The People before Adam

[JohnnyRudick]

Johnny, there are always statements that can paint us into a darkened corner. That is why greater light and knowledge can enter the world, so as to show us more luminescent steps to help guide our way. When science helps broaden the understanding of the mechanisms of God's handiwork, it should not be required of everybody to except that understanding. Likewise, it should not be required everybody to disregard this insight.

:)

I guess I am alot like Snow here.

Just because Science dictates that something is a fact, I do not automatically

trust it as true because if feels more plausible then what it is believed God said.

Yet there is a lot that Science has had to say that I feel has the stamp of the old tried and true on it so I tend to accept it as fact.

I guess like many do, I too "pick and choose".

[Snow]

So, should we quote the Bible Dictionary published in 1979, or the Encyc of Mormonism published in the early 1990s? On issues like pre-Adamites or evolution, I'd go with the newer publication of the Church.

I've read that the Church or maybe the Maxwell Institute is making a modern, scholarly, comprehensive NT commentary that considers scholarly analysis but also takes in consideration the entire LDS canon, and includes new translations of the texts.

I don't know if what I've heard is correct or not but if it were, that would be really something.

[rameumptom]

Snow,

My understanding is the same. Given that most at the Maxwell Institute are going to probably believe in some form of evolution, it will be interesting to see how things pan out.

[Hemidakota]

Of course it goes without saying that your evidence is exactly ZERO.

Exactly, what evidence do you really have that is not of the ground from a failed world? ZERO!! You simply put this down to men's [the world] SPECULATION or what I term – a perpetual lie. This is a fable – mixing truths with lies.

The problem when I see members who seek to judge the prophets and Apostles, who sought knowledge of the past, some, without the assistant of GOD, I fear for their salvation. As I told a few ‘Y’ professors, I can attest, where the prophets and apostles are now, there are in the presence of the Savior. Now, where are those members and non-members, who may be considered honorable men and women of science, yet fought against truths?

Let us not speculate or seek to keep a perpetual lie going by adding our own voice but seek truths of GOD. When we receive such, let us broadcast to the world what is truth to them.

[Hemidakota]

And even if it even makes it into the D&C or P of GP it still may be ignored by certain corners of the congregation as pure fantasy.

true...according to some here, nothing is canonized accept that done by apostates and pagans - low and behold, we the bible.

[Hemidakota]

I can't argue with that.

But, being canonized, doesn't necessarily makes something doctrinal either -if by doctrinal we mean "true." There are things in the scriptures that clearly are not true and there are things that are, at least, not literally true. Brigham Young certainly accepted the Bible as canon but clearly did not believe that is was all literally true and correct.

This I do agree with.

[Hemidakota]

Johnny, there are always statements that can paint us into a darkened corner. That is why greater light and knowledge can enter the world, so as to show us more luminescent steps to help guide our way. When science helps broaden the understanding of the mechanisms of God's handiwork, it should not be required of everybody to except that understanding. Likewise, it should not be required everybody to disregard this insight.

:)

Concur...

[Seminarysnoozer]

Yes, that's my opinion. I think I have thought through all the implications of this view, but if you'd like to toss a few you've thought of in my direction, I'd appreciate it.

Sewing fig leaves? Naming animals? Eating fruit? Having ribs surgically removed? --- lay it on me! Of course since I see so much of it in a metaphorical manner, that does make a difference...

HiJolly

I see much of that in a metaphorical manner too, but I thought it was common knowledge that Adam and Eve had a physical body before the fall. That view is new to me. To me, the fall is the opposite of the resurrection. Jesus overcoming this world means that a reunion of the body with the spirit will result in it never being separated again. If resurrection was returning to the state in which we find ourselves here, than that would mean dying again. To return to the way it was originally created would mean to return to a body that doesn't die. If the resurrection represents a restoration to the way it was, than that means it was originally created perfect and immortal. Meaning Adam would have had a body that was immortal before the fall. That is the classic gospel doctrine view, isn't it?

[Moksha]

If the people of ancient biblical times has been accorded a much more extensive explanation of the creation, complete with scientific details, they would have drawn a blank. Milk before meat as they say.

[Hemidakota]

I see much of that in a metaphorical manner too, but I thought it was common knowledge that Adam and Eve had a physical body before the fall. That view is new to me. To me, the fall is the opposite of the resurrection. Jesus overcoming this world means that a reunion of the body with the spirit will result in it never being separated again. If resurrection was returning to the state in which we find ourselves here, than that would mean dying again. To return to the way it was originally created would mean to return to a body that doesn't die. If the resurrection represents a restoration to the way it was, than that means it was originally created perfect and immortal. Meaning Adam would have had a body that was immortal before the fall. That is the classic gospel doctrine view, isn't it?

I hope they had physical bodies while in the garden.

[Hemidakota]

If the people of ancient biblical times has been accorded a much more extensive explanation of the creation, complete with scientific details, they would have drawn a blank. Milk before meat as they say.

Can we state this to Enoch, Noah, Abraham, and Moses?

[Moksha]

Can we state this to Enoch, Noah, Abraham, and Moses?

Maybe. Should we break out the seer stone and give it a try?

[Hemidakota]

I wish I had one Moksha ...what would you ask first?

[JohnnyRudick]

I see much of that in a metaphorical manner too, but I thought it was common knowledge that Adam and Eve had a physical body before the fall. That view is new to me. To me, the fall is the opposite of the resurrection. Jesus overcoming this world means that a reunion of the body with the spirit will result in it never being separated again. If resurrection was returning to the state in which we find ourselves here, than that would mean dying again. To return to the way it was originally created would mean to return to a body that doesn't die. If the resurrection represents a restoration to the way it was, than that means it was originally created perfect and immortal. Meaning Adam would have had a body that was immortal before the fall. That is the classic gospel doctrine view, isn't it?

I have attended many different wards across this land here in America.

Most of the people I have encountered take the Creation account in the Scriptures as literal

and believe as Joseph F Smith has taught.

I am one of these.

I have never ran into a group in all my years until now who reject the account given to us from God,

and then account that rejection as Divine wisdom on our part.

But it is still a free would for most of us these days.

Just look at what man can accomplish.

Do you not think that God can accomplish much more on a grander scale in a few days?

Edited May 24, 2010 by JohnnyRudick
Clearification;-)

[Moksha]

I wish I had one Moksha ...what would you ask first?

"Watson, come here. I need you?"

- Alexander Graham Moksha, First Seerphone message, 2010

[Hemidakota]

I had to read it three times before I understood the joke. Come on now, what would you ask for?

[Hemidakota]

I have attended many different wards across this land here in America.

Most of the people I have encountered take the Creation account in the Scriptures as literal and believe as Joseph F Smith has taught.

I am one of these.

Does it matter if they believe whole heartedly? Will it effect their salvation?

[JohnnyRudick]

Does it matter if they believe whole heartedly? Will it effect their salvation?

Nope;)

Just an observation:rolleyes:

[HiJolly]

I see much of that in a metaphorical manner too, but I thought it was common knowledge that Adam and Eve had a physical body before the fall. That view is new to me.

The commonly accepted view is that the Garden was on the physical earth, and that Adam & Eve had physical bodies within the Garden. I really have no further comment, except perhaps that things are a bit more complex than what first meets the eye.

To me, the fall is the opposite of the resurrection. Jesus overcoming this world means that a reunion of the body with the spirit will result in it never being separated again.

I only know of one scripture that supports that view. It is in the Book of Mormon, and is one prophet's attempt to explain his understanding of the resurrection to his son. He does not present the information as immutable truth, but rather as his limited understanding via personal revelation. Today, we accept it as truth, just as it is. I'm not sure Alma intended it to be taken that way.

Christ is a Lord of death and resurrection. He has the power to take His life and lay it down, and take it back up again. That's what Joseph Smith Jr. taught, and even though it's not scripture, it seems to me that his view is as valid as Alma's. I'm sure this is a matter of personal revelation, or at least personal opinion, so whatever one thinks on the matter seems acceptable to me.

If resurrection was returning to the state in which we find ourselves here, than that would mean dying again.

Yes. Who teaches this? Long ago, early Church leaders taught something like this that was called "Multiple Mortal Probations", but this is no longer taught. So we probably ought to leave it alone.

To return to the way it was originally created would mean to return to a body that doesn't die. If the resurrection represents a restoration to the way it was, than that means it was originally created perfect and immortal. Meaning Adam would have had a body that was immortal before the fall.

I would think that this is all very good evidence for a spiritual body situation. A "perfect and immortal" body BEFORE mortal life reeks of spiritual existence to me. As for the resurrection's application to this, I'm not sure it fits --- in this context as you present it, it's a bit confusing to me.

Perhaps the First and Second resurrections are different than how we look at them in the Church today.

That is the classic gospel doctrine view, isn't it?

I'm a heretic, SS. When the Spirit teaches me something, I accept that over the 'classic' teachings of the Church. I can only confuse you, I suspect. The Holy Ghost and other divine teachers, as taught in the temple, are the properly appointed guides for you. All else is problematic.

HiJolly

[Hemidakota]

Nope;)

Just an observation:rolleyes:

It is the same with someone who received an epiphany over his work as a member of the church and believer of evolutionism, it may change his way of thinking but the totality didn’t affect his salvation. We simply receive instruction on what is wrong and move forward giving gratitude to GOD.

[HiJolly]

I had to read it three times before I understood the joke. Come on now, what would you ask for?

A little divine information can be a dangerous thing. Think of Joseph asking "So..... Why were Abraham, Isaac and Jacob justified in having more than one wife?"

Look at all the trouble *that* question brought!

HiJolly

[Hemidakota]

I only know of one scripture that supports that view. It is in the Book of Mormon, and is one prophet's attempt to explain his understanding of the resurrection to his son. He does not present the information as immutable truth, but rather as his limited understanding via personal revelation. Today, we accept it as truth, just as it is. I'm not sure Alma intended it to be taken that way.

Christ is a Lord of death and resurrection. He has the power to take His life and lay it down, and take it back up again. That's what Joseph Smith Jr. taught, and even though it's not scripture, it seems to me that his view is as valid as Alma's. I'm sure this is a matter of personal revelation, or at least personal opinion, so whatever one thinks on the matter seems acceptable to me.

HiJolly

Which verse in the Book of Alma?

[JohnnyRudick]

Does it matter if they believe whole heartedly? Will it effect their salvation?

Thinking it over a bit,

I still do not think if effects your Salvation if you do not believe it whole wholeheartedly.

I think it something to be concerned with depending on which way you are moving though.

If you put your face away from what God has said and account much as myth,

And you keep going in that direction it could in time lead you more away then

you at first intended.

The wiser you think you are, the more I feel the danger.

[Hemidakota]

A little divine information can be a dangerous thing. Think of Joseph asking "So..... Why were Abraham, Isaac and Jacob justified in having more than one wife?"

Look at all the trouble *that* question brought!

HiJolly

Excellent advice! I left some dramatize history of the church in the wife's car one day and when I return that afternoon, she was heated over the incident of Joseph taking a 15-year old daughter of well known family. I had to calm her down. It would be hard for any mother, being told by a prophet of GOD, in giving up one of your daughters at such a tender age.

[HiJolly]

Which verse in the Book of Alma?

Thanks, Hemi--- I see I got Alma 11 (Amulek) and Alma 40 (Alma) a bit confused. <sigh>

It was Mormon's account of Amulek contending with Zeezrom where it is stated that the body and spirit will never again separate. So my point is lost, I'm afraid. Still, Mormon is summarizing and says "And thus ended the words of Amulek, or this is all that I have written."

HiJolly