't realize you beat me to the punch here.
-
Well said, thanks for this insight! Edit: Although, I have to mention, anything outside the realm of official church doctrine is speculation. Sometimes we are right in our speculations, and sometimes we are wrong. It is unwise and prideful to give too much credence to our speculations, we always must be humble enough to abandon them completely and fall back on official church doctrine if it turns out we were wrong.
-
Wow that's a really interesting explanation, I'd never thought about it that way, thanks for sharing! What you said about celestial law being partially expressed in our spiritual condition definitely seems to ring true with these verses from D&C 93: 31 Behold, here is the agency of man, and here is the condemnation of man; because that which was from the beginning is plainly manifest unto them, and they receive not the light. 32 And every man whose spirit receiveth not the light is under condemnation.
-
Alma 30:44 "...The scriptures are laid before thee, yea, and all things denote there is a God; yea, even the earth, and all things that are upon the face of it, yea, and its motion, yea, and also all the planets which move in their regular form do witness that there is a Supreme Creator." "In the end, truth has only one content and one source, and it encompasses both science and religion." -- Dallin H. Oaks "The LDS Church has a great scientific tradition, including notable, respected researchers in virtually every field of modern science. Indeed, our motto is “The glory of God is intelligence.” Why not just acknowledge that science and religion address two very different sets of questions, and that the methodology in one arena cannot settle controversies in the other?" -- David H. Bailey While religion testifies of theological and spiritual truth, science testifies of natural and physical truth. It is an effort to understand the natural laws and principles God has instated in order to form the universe in perfect order and balance. Religion seeks to discover the mysteries of God, science seeks to discover the mysteries of God's creation.
-
Matthew 18:16 But if he will not hear thee, then take with thee one or two more, that in the mouth of two or three witnesses every word may be established. Science and religion are two sides of the same coin. They both witness the truth. Thanks for sharing your experience!
-
Alright, I'll believe the official doctrine of the church which is that we are spiritual children of God, not physical. I'm impressed you found quotes saying we are physical children though, well done.
-
Many of these quotes reference Brigham Young's teachings that Adam was actually God the Father, otherwise known as Adam-God theory. These teachings have been formally disavowed by the church. A few of the rest of them contain the official church doctrine, but most are just the opinions of individual church leaders, which does not constitute church doctrine. "We warn you against the dissemination of doctrines which are not according to the Scriptures and which are alleged to have been taught by some of the General Authorities of past generations. Such, for instance, is the Adam-God theory. We denounce that theory and hope that everyone will be cautioned against this and other kinds of false doctrine." —Spencer W. Kimball, "Our Own Liahona," Ensign (November 1976)
-
What date is this specifically? I like your explanation. Yeah that makes a lot of sense!
-
Thanks, I'm gonna add that link to my original post.
-
Oh also you forgot to include the previous paragraph which actually places this statement in it's true context. "Adam, our great progenitor, "the first man," was, like Christ, a pre-existent 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 pre-existence pours 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. 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. By his Almighty power God organized the earth, and all that it contains, from spirit and element, which exist co-eternally with himself."
-
Yeah, literal, direct, and lineal. Not physical. Where is the word physical?
-
Alright I'm done arguing with you. The official church doctrine is that we are the literal spiritual —not physical— children of God. It was clearly stated in my quotation from lds.org. Find me a quote from an official church publication that says "we are literal physical children of God" and then we'll talk. If not, I'm done.
-
These verses say Adam was a "son of God." They don't say he was a literal physical son of God. You're wresting the scriptures here. Adam and Eve are the literal spiritual children of God. They were begat by the Gods the same we we were begat by our parents spiritually. On LDS.org under Gospel Topics is an entry titled "Spirit Children of Heavenly Parents." (Note that it's not titled "Physical Children of Heavenly Parents") The first paragraph reads: "God is not only our Ruler and Creator; He is also our Heavenly Father. All men and women are literally the sons and daughters of God. “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 [physical] body” (Teachings of Presidents of the Church: Joseph F. Smith [1998], 335)."
-
Yep. I'm sure all of us can agree with that.
-
You forget that there are two parts to the creation, spiritual and physical. We are God's spirit children in a literal sense. Only Jesus is a physical child of God, the Only Begotten of the Father in the flesh.
-
I think Gordon B. Hinckley sums up my understanding of church doctrine clearly and succinctly in this quote: "What the church requires is only belief 'that Adam was the first man of what we would call the human race.' Scientists can speculate on the rest." Thanks for civilly agreeing to disagree with me haha. Either of us could easily be wrong, and that's totally ok. (Side note, "The Earth and Man" by James E. Talmage is a more thorough read containing a positive view of evolution held by a church leader if you're interested)
-
Ok so you have a very literal understanding of the creation story, which many people do. Can you quote the specific verses or church teachings you're referring to that say Adam is the literal physical son of God? All I can find is church teachings that say only Jesus Christ is the literal son of God, the Only Begotten of the Father. "He was the Only Begotten Son of our Heavenly Father in the flesh—the only child whose mortal body was begotten by our Heavenly Father." --Ezra Taft Benson
-
I think you read a little too far into my statement. I said I "tend" to trust scientists, and directly afterwords admitted that they could easily be wrong. I trust far more in God than in the arm of flesh. I also trust far more in God than in his fallible prophets. Don't take that the wrong way, I love trust and support the prophets, and believe they are God's true prophets on the earth, but they are imperfect mortals. They make mistakes. I do not have blind faith in any imperfect mortal, to do so would be to trust in the arm of flesh. God doesn't want us to have blind faith in his prophets, he wants us to listen to the Spirit and find out for ourselves the truthfulness of their words. That being said, I fully support the official doctrine of the church on this subject, and every other subject for that matter. We appear to have a different understanding of what that doctrine is however, at least regarding this subject, which is totally fine, especially considering how unimportant it is to our salvation. Really, God hasn't revealed much on this subject. We don't know the details of the creation, only the reality of it. We have the creation story, but we don't know how much of it is figurative, and how much is literal, save a few parts of it that the church has declared as literal or figurative. For example church leaders have said that Eve being created from Adam's rib is meant to be understood figuratively. We also have the 1909 statement in which they say Adam was the first of all men and the primal parent of our race, a literal understanding of the text. I don't disagree with this. It is my opinion that human evolution is compatible with this truth, although for now we don't know exactly how. Certain church leaders also hold, and have held this opinion. Remember that that's all it is though, an opinion. The entire purpose of this thread was to seek others views about how evolution could be compatible with a literal historical Adam and Eve. It's all pure speculation and assumption. None of it is essential to salvation, and none of it is certain. I'm just interested in hearing others ideas on the subject, and they've been pretty interesting and satisfactory so far.
-
Ok that's fine, you're entitled to that belief, or disbelief rather. I'm not going to argue with you about it. Personally, I tend to trust the widely accepted consensuses reached by a large group of intelligent people who have devoted their lives to scientific studies in their specific fields. Could they be wrong? Sure. However, I believe scientists are doing their best to discover the truth, and I respect that, and am very grateful for their efforts. They're not trying to pull the wool over our eyes or push some agenda. "In the end, truth has only one content and one source, and it encompasses both science and religion." -- Dallin H. Oaks
-
Yes, thank you. I was going to mention that Jesus is the only literal son of God, hence the title "Only Begotten." We are God's spirit children though, so that's pretty cool.
-
Well said, I totally agree. Thanks!
-
Ok now you're just denying facts. There's a lot more evidence than just "fragments of bone." For example, look up the Lascaux and Chauvet cave paintings, which are 15,000 and 30,000 years old. These are two examples among many. I'm not going to spend any time citing the rest of the "mountain of evidence" because you can easily look it up yourself.
