The People before Adam


Moksha
 Share

Recommended Posts

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

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 585
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

I personally don't buy into evolution. If you think you evolved from a monkey that's OK by me. But I'm a child of God. YMMV

Obviously unacquainted with the theory of evolution. No one who understood it, even a little bit, would say such an absurd thing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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

This is nonsense Finrock. You keep acting like your point has some merit but it is nonsensical. When WE, everybody else, including Church authorities, speak of evolution in these matters, we are referring to the evolution of man. When you speak of evolution who knows and who cares what you are referring to. You've been asked to clarify, you've been asked to specify, but you've deferred.

Why don't you either start interacting responsibly with the actual discussion or move on and obfuscate some other discussion.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1. Do you believe that FS is an argument against evolution or that FS claims the Church is against evolution?

No, I do not believe that FS is an argument against evolution

My statements are an attempt to argue against Evolution:D

But no, not Finrock.

Not sure where he does stand though:confused:

Edited by JohnnyRudick
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

This is nonsense Finrock. You keep acting like your point has some merit but it is nonsensical. When WE, everybody else, including Church authorities, speak of evolution in these matters, we are referring to the evolution of man.

When you speak of evolution who knows and who cares what you are referring to. You've been asked to clarify, you've been asked to specify, but you've deferred.

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". :lol:

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.

Why don't you either start interacting responsibly with the actual discussion or move on and obfuscate some other discussion.

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

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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". :lol:

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

So now you agree that it is possible that man evolved, just that Adam himself did not come from evolutionary chain (despite the previously posted statements from the Church that he may have) - and that by men, we us, those that came after Adam, those concurrent with Adam, including Eve, and those that preceded Adam?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Snow! :)

Thank you for the response.

So now you agree that it is possible that man evolved, just that Adam himself did not come from evolutionary chain (despite the previously posted statements from the Church that he may have) - and that by men, we us, those that came after Adam, those concurrent with Adam, including Eve, and those that preceded Adam?

Sigh...:lol:

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

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Snow! :)

Thank you for the response.

Sigh...:lol:

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.

I'd like to see that. "Persistent" implies more than just a couple. Please point to the three or more posts where you stated your belief in the evolution of man.

That's such a dumb thing to say now. Posts and posts ago I bought that if by Adam being the first man, you meant that he was of the same genetic or biological makeup of other human beings that existed before him but is designated as the "first man" by virtue of some convention - first to get a divine spark, whatever that mean, or the first to covenant with God or the first to whatever. Had you agreed or stated your objection instead of game-playing no one would disagree with you.

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).

Bull, bull, bull. People don't misunderstand your and are not "unable" to see distinction. It's YOU that obfuscates the dialogue. I'll leave it to you to clarify whether the obfuscation is deliberate or due to lack of familiarity with common conversation.

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?

You mean that man evolved into man from man.

Great - outside of your imagination, what's the evidence?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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. :lol:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am always curious what was our form prior to our spiritual birth. ^_^

I feel our physical bodies try to grow to conform to the form

of our spiritual bodies but is limited in it's ability because

of disease, environment & genetics.:o

Otherwise we are who we are:)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I know that our spiritual body properties will mould to this presence form called a mortal shell. Our previous spirit body appearance was not the same as it is now. What was the previous form prior to this spiritual birth is another story since we are already told by Moses; we were created in the express image of GOD. I cannot see it being any human form since we were literally created to be in this image – human form or GOD like in appearance.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I know that our spiritual body properties will mould to this presence form called a mortal shell. Our previous spirit body appearance was not the same as it is now. What was the previous form prior to this spiritual birth is another story since we are already told by Moses; we were created in the express image of GOD. I cannot see it being any human form since we were literally created to be in this image – human form or GOD like in appearance.

I have always thought that to mean,

General shape and style.

Not a duplicate

Two eyes

One noes

One mouth

Two ears

One head

two arms ten fingers (five on each hand)

Same with toes on each foot.

Two feet.

and so on:)

He patterned us after His Glorious body.

Moses 3:5

And every plant of the field before it was in the earth, and every herb of the field before it grew. For I, the Lord God, created all things, of which I have spoken, spiritually, before they were naturally upon the face of the earth. For I, the Lord God, had not caused it to rain upon the face of the earth. And I, the Lord God, had created all the children of men; and not yet a man to till the ground; for in heaven created I them; and there was not yet flesh upon the earth, neither in the water, neither in the air; . . .

Edited by JohnnyRudick
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have always thought that to mean,

General shape and style.

Not a duplicate

Two eyes

One noes

One mouth

Two ears

One head

two arms ten fingers (five on each hand)

Same with toes on each foot.

Two feet.

and so on:)

He patterned us after His Glorious body.

Moses 3:5

And every plant of the field before it was in the earth, and every herb of the field before it grew. For I, the Lord God, created all things, of which I have spoken, spiritually, before they were naturally upon the face of the earth. For I, the Lord God, had not caused it to rain upon the face of the earth. And I, the Lord God, had created all the children of men; and not yet a man to till the ground; for in heaven created I them; and there was not yet flesh upon the earth, neither in the water, neither in the air; . . .

How do you know that God has a nose? If we don't have blood why would we need to suck in air to oxygenate blood? Isn't it just an appendage from mortal life? (we don't know, just throwing out the fact that we don't know the specifics as much as you are implying) We are just in His image. We don't know what adaptive characteristics the perfect body has or needs to be immortal.

Also, the words "spiritually created" sometimes refers to a creation of life that is immortal. ... as it goes on to say, "before they were created naturally" meaning before the fall and the changes that took place at the fall.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I know that our spiritual body properties will mould to this presence form called a mortal shell. Our previous spirit body appearance was not the same as it is now. What was the previous form prior to this spiritual birth is another story since we are already told by Moses; we were created in the express image of GOD. I cannot see it being any human form since we were literally created to be in this image – human form or GOD like in appearance.

Why would our spirit change in appearance after being part of mortal existence. I am curious why you think that? What is the purpose of that? That doesn't make sense at all to me, especially in light of people that are born without arms or numerous other image deforming diseases and genetic alterations.

The typical come back to that is "well the people that have diseases will look like they would have if they didn't have a disease." Then my response is name one person that you think does not have some genetic alteration in this existence that altered their appearance. ... We all have bodies that are genetically and environmentally altered from God's original creation.

And if that is the case, again, why would a perfect spirit image want to change into an image of something that is not perfect? That does not make sense at all. (Sorry if those are strong statements, just trying to understand why people think that way.)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why would our spirit change in appearance after being part of mortal existence. I am curious why you think that? What is the purpose of that? That doesn't make sense at all to me, especially in light of people that are born without arms or numerous other image deforming diseases and genetic alterations.

The typical come back to that is "well the people that have diseases will look like they would have if they didn't have a disease." Then my response is name one person that you think does not have some genetic alteration in this existence that altered their appearance. ... We all have bodies that are genetically and environmentally altered from God's original creation.

And if that is the case, again, why would a perfect spirit image want to change into an image of something that is not perfect? That does not make sense at all. (Sorry if those are strong statements, just trying to understand why people think that way.)

If, we agreeing with coming to this probationary state, there is a change to our appearance then yes. It was noted of the elasticy properties of a spirit matter that was revealed to Joseph Smith. I concur with Joseph Smith own understanding.

Each resurrected state dealing with a resurrected body will differ from the lowest to the highest. This was stated in the D&C when it is explained not two bodies are alike when resurrected. The higher and perfected glorified bodies are those who inherit the upper portion of the Celestial Kingdom.

When one sees the Savior as He was in this probationary state and comparing it to His glorious perfected body, there are notable differences of appearance. If one sees a former prophet, we will see him as he died. But, not what maybe deemed a glorified resurrected body. This comes later when he is ready to receive that resurrected perfect body. Does that make any real sense?

Edited by Hemidakota
Link to comment
Share on other sites

How do you know that God has a nose? If we don't have blood why would we need to suck in air to oxygenate blood? Isn't it just an appendage from mortal life? (we don't know, just throwing out the fact that we don't know the specifics as much as you are implying) We are just in His image. We don't know what adaptive characteristics the perfect body has or needs to be immortal.

Also, the words "spiritually created" sometimes refers to a creation of life that is immortal. ... as it goes on to say, "before they were created naturally" meaning before the fall and the changes that took place at the fall.

HE does...along with voice box, ears to hear, and tongue to use for verbal speeches. ^_^

Link to comment
Share on other sites

How do you know that God has a nose?

I don't but he would look funny without one.

Maybe he does need to breath for some reason.

Abraham 5:7 And the Gods formed man from the dust of the ground,

and took his spirit (that is, the man's spirit), and put it into

him; and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and man

became a living soul.

Maybe He does have a circulatory system of water or light or something.

Ya never know and won't till then.

Also, the words "spiritually created" sometimes refers to a creation of life that is immortal. ... as it goes on to say, "before they were created naturally" meaning before the fall and the changes that took place at the fall.

Maybe but then it could mean on the earth period.

See above verse.

Edited by JohnnyRudick
Link to comment
Share on other sites

If, we agreeing with coming to this probationary state, there is a change to our appearance then yes. It was noted of the elasticy properties of a spirit matter that was revealed to Joseph Smith. I concur with Joseph Smith own understanding.

Each resurrected state dealing with a resurrected body will differ from the lowest to the highest. This was stated in the D&C when it is explained not two bodies are alike when resurrected. The higher and perfected glorified bodies are those who inherit the upper portion of the Celestial Kingdom.

When one sees the Savior as He was in this probationary state and comparing it to His glorious perfected body, there are notable differences of appearance. If one sees a former prophet, we will see him as he died. But, not what maybe deemed a glorified resurrected body. This comes later when he is ready to receive that resurrected perfect body. Does that make any real sense?

But now you are talking about the body, which I agree, will change appearance. You were first talking about the spirit changing appearance. Did I miss something?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

HE does...along with voice box, ears to hear, and tongue to use for verbal speeches. ^_^

I think you are assuming a lot. That is my opinion. My understanding is his voice sounds way different than ours ... rushing water, thunderous ... I believe there are several different descriptions that sound different from ours with the exception of those people that have been transfigured and have had visions after transfiguration, then that is a totally different issue.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think you are assuming a lot. That is my opinion. My understanding is his voice sounds way different than ours ... rushing water, thunderous ... I believe there are several different descriptions that sound different from ours with the exception of those people that have been transfigured and have had visions after transfiguration, then that is a totally different issue.

John 12:27 Now is my soul troubled; and what shall I say?

Father, save me from this hour: but for this cause came I unto

this hour.

John 12:28 Father, glorify thy name. Then came there a voice

from heaven, saying, I have both glorified it, and will glorify

it again.

John 12:29 The people therefore, that stood by, and heard it,

said that it thundered: others said, An angel spake to him.

John 12:30 Jesus answered and said, This voice came not because

of me, but for your sakes.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share