BJ64

This is how I see it. The following is from Josephsmithfoundation.org The Pearl of Great Price, New Testament, multiple First Presidency statements and numerous writings and teachings of the Presidents of the Church all declare that Adam, the first mortal man, was a physical son of God the Father. In fact this doctrine was declared by President Joseph Fielding Smith to be a fundamental doctrine of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. This doctrine alone completely undermines the philosophies of Darwinian Evolution as far as LDS Church doctrine is concerned. Rather than man being the offspring of lower forms of life, man is in fact the son of the Highest and most Intelligent Being. The book of Luke simply declares while relating the physical genealogy of Adam: The book of Moses, revealed by direct revelation to the Prophet Joseph Smith teaches similarly that: The Prophet Abraham also knew of this truth. In discussing the physical lineage of those from whom the priesthood was passed in the beginning of this Earth, Abraham taught that Adam was both the “firstborn” and the “first father.” Firstborn in this passage is lower-case distinguishing Adam, “a son of God” from the Son of God, Jesus Christ. It is clear that Adam was born, “not fashioned from earth like an adobe but begotten by his Father in Heaven” (see reference below). It is also clear that Adam was the first mortal parent, or first father. Adam means first father. First father in this case is also lower case to distinguish Adam, a mortal father, from the immortal First Father or our Father in Heaven. The passage also teaches that Adam was the “first man” meaning of course the first mortal man “from the beginning of time.”Adam is the firstborn signified with a lowercase f and the Savior is the Firstborn with an uppercase F. Adam was born a son of God without death on a paradisiacal earth. The Savior was born the Son of God on this mortal earth—the Only Begotten Son of God in the flesh with the ability to die. Adam being the firstborn means what it says, the firstborn on this earth. He was begotten by the Father into this earth when it was in a paradisiacal state without physical pain, sickness, procreation, or death. Christ being the Firstborn has reference to His being the First One that was begotten as a Spirit Son of our Heavenly Father in the pre-mortal realm. That is separate and different (although related) from His being the Only Begotten in the Flesh. There are four different terms/concepts here with four different meanings:begotten son of God = Adam = his birth onto the paradisiacal earth.Only begotten Son in the Flesh = Jesus Christ = Only person Begotten of the Father into a fallen, flesh-status world (born of a mortal woman)firstborn = Adam = the first person to inherit a tangible body from the Father, as far as this earth is concerned (this is really the same as #1 above)Firstborn = The Savior = the first person to inherit a spirit body from the Father (this is NOT the same as #2 above)The scriptures teach that Adam was a son of God, not a son of pre-human not fully evolved life. While the above scriptures are very clear, President Joseph F. Smith and his counselors taught in a clarifying First Presidency Letter that: Additionally, President Smith taught:

There are approximately 3500 calories in a pound of fat. A sedentary man would burn around 2500 calories per day. Sam Young looks to be a pretty large man so if he had fifty extra pounds of fat it would take appropriately 70 days to use up that fat.

No, I am not acquainted with him. I just couldn’t remember his last name. I’ve read many of the accounts and I believe them to be true though you couldn’t guarantee that. I’ve even written my own account to add to his collection but have not as of yet decided to post it. I don’t want to look apostate for posting the truth.

I replied to this yesterday but then noticed that my post was not there. Either I didn’t actually get it posted or someone felt the need to delete the post. At any rate I said that on Sam’s website there are hundreds of accounts of obviously inappropriate conduct by bishops during interviews. This has a lot to do with his movement. I linked to the page and maybe someone didn’t like that so I won’t post a link but will leave it up to the reader to find it if they wish.

This is the question for youth limited use recommends as written in the new youth interview instructions. Do you support any group or person whose teachings oppose those accepted by The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints? I don’t know if they plan to change the temple recommend question but you can see that it is simpler than the question we are used to. Note the affiliate part is no included as well as the wording “practices”.

What blatant logical fallacies? We know about the next life because the course of The Lord is one eternal round. What has happened before will happen again.

It’s these seeming contractions that make things confusing. In my mind spirits have always existed. That being the intelligence along with any sort of spirit body. I think the idea of father of spirits or begetting spirits is figurative. I think that God is the father of our spirits in that He gathered us up and organized us into a family of which he is the head. I also believe that He is the literal father of our physical bodies in that I believe He and our Heavenly Mother gave birth to Adam and Eve. Them being immortal beings until the fall. In other words I believe we are His literal physical children and figuratively His spirit children. This of course is my opinion but I didn’t make it up. It is based on the teachings of prophets as well as scripture. Why the church is not more clear on this is a mystery to me.

I think I’m especially thankful that I’m not the bishop of a youth single adult ward.

Joseph Smith did not differentiate between intelligence and spirit. He said that spirits were not created but that they have always existed. Since spirits are immortal and have no end they also have no beginning.

Just to clarify, the statement you quoted from me was not me speaking but a quote from the protect children website.

I worded my comment poorly. What I should have said is that this group does not want any discussion of sexual matters and that the church has not reacted to that demand in the way thus group wants nor do I believe it will. The following are excerpts from a letter that parents are encouraged to send to their priesthood leaders. No sexual matters are to be discussed during any meetings involving our children. The second form of abuse which results from these interviews is harder to identify, however is much more prevalent. This is called covert abuse. Imagine a parent chastising a toddler every-time she stumbles while learning to walk – telling the child that they are wicked, weak and worthless at every misstep. We could see this as a form of verbal and emotional abuse – even though the parents may be well meaning in their attempts to help the child get command of their ability to walk. The child would internalize the message of failure and worthlessness and it would shape how the child viewed herself and her worth. It is a fact that everyone who ever learned to walk stumbled along the way, and those stumbles were part of the normal development of the child – but the child would not understand that reality. They would imagine that they were the only ones who kept stumbling as they developed and it would cause a form of dissociation which results in a hatred of themselves and a sense of worthlessness which is harmful. This is the reality faced by many youth who are navigating puberty and are faced with leaders who demonize aspects of normal human sexual development under the heading of sexual purity. These leaders may be well meaning but they are untrained and ignorant of normal human sexual development or the traumatic psychological effects of inappropriate shaming. Just as the obvious sort of verbal and emotional abuse may lead to a life of self-loathing, insecurity, depression, self harm or anxiety and dysfunction – covert sexual abuse resulting from these interviews can be just as destructive. Explicit questions about moral worthiness will not be asked to my children. I am requesting that you do not ask explicit questions about masturbation, sexual orientation, or any other intimate sexual activity. These are items that we will discuss with our children in our home, as their parents. I do not think it is appropriate for a young boy or girl to be in a room alone with a man, any man, and be asked these types of questions. Children are not under covenant to obey the Law of Chastity. That is a temple covenant. We will discuss chastity in our home with our children. What it means, and how it relates to them. However, I do not want them being asked by an adult man if they are sexually pure.

He wants them to stop asking about masturbation. I would agree with that but there will have to be a rethinking on that issue before they quit asking about it. I read a rumor that a northern Utah stake was directed by a visiting general authority to no longer ask about masturbation but that’s most likely just a rumor. I’ve noticed that “To Young Men Only” is no longer available in print or for download. The conference talk it was based on is also not available on gospel library either. Though it’s still available for viewing on lds.org. I think this is a step in moving away from the strict anti masturbation stance of the past but it’s still not to the point of not asking.

The church has not addressed his concern about sexually explicit questions and I don’t think they will.

Yes, I read the response and it was basically nothing new.

I mentioned this as a way to access a lot of study materials at no cost. However I hate printed materials. The only thing I take to church is my iPhone.

I guess you could pray for them but I don’t see why you would give in to their demands. If they want to kill themselves that would be their doing.

I don’t believe that all of the same species that were on the earth at the time of Adam exist now and likewise not all that we have now existed then. I can’t name an example but I would imagine that new species emerge from time to time and of course species have gone extinct. I don't even try to make science and religion fit together but if I tried I’d have a hard time figuring out where species that existed before the time of Adam fit in. Not to mention early human like beings.

You don’t have to watch.

I never could understand hunger strikes. Why would anyone care if someone wants to starve themself?

It’s not evolution by natural selection but it is an example of change in the heritable characteristics of biological populations over successive generations.

By all means, if you haven’t, download the lds gospel library app. Most lesson manuals and study guides produced by the church are available for download. Not to mention all General Conferences and church magazines since 1971 and the scriptures.

Like cows that produce more milk and plants that produce higher yields and have increased disease resistance. Not in my lifetime but noteworthy are the various breeds of dogs that have specialized abilities. Chickens that grow faster and produce more meat. Seedless oranges, watermelons and grapes.

I believe in evolution pretty much except for the evolution of man. I also believe in dinosaurs et al. I have seen evolution of species in my lifetime selective breeding of plants and animals has caused evolution that we can see.

I don’t understand your comment. We are all formed in the womb yet everything our body is made of is of the dust of the earth so to speak. The calcium in our bones for example is of the earth as are all the minerals and elements in out body. That is how I explain it. This is how Brigham Young explained it. Some of you may doubt the truth of what I now say, and argue that the Lord could teach him. This is a mistake. The Lord could not have taught him in any other way than in the way in which He did teach him. You believe Adam was made of the dust of this earth. This I do not believe, though it is supposed that it is so written in the Bible; but it is not, to my understanding. You can write that information to the States, if you please-that I have publicly declared that I do not believe that portion of the Bible as the Christian world do. I never did, and I never want to. What is the reason I do not? Because I have come to understanding, and banished from my mind all the baby stories my mother taught me when I was a child. But suppose Adam was made and fashioned the same as we make adobies; if he had never drunk of the bitter cup; the Lord might have talked to him to this day, and he would have continued as he was to all eternity, never advancing one particle in the school of intelligence. This idea opens up a field of light to the intelligent mind. How can you know truth but by its opposite, or light but by its opposite? The absence of light is darkness. How can sweetness be known but by its opposite, bitter? It is by this means that we obtain all intelligence. Journal of Discourse 2:6-7(October 23, 1853)

We are all formed from the dust of the earth. Every cell in our body is of the elements of the earth be that carbon, minerals, water etc. We are literally of the dust of the earth and our body will return to dust upon decomposition.