Sign in to follow this  
Moksha

The People before Adam

Recommended Posts

Kolob has the same period of time as God's throne does, so it is Celestial. As for the earth (and I believe it was only the Garden of Eden - one piece only) in orbit around Kolob, it might have been terrestrial or celestial. Since the Father was there, it is more likely that it was celestial.

I do not think it was Celestial - if it was Satan could not have been there to tempt Adam and Eve. I think there is indication from scripture (articles of Faith) that Eden (paradise) will be restored before earth becomes Celestial.

The Traveler

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I would love to see this writing by President Young, "Brigham Young taught that there were pre-Adamites. ."

Here are some great links that discuss Pre-Adamites and evolution:

Clark quotes statements on both sides of the issue, to show that there were sufficient numbers of LDS believing in the idea that even Joseph F. Smith felt compelled to comment against it.

Mormon Philosophy & Theology

Clark states:

Orson Hyde said the following at General Conference on Ocober 6, 1854. The world was peopled before the days of Adam, as much so as it was before the days of Noah. It was said that Noah became the Father of the new world, but it was the same old world still, and will continue to be, though it may pass through many changes. (JD 2:79)

Brigham Young came up to the pulpit after the sermon and stated that he didn't feel moved to correct any of it.

And here is the FAQ at Eyring-L, which is a list for the LDS scientific minded:

Eyring-L FAQ: Evolution

And Brigham Young's quotes:

Brigham Young Quotes

It was observed here just now that we differ from the Christian world in our religious faith and belief; and so we do very materially. I am not astonished that infidelity prevails to a great extent among the inhabitants of the earth, for the religious teachers of the people advance many ideas and notions for truth which are in opposition to and contradict facts demonstrated by science, and which are generally understood. Says the scientific man, "I do not see your religion to be true; I do not understand the law, light, rules, religion, or whatever you call it, which you say God has revealed; it is confusion to me, and if I submit to and embrace your views and theories I must reject the facts which science demonstrates to me." This is the position, and the line of demarcation has been plainly drawn, by those who profess Christianity, between the sciences and revealed religion. You take, for instance, our geologists, and they tell us that this earth has been in existence for thousands and millions of years. They think, and they have good reason for their faith, that their researches and investigations enable them to demonstrate that this earth has been in existence as long as they assert it has; and they say, "If the Lord, as religionists declare, made the earth out of nothing in six days, six thousand years ago, our studies are all vain; but by what we can learn from nature and the immutable laws of the Creator as revealed therein, we know that your theories are incorrect and consequently we must reject your religions as false and vain; we must be what you call infidels, with the demonstrated truths of science in our possession; or, rejecting those truths, become enthusiasts in, what you call, Christianity."

In these respects we differ, from the Christian world, for our religion will not clash with or contradict the facts of science in any particular. You may take geology, for instance, and it is a true science; not that I would say for a moment that all the conclusions and deductions of its professors are true, but its leading principles are; they are facts-they are eternal; and to assert that the Lord made this earth out of nothing is preposterous and impossible. God never made something out of nothing; it is not in the economy or law by which the worlds were, are, or will exist. There is an eternity before us, and it is full of matter; and if we but understand enough of the Lord and his ways, we would say that he took of this matter and organized this earth from it. How long it has been organized it is not for me to say, and I do not care anything about it. As for the Bible account of the creation we may say that the Lord gave it to Moses, or rather Moses obtained the history and traditions of the fathers, and from these picked out what he considered necessary, and that account has been handed down from age to age, and we have got it, no matter whether it is correct or not, and whether the Lord found the earth empty and void, whether he made it out of nothing or out of the rude elements; or whether he made it in six days or in as many millions of years, is and will remain a matter of speculation in the minds of men unless he give revelation on the subject. (Brigham Young, JD 16:115-116)

I want to say a few words about our religion, but first I will ask you to remember this prayer which I offered at the commencement of my remarks with regard to the poor. If you will do that, they will be looked after and brought home. Now we will talk a little about our religion. Ask the scientific men of the world how many of the arts can be reduced to a science? When they are so reduced they become permanent; but until then they are uncertain. They go and come, appear and disappear. When they are reduced to science and system their permanency, and stability are assured. It is so with government-until it is reduced to science it is liable to be rent asunder by anarchy and confusion, and caprice and scattered to the four winds. Government, to be stable and permanent and have any show for success must be reduced to a science. It is the same with religion; but our traditions are such that it is one of the most difficult things in the world to make men believe that the revealed religion of heaven is a pure science, and all true science in the possession of men now is a part of the religion of heaven and has been revealed from that source. But it is hard to get the people to believe that God is a scientific character, that He lives by science or strict law, that by this He is, and by law he was made what He is; and will remain to all eternity because of His faithful adherence to law. It is a most difficult thing to make the people believe that every art and science and all wisdom comes from Him, and that He is their Author. Our spirits are His: He begot them. We are His children; He set the machine in motion to produce our tabernacles; and when men discard the principle of the existence of a Supreme Being and treat it with lightness, as Brother Taylor says, they are fools. It is strange that scientific men do not realize that, all they know is derived from Him; to suppose, or to foster the idea for one moment, that they are the originators of the wisdom they possess is folly in the highest! Such men do not know themselves. As for ignoring the principle of the existence of a Supreme Being, I would as soon ignore the idea that this house came into existence without the agency of intelligent beings. (Brigham Young, JD 13:300)

The knowledge possessed by this people is of more value than all the knowledge of the world put together, and infinitely greater. In this kingdom you will find the root of all science, and that, too, in men who have not been taught the sciences after the manner of the world. They understand the origin of science, and can trace it through the life of man, much to their satisfaction. Let any man who possesses the Holy Ghost, though never taught the sciences but a very little, hear a learned man exhibit the principles of any science, he understands the origin and proper bearings of the subject treated upon by the speaker, through the increased rays of that light which lighteth every man that cometh into the world. This is to us a matter of no little satisfaction. (Brigham Young JD 6:314)

Edited by rameumptom

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

After the First Presidency made an official statement regarding pre-Adamites - that it was not doctrine, Elder James Faust of the 12 noted:

Elder James E. Talmage noted in his journal:

...Involved in this question is that of the beginning of life upon the earth, and as to whether there was death either of animal or plant before the fall of Adam, on which proposition Elder Smith was very pronounced in denial and Elder Roberts equally forceful in the affirmative. As to whether Preadamite races existed upon the earth there has been much discussion among some of our people of late. The decision reached by the First Presidency, and announced to this morning's assembly, was in answer to a specific question that obviously the doctrine of the existence of races of human beings upon the earth prior to the fall of Adam was not a doctrine of the Church; and, further, that the conception embodied in the belief of many to the effect that there were no such Preadamite races, and that there was no death upon the earth prior to Adam's fall is likewise declared to be no doctrine of the Church. I think the decision of the First Presidency is a wise one in the premises. This is one of the many things upon which we cannot preach with assurance and dogmatic assertions on either side are likely to do harm rather than good.

Mormonism and science/Pre-Adamites - FAIRMormon

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Right, because some who subscribe to the evolution idea, believe that is what "from the dust of the earth" means, and ultimately a non-human species would have to beget Adam in order for their theory to be true and the scriptures to be true at the same time - since Adam was the first man. This would mean that Adam's parents were not mankind. It is absurd.

However, even if I was saying what you thought I was saying, it's not out of harmony with what you were saying. :) Adam's immortal parents, would still be "mankind", same species as we are now. We are the same species of being that God is, though He himself is a glorified Man.

Regards,

Vanhin

What do you call taking a yeast cell, sucking out the Nucleus, forming a chain of Nucleic acid and reinserting the Nucleic acid chain back into the yeast cell to form a totally new form of life? (which is now a technology we have, by the way) Would you say that new species is begotten from the old one? no ... Would you say that it is evolution? no ... Would you say it is from the same material (dust of the earth)? yes.

There are other ways that the first man could be from materials here on earth (dust of the earth) and never existed here on earth in that form until God put the order of Nucleic acids together that would match those of His and therefore being made in the image of God but using the host cells of existing life forms that he created also, possibly by using evolutionary models. We don't know.

I'm just saying, in these discussions we seem to place evolution on one end and creation on the other as if they are mutually exclusive. I don't think they have to be. There can be a combination and aspects of both models used in the process to make the body of Adam and Eve that we just don't know all the details about yet. We have like 3 or 4 pieces of the 1000 piece puzzle and are trying to decide what it looks like from those 4 pieces.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Godless, this sound too close to apologetics. Perhaps some further light and wisdom can help us see the truth without this apologetic. Best to concentrate on the souls of the Neanderthals and our own Homo Sapien brothers and sisters.

Except that we supposedly descend from CroMagnon man. Neanderthals died out long before Adam....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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).

Adam is the first man on this earth. No other creature was created in God's image, but man.

Regards,

Finrock

This is a minor issue for me, because I mostly agree with what you've said but I don't know if you can say #1 point is totally true. We are created in His image ... like you said at the end there but I think the step from Garden of Eden Adam to fallen Adam was a big one, just like I believe the step from mortal earthly body to resurrected being is a big one. It might be as big as the difference between a chimpanzee and a human is now or bigger.

When I consider all God is and can do there has to be a huge difference between His perfect glorified body and ours. Like you said in your statement, we can never come to understand God in our current state. We need help. Which to me also means that we are not even in the same evolutionary trail as He is in this form. Yes, we are in His image as much as looking at a photograph. But a photograph of me could never be me.

#1 statement might be true when you speak of pre-fall Adam to God. But I don't know if I would go as far as saying that our bodies (spirits yes, but bodies no) are in the same species realm as God's body.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Good afternoon Seminarysnoozer. I hope you've had a good day. :)

Thank you for reading and responding to my post.

This is a minor issue for me, because I mostly agree with what you've said but I don't know if you can say #1 point is totally true. We are created in His image ... like you said at the end there but I think the step from Garden of Eden Adam to fallen Adam was a big one, just like I believe the step from mortal earthly body to resurrected being is a big one. It might be as big as the difference between a chimpanzee and a human is now or bigger.

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 I consider all God is and can do there has to be a huge difference between His perfect glorified body and ours. Like you said in your statement, we can never come to understand God in our current state. We need help. Which to me also means that we are not even in the same evolutionary trail as He is in this form. Yes, we are in His image as much as looking at a photograph. But a photograph of me could never be me.

#1 statement might be true when you speak of pre-fall Adam to God. But I don't know if I would go as far as saying that our bodies (spirits yes, but bodies no) are in the same species realm as God's body.

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

VERY IMHO : I sometimes think that those manlike ones that lived before must have been creations of an other god.

Maya, how about this as another explanation: When we were primitives, we were furnished information suitable to a primitive understanding. When we were ready to learn more about creation and our origins, inspiration was at hand.

This information vis-à-vis the primitive/scientific transformation has been fairly recent, hence there are still followers of both camps. Science by definition is in the ever present stage of learning. As they proceed, they help expand the boundaries of religion which in turn will lessen the constriction of understanding that binds the primitivists.

When observing life, it seems that evolution is a first and foremost tool in God's toolbox. When eternity is on your side, immediate magical poof-they-are-there methods are unneeded. The aftermath of the Big Bang is yet ongoing to this day.

-------------------------------

Or maybe some took a space ship to Kolob? :D

Was that the one where Arthur Dent and Ford Prefect hitched a ride? Good thing they remembered their towels.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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).

Thanks for your response. "We are the same species of God" refers to our spiritual being. Dust turns to dust. This temporary body is a mere cover for this experience. This is why Moses, after seeing the difference first hand, claimed that man is nothing.

I think it is important to divide whether you are talking about Man, the physical temporal body, or Man the spirit or Man the combination of the of the spirit with the temporal body. These are all different discussions. When you mix and match quotes then it is confusing as to whether you are talking about us the spiritual offspring of God versus us the temporal body. Because I do not think the imperfect body we now possess is the offspring of God. Now if you say "man" then you may be including the spirit with that, so then you can say "man"(spirit +body) is the offspring of God, but, in my opinion, it is just the spirit that is offspring, not this body that turns to dust. I agree that we (spirit beings) are literal children of God. But the temporal mortal body (alone) is only a child of God in a figurative sense.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You are reading into the Bible what is not there. In the original Hebrew, it states that God "formed" the earth and the heavens. Science also shows that the universe and matter are not made from nothing. The Big Bang is not the creation of everything from nothing, but the creation of everything from everything.

Most Christian scholars agree that God cannot be as all powerful as some think. Can God create a rock larger than he can lift? Can God create a God that is greater than himself?

Bible Scholars have shown that the Bible comes to us in an imperfect form. It has gone through many hands, translations, and political/religious factions. It is still a very solid and inspired book, but there are traditions within it that may or may not be historical. And it is way too easy to read it too literally, or as tradition has read it, instead of how it originally was meant to be understood.

Many Jews believe the earth to be 2.555 billion years old. This is how they read the Bible. They believe Adam lived 6000 years ago.

If what you wrote is true then the entire Bible is not true, God doesnt exist, there is no heaven, no hell, and no eternal life of any kind. I might as well start sinning like crazy, having sex with whoever I want, etc and just have fun.

The Bible clearly states that God created everything.

Genesis 1 supports creation out of nothing. John 1:3, Jeremiah 10:16, Acts 17:24, Colossians 1:15-17, Ephesians 3:9 Revelation 4:11, Revelation 10:6 etc.

Read the verses in Colossians above. This are great verses. It says he was the firstborn of all Creation. Firstborn can mean two things. One is born first chronologically and the second refers to pre eminence in position or rank. In both Jewish and Greek culture the firstborn was the ranking son who received the right of inheritance from his father, whether or not he was born first. Israel is described as a firstborn nation in Exodus 4:22 and Jeremiah 31:9. Firstborn is clearly meant to describe rank in this case, not first created (see also Revelation 1:5 and Psalm 89:27). For a few reasons, Jesus cant be both the "first begotten" and "only begotten" (John 1:14, 18, John 3:16, 18, 1 John 4:9), when "firstborn" is part of a class, the class is in the plural form (example Colossians 1:18 Christ was first chronologically raised from the dead never to die again. Of everyone that has been raised and will be raised Jesus is supreme. But in this case, creation, the class in this verse, is singular. And the last reason is that God cannot be the creator of everything and be created at the same time.

To answer your all powerful question read Philippians 2:5-11. Verse 10 says the whole entire universe will bow at the sound of His name. His name of Lord places Him above all things as the sovereign ruler.

In regards to the Jews, they dont even recognize Jesus as the Messiah. A lot of Christians believe in millions of years. But I dont know why because that is not supported by the Bible.

oh and why must I believe that the world is flat?

Edited by RRR1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hey Snow,

Clearly the Church has spoken on the matter and does have an official stand. I never could understand why anyone would make the statement that the Church has no official stand on evolution.

"On the subject of evolution the Church has officially taken no position."

President David O. McKay, 1957

Still confused?

Finrock is not the one laying it on thick, the First Presidency is. The following is from the subtitle of the above statement.

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.

So, it is expressing the Church's doctrinal position. If you say otherwise you are ignoring the facts presented in the proclamation. Here is a specific excerpt for you to respond to.

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.

What do you think those two paragraphs are saying, if not the Church's position that our race did not evolve from lower orders of animal creation (evolution)?

Regards,

Vanhin

Read what you posted.

The statement may express doctrinal positions on some matters but does not address the mutability of the species. Moreover, the statement that Adam is the "primal parent of our race," does nothing to rule out evolution. Race is a social distinction, not a biological distinction. (James C. King, The Biology of Race (N.Y.: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich, Inc., 1971), 160, 163.) Nor does the statement declare an official doctrinal position on the existence of pre-Adamic humans - the two points I am addressing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

If, in fact, your post has nothing to do with evolution and nothing to do with the existence of pre-Adamic, (specifically pre-fall) humans, then I would stand corrected. However, that is not what you post said. You specifically said that you were referring to man, which you defined as homo sapiens (a species that had been around a couple hundred thousand years). You further said that anyone who claims that Adam or someone other than Adam has evolved from a different species is out of harmony with the Church's doctrinal stance. You are being disingenuous because you carefully tried to get me to lay out my position in advance - my position being that, of course, humans existed prior to Adam (and the fall) and that evolution is a correct view (or the most correct view) of man's decent. Then, you held out that position, after trying to get me to commit to it, and pilloried it and those that hold the position.

I don't mind if you try and ridicule my position. I myself think people that don't believe in evolution or pre-Adamic humans are backwards, superstitious luddites.. It's the guile you employed that I dislike. Just like I dislike the backpedalling you are doing now.

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?

No, it's your sanctimony that irks.

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! :lol:

Now you've entered the realm of inanity. You say that you don't eschew evolution, you just deny evolution of Adam or anyone else. Wow. Big distinction. We aren't talking about potato bugs. We are talking about man, that is all that is at issue.

You claim that a belief in such, evolution of man, contradicts doctrine is flat out FALSE.

The Church has issued 5 official statements of evolution (of man), the first one being ambiguous on the matter, followed on months later by one stating neutrality and then later 3 others also stating neutrality.

The first ambiguous statement gave rise to questions about it's meaning and in response the Church addressed those questions in the Church magazine wherein the editorial empathized that evolution was one of three acceptable views on the method employed by God in the creation.

Additionally, the Church - The First Presidency and the Quorum of the Twelve has published and copyrighted a pro-evolutionary pamphlet. A number of prophets have pro-evolutionary statements - six prophets that I can count off hand.

Moreover President David O McKay spoke in clear and unmistakable English and clarified that the Church had no position on evolution.

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.

There may be those that think that character doesn't or shouldn't matter. I'm not one of them. When someone is disingenuous, I will call them on it. When someone falsely represents doctrine, I'll cite it.

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

It's the course of action that you chose. Why back away from it now? Frankly, you are too skilled with your language for your intent to misunderstood.

Is it possible that I am mistaken, that you are merely an innocent victim of misunderstood intentions? It is possible but not likely.

Finally, it could be your point that humans existed before Adam but in some understood sense, Adam was designated as "the first man" though prior to him other un-such-designated men existed. If that's your point, fine, no complaints, that's not saying much however and you said much more than that. If I were wrong about your intent then I'd apologize but you transparent enough that I don't think an apology will be needed.

Edited by Snow

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Good evening Seminarysnoozer! I hope you've had a good day. :)

Thanks for your response.

You are welcome.

"We are the same species of God" refers to our spiritual being. Dust turns to dust. This temporary body is a mere cover for this experience.

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.

When you mix and match quotes then it is confusing as to whether you are talking about us the spiritual offspring of God versus us the temporal body. Because I do not think the imperfect body we now possess is the offspring of God. Now if you say "man" then you may be including the spirit with that, so then you can say "man"(spirit +body) is the offspring of God, but, in my opinion, it is just the spirit that is offspring, not this body that turns to dust. I agree that we (spirit beings) are literal children of God. But the temporal mortal body (alone) is only a child of God in a figurative sense.

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 :P). 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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"On the subject of evolution the Church has officially taken no position."

President David O. McKay, 1957

Still confused?

Read what you posted.

The statement may express doctrinal positions on some matters but does not address the mutability of the species. Moreover, the statement that Adam is the "primal parent of our race," does nothing to rule out evolution. Race is a social distinction, not a biological distinction. (James C. King, The Biology of Race (N.Y.: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich, Inc., 1971), 160, 163.) Nor does the statement declare an official doctrinal position on the existence of pre-Adamic humans - the two points I am addressing.

The part I bolded is the bit in particular that I wish to comment on.

I do not believe that the statement that Adam is the "primal parent of our race" is in reference to social distinction.

When I read that statement, it certainly doesn't come across as 'Adam is the primal parent of Caucasians, or <insert race here>.'

The statement is more correctly read as "Adam is the primal parent of our species", imo, which would absolutely put it in a biological, not social, context.

If I've misunderstood, please correct me. ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The part I bolded is the bit in particular that I wish to comment on.

I do not believe that the statement that Adam is the "primal parent of our race" is in reference to social distinction.

When I read that statement, it certainly doesn't come across as 'Adam is the primal parent of Caucasians, or <insert race here>.'

The statement is more correctly read as "Adam is the primal parent of our species", imo, which would absolutely put it in a biological, not social, context.

If I've misunderstood, please correct me. ;)

The point is that race is NOT a biological distinction. Race is a social definition applied by societies. The statement says that Adam is the primal parent of our race; it does not say that Adam is the biological first of kind of our genetic species who descended from no one and from whom we all in turn descended.

The appellation of "first man" (or whatever) is or can be a social distinction, it doesn't make sense to interpret "race" in this context as color of skin.

For what it is worth, I bet I could find a quote from a GA that says that Adam was born of earthly parents just like the rest of us.

Edited by Snow

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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 :P). 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

Thanks,

I absolutely think the "differences between our physical body and God's physical body is relevant to the discussion of lineage or species" because the discussion is where did our bodies (again not "man" or our spirits, just mortal body) come from. When we use the term "likeness" or "form" or "image" that gives no reference to how different it is. I can say a model airplane is in the likeness of a real airplane but I can't hop in it and fly it. The "model" version of the body could be made in a totally different fashion than the "real" version. None of those scriptures or references say how different the likeness is.

If you are trying to suggest that our current body looks exactly like our spirit image in every way like height, hair color, eye color, body mass, muscle mass etc. I think that is absurd (sorry). I don't think God took into account the fact that my great-X25 grandfather headed out on his viking boat and the winds took him to a small Scotland coastal town where my great-X25 grandmother happened to be and he rapped her and that is where I get some of my genes to create my current appearance. I don't think God will make us into an image that represents all the odd and bad decisions of our forefathers forever, I think that is absurd.

In my opinion, our current "image" in terms of looking into a mirror and describing what you see is not how we are going to look in the next life. We will look like our perfect self, which is what God created in the Garden of Eden, Adam and Eve. Of course I don't know that for sure and can't know that. But to me it seems absurd that our corrupted body based on gene defects and mutations over the years is how we will look for eternity.

There is only one begotten body that we know about, Jesus'. The rest of us (mortal bodies) are not begotten.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

If, in fact, your post has nothing to do with evolution and nothing to do with the existence of pre-Adamic, (specifically pre-fall) humans, then I would stand corrected.

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.

However, that is not what you post said. You specifically said that you were referring to man, which you defined as homo sapiens (a species that had been around a couple hundred thousand years).

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.

You further said that anyone who claims that Adam or someone other than Adam has evolved from a different species is out of harmony with the Church's doctrinal stance.

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.

You are being disingenuous because you carefully tried to get me to lay out my position in advance - my position being that, of course, humans existed prior to Adam (and the fall) and that evolution is a correct view (or the most correct view) of man's decent. Then, you held out that position, after trying to get me to commit to it, and pilloried it and those that hold the position.

I don't mind if you try and ridicule my position. I myself think people that don't believe in evolution or pre-Adamic humans are backwards, superstitious luddites.. It's the guile you employed that I dislike. Just like I dislike the backpedalling you are doing now.

I mean, of all the possible reasons for me asking questions, why would you settle on the one that is nefarious in nature? :lol: 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? :lol:

Regards,

Finrock

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Finrock, your use of the word "species" is what bothers me. Here is a part of a biology definition of species: Biology

1. A fundamental category of taxonomic classification, ranking below a genus or subgenus and consisting of related organisms capable of interbreeding.

----

Man cannot interbreed with God or God-like peoples. One might say that Jesus is the exception but I don't look at that as 'interbreeding' as there is only one and we don't really know how God did that. (could be through just inserting DNA into an egg, whatever) The other argument against interbreeding is that I can't see how an immortal could beget anything less than an immortal. And, again when we say man here I am just talking about the mortal body Man, not the spirit or the permanent final version of man, the immortal man.

Do you really think our bodies here are that close to God's? I think they are so different it would be like comparing a model airplane to a real airplane. That's my opinion but maybe I have a higher view of God's body than I thought everyone else did.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Good afternoon Seminarysnoozer. I hope your day has been a good one! :)

Finrock, your use of the word "species" is what bothers me. Here is a part of a biology definition of species: Biology

1. A fundamental category of taxonomic classification, ranking below a genus or subgenus and consisting of related organisms capable of interbreeding.

----

Man cannot interbreed with God or God-like peoples. One might say that Jesus is the exception but I don't look at that as 'interbreeding' as there is only one and we don't really know how God did that. (could be through just inserting DNA into an egg, whatever) The other argument against interbreeding is that I can't see how an immortal could beget anything less than an immortal. And, again when we say man here I am just talking about the mortal body Man, not the spirit or the permanent final version of man, the immortal man.

Do you really think our bodies here are that close to God's? I think they are so different it would be like comparing a model airplane to a real airplane. That's my opinion but maybe I have a higher view of God's body than I thought everyone else did.

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If what you wrote is true then the entire Bible is not true, God doesnt exist, there is no heaven, no hell, and no eternal life of any kind. I might as well start sinning like crazy, having sex with whoever I want, etc and just have fun.

One of the great problems with the Bible is that it is esteemed by many “Christians” to be much more than what it is. The Bible is not the source of truth. I would point you to the era and time in which Jesus walked, talked and taught. In his day there were experts in gathering ancient scripture texts revealed by G-d to man and understanding these texts to every detail possible. These religious experts were knows as the Scribes and Pharisees. If it was not for the Scribes and Pharisees and what they did to scriptures you would not have a Bible or try to believe in G-d – and it thus it is very likely you would not have a religion – by your own admission.

This makes it most difficult to have an honest discussion because of what is at stake to you. Any disruption and you are way off the deep end. I would urge you not to worship the scriptures in this manner – appraising and valuing G-d based on this doctrine. G-d does not require the Bible to be correct to be G-d. Without question G-d does not require any man to comprehend the Bible correctly for his existence. Validity of the Bible does not make or break G-d.

I do not know if Adam had a belly button or not. I realized that the question of Adam’s belly button nearly sparked civil war among Christians considering the question during the Dark Ages. But then historically Christians have lesser things to kill each other over – always claiming G-d is with them. Few today realize that Hitler and the 3rd Reich was a Christian movement to restore “Correct” Christian values and teachings based on the Bible.

Who were the people that lived before Adam? I do not know for sure – but I am not afraid to follow the admonition of Jesus to knock, ask and seek by every means available to me. So far it appears to me that they did indeed exist. That there were human creations of G-d but I have yet to understand to what purpose.

The Bible clearly states that God created everything.

Science has proven that matter and energy are interchangeable. In other words – it is possible to “create” matter from energy. Or if you consider ancient concepts – with access to “power” matter can be created. The concept of G-d creating from nothing is in every way flawed in light of modern science. There can be no question that G-d has “Power” and that by his “Power” were all things of matter created. Therefore we know that creation was not from “nothing” but that creation relied on something that previously existed – G-D’s POWER and I believe we can also conclude that G-D’s POWER has existed as long as G-d has. Welcome to the 21st century.

The Traveler

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

One of the great problems with the Bible is that it is esteemed by many “Christians” to be much more than what it is. The Bible is not the source of truth. I would point you to the era and time in which Jesus walked, talked and taught. In his day there were experts in gathering ancient scripture texts revealed by G-d to man and understanding these texts to every detail possible. These religious experts were knows as the Scribes and Pharisees. If it was not for the Scribes and Pharisees and what they did to scriptures you would not have a Bible or try to believe in G-d – and it thus it is very likely you would not have a religion – by your own admission.

This makes it most difficult to have an honest discussion because of what is at stake to you. Any disruption and you are way off the deep end. I would urge you not to worship the scriptures in this manner – appraising and valuing G-d based on this doctrine. G-d does not require the Bible to be correct to be G-d. Without question G-d does not require any man to comprehend the Bible correctly for his existence. Validity of the Bible does not make or break G-d.

I do not know if Adam had a belly button or not. I realized that the question of Adam’s belly button nearly sparked civil war among Christians considering the question during the Dark Ages. But then historically Christians have lesser things to kill each other over – always claiming G-d is with them. Few today realize that Hitler and the 3rd Reich was a Christian movement to restore “Correct” Christian values and teachings based on the Bible.

Who were the people that lived before Adam? I do not know for sure – but I am not afraid to follow the admonition of Jesus to knock, ask and seek by every means available to me. So far it appears to me that they did indeed exist. That there were human creations of G-d but I have yet to understand to what purpose.

Science has proven that matter and energy are interchangeable. In other words – it is possible to “create” matter from energy. Or if you consider ancient concepts – with access to “power” matter can be created. The concept of G-d creating from nothing is in every way flawed in light of modern science. There can be no question that G-d has “Power” and that by his “Power” were all things of matter created. Therefore we know that creation was not from “nothing” but that creation relied on something that previously existed – G-D’s POWER and I believe we can also conclude that G-D’s POWER has existed as long as G-d has. Welcome to the 21st century.

The Traveler

If the Bible isnt the source of truth then the Bible is fiction, just a story book. Jesus said I am the way, the TRUTH, and the life. Scripture is God-breathed and inspired by God.

Adam most likely did not have a belly button. Belly button is a scar from the umbilical cord. Since Adam was created and not born, I would be 99.9999999% sure he doesnt have one. Jesus would have had one though.

As far as people living before Adam, that is fine if you are not sure and that you want to find the answer. I challenge you to look in the Bible though. Go back through my posts in this thread. The TRUTH lies within the Bible. Again death before sin could not have happened or else that nullifies everything in the Bible.

If creation required something else then God created that too because God created everything.

Also not to flame or anything, just a general question, why do you not type out God? Why do you put G-d? Are you scared of God and think its taking the name of God in vain? Do you think you are violating the 3rd commandment? Or is it some whacky computer program that converts God to G-d? Just seems stupid and childish to me. :shrug

Edit: This is also the reason why i created the "How do you get to heaven" thread. I am curious and want to know more about Mormons. Apparently for the most part you believe that faith alone and not works will get you to heaven but you dont believe the Bible to the true. Kind of weird but Im learning.

Edited by RRR1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If the Bible isnt the source of truth then the Bible is fiction, just a story book. Jesus said I am the way, the TRUTH, and the life. Scripture is God-breathed and inspired by God.

So which is it? Is the Bible or God the source of Truth? You say the Bible is the source of truth but then you attribute the source of the Bible to God. Even if the Bible was a direct dictation of God's words it is not the source of truth, it would be a collection of truths from the source (i. e. God). One cannot claim the Bible is the source of truth without putting it above God. Unless of course you want to maintain that the Bible is God but I'm not familiar with any Christians who would make such a claim (but I suppose you could be the first).

Edited by Dravin

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Edit: This is also the reason why i created the "How do you get to heaven" thread. I am curious and want to know more about Mormons. Apparently for the most part you believe that faith alone and not works will get you to heaven but you dont believe the Bible to the true. Kind of weird but Im learning.

I don't know if you're not studying hard enough or not paying attention, but you would be wrong on both of those conclusions. Here's some questions for you to research: Who wrote the Bible? Who decided which texts to include and which to exclude? Why were they included or excluded and not others? Is it possible that some translations or passages may not be accurate representations of the originals or the original meanings?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If the Bible isnt the source of truth then the Bible is fiction, just a story book. Jesus said I am the way, the TRUTH, and the life. Scripture is God-breathed and inspired by God.

G-d is the only source of truth for me - I do not worship anything other than G-d as the source of truth and that includes the Bible. Your arguments about scripture being G-d-breathed are the same arguments of the Pharisees and Scribes and it was under the justification of the scriptures that Jesus was crucified. I would point out that Jesus indicated that he would send his servants to teach his word – Not the Bible! But you are welcome to believe whatever you want

Adam most likely did not have a belly button. Belly button is a scar from the umbilical cord. Since Adam was created and not born, I would be 99.9999999% sure he doesnt have one. Jesus would have had one though.

I can find a Bible scripture that says that G-d created man but I cannot find a scripture that says G-d created Adam. Thank you for clarifying that you do not believe G-d created anyone with a belly button. I do not believe it but thank you for being clear.

As far as people living before Adam, that is fine if you are not sure and that you want to find the answer. I challenge you to look in the Bible though. Go back through my posts in this thread. The TRUTH lies within the Bible. Again death before sin could not have happened or else that nullifies everything in the Bible.

I do not believe G-d lies or is a deceiver – I believe that there are human remains that in every way appear to be over 10,000 years old. I do not believe G-d created these things as a lie to confuse those that would otherwise believe on him. If your Bible explains why such a thing would be (that G-d plays lying tricks) – I would be interested in you pointing out to me what I have missed and where such doctrine exist within the Bible.

If creation required something else then God created that too because God created everything.

Is G-d something that exist? Then G-d was created?

Also not to flame or anything, just a general question, why do you not type out God? Why do you put G-d? Are you scared of God and think its taking the name of God in vain? Do you think you are violating the 3rd commandment? Or is it some whacky computer program that converts God to G-d? Just seems stupid and childish to me. :shrug

I have explained many times that in my travels I have met people (some Islamic) that desire to learn about Jesus and Christian teachings. Often these people look to the internet to sites like this one as their only source. But their societies and laws do not allow them to copy any material that has G-d spelled out. I use this spelling for them. From time to time I receive e-mails thanking me for doing this. Therefore I accept your ridicule of me hoping to be of some benefit to them.

Edit: This is also the reason why i created the "How do you get to heaven" thread. I am curious and want to know more about Mormons. Apparently for the most part you believe that faith alone and not works will get you to heaven but you dont believe the Bible to the true. Kind of weird but Im learning.

We also learn by what you post - I personally appreciate people devout belief in any religion. But I must admit that I find it most odd that you would worship the Bible as G-d-breathed when it does not state any such thing. What I have read is that the Bible and all other scripture is of value to bring someone unto Christ – and that Christ is the only source of truth worthy to be worshiped as such.

BTW would you share with us what your religion is?

The Traveler

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this