The People before Adam

[Traveler]

...

In short, my argument says that whatever the case may be regarding any explanation as to the origin of man, it is a fact that Church doctrine and scripture officially teaches that ----- (2)Adam did not evolve from a lower species,

...

Regards,

Finrock

Would you please supply the official scripture and chruch declaration that Adam did not evolve from another species?

Perhaps you and I can consider and reason together and determine the accurace and completeness of your statement.

The Traveler

[Finrock]

Good afternoon Traveler. I hope you are well! :)

Would you please supply the official scripture and chruch declaration that Adam did not evolve from another species?

Perhaps you and I can consider and reason together and determine the accurace and completeness of your statement.

The Traveler

See post #102. Presented are some scriptures and the official declaration, "Origin of Man", by the First Presidency.

Regards,

Finrock

[JoshThetford1969]

Would you please supply the official scripture and church declaration that Adam did not evolve from another species?

Perhaps you and I can consider and reason together and determine the accurace and completeness of your statement.

The Traveler

In Genesis and the parallel accounts in Moses and Abraham is a brief record of the creation of the earth and of man who would dwell on it. It is a simple and straightforward account. Although we are not told exactly how the Lord brought about the creative processes, we are taught several essential concepts.

First, God, the Father of all men, instituted the creation of the world as a place for men to come to mortality and progress toward their eternal destiny.

Second, man is the offspring of deity.

Third, the world was not created by chance forces or random accident.

Fourth, Adam was the first man and first flesh on the earth.

Fifth, Adam fell from a state of innocence and immortality, and his fall affected all life upon the earth as well as the earth itself.

Sixth, the Atonement of Jesus Christ was planned before the world was ever created so that men could come to a fallen earth, overcome death and their sins, and return to live with God.

In the world another theory of how things began is popularly held and widely taught. This theory, that of organic evolution, was generally developed from the writings of Charles Darwin. It puts forth different ideas concerning how life began and where man came from. In relation to this theory, the following statements should help you understand what the Church teaches about the Creation and the origin of man.

'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 declares 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; and 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.' (First Presidency (Joseph F.Smith, John R.Winder, Anthon H.Lund) in Clark, Messages of the First Presidency, 4:205.

'Any theory that leaves out God as a personal, purposeful Being, and accepts chance as a first cause, cannot be accepted by Latter-day Saints.... That man and the whole of creation came by chance is unthinkable. It is equally unthinkable that if man came into being by the will and power of God, the divine creative power is limited to one process dimly sensed by mortal man.' (Widstoe, Evidences and Reconciliations).

'I am grateful that in the midst of the confusion of our Father's children there has been given to the members of this great organization a sure knowledge of the origin of man, that we came from the spirit world where our parents were begotten by our Father in heaven, that he formed our first parents from the dust of the earth, and that their spirits were placed in their bodies, and that man came, not as some have believed, not as some have preferred to believe, from some of the lower walks of life, but our ancestors were those beings who lived in the courts of heaven. We came not from some menial order of life, but our ancestor is God our Heavenly Father.' (George Albert Smith, in Conference Report, Oct.1925, p.33.)

'Of course, I think those people who hold to the view that man has come up through all these ages from the scum of the sea through billions of years do not believe in Adam. Honestly I do not know how they can, and I am going to show you that they do not. There are some who attempt to do it but they are inconsistent - absolutely inconsistent, because that doctrine is so incompatible, so utterly out of harmony, with the revelations of the Lord that a man just cannot believe in both.

'....I say most emphatically, you cannot believe in this theory of the origin of man, and at the same time accept the plan of salvation as set forth by the Lord our God. You must choose the one and reject the other, for they are in direct conflict and there is a gulf seperating them which is so great that it cannot be bridged, no matter how much one may try to do so...

'... Then Adam, and by that I mean the first man, was not capable of sin. He could not transgress, and by doing so bring death into the world; for, according to this theory, death had always been in the world. If, therefore, there was no fall, there was no need of an atonement, hence the coming into the world of the Son of God as the Saviour of the world is a contradiction, a thing impossible. Are you prepared to believe such a thing as that?' (Smith, Doctrines of Salvation,1:141-42.)

Pages 33-34 Old Testament Student Manual. 'Points to Ponder.' Hope this helps. Josh.

Edited May 3, 2010 by JoshThetford1969

[Seminarysnoozer]

My friend - you may be painting yourself into a corner. The genetic diversity of man constitutes a single race and not really a species. The term species is a scientific term and not a religious term – I am not sure that every human, including those with severe genetic flaws should be genetically tied to G-d in their flawed state. It may be possible that man’s connection to G-d is not as genetically tight as you are implying. I prefer to think that those born with genetic flaws will be “healed” in the resurrection. I am thinking that not until the resurrection will man (and only those whose bodies are Celestial) be the same species, scientifically speaking, as G-d.

The Traveler

Don't we all have genetic flaws? We all die. The original creation Adam and Eve, would not have died, except after changes to their body made them mortal, a change of body type occurred in which we find ourselves now. The fallen state by definition is a flawed, genetically altered state. I would say all human beings are that way not just those with the most obvious ones.

One example is the brain starts to lose mass about the age of 30 in everyone, not just "genetically flawed" people. This "flesh" of ours is not the same "flesh" as a perfect body, because it deteriorates, it atrophies, apoptosis occurs even if we had a perfect diet, exercised every day etc..

[Moksha]

See post #102. Presented are some scriptures and the official declaration, "Origin of Man", by the First Presidency.

Regards,

Finrock

When Joseph F. Smith made this statement, it was geared toward the controversy of the evolution of the species being taught at BYU. There were a couple of Apostles with a scientific background who supported allowing the teaching of evolution and wished to refrain from painting the Church into a corner position that would later be viewed as incorrect.

This however was also a time in which the majority of the country did not accept that theory and most religious groups were bastions of opposition to it. This was the backdrop for both the Scopes Monkey Trial and the statement above.

Since that time, I know that President David O. McKay has softened this position. BYU's Biology department now teaches and affirms evolution as helping nourish and strengthen young collegiate minds.

[JohnnyRudick]

In Genesis and the parallel accounts in Moses and Abraham is a brief record of the creation of the earth and of man who would dwell on it. It is a simple and straightforward account. Although we are not told exactly how the Lord brought about the creative processes, we are taught several essential concepts.

First, God, the Father of all men, instituted the creation of the world as a place for men to come to mortality and progress toward their eternal destiny.

Second, man is the offspring of deity.

Third, the world was not created by chance forces or random accident.

Fourth, Adam was the first man and first flesh on the earth.

Fifth, Adam fell from a state of innocence and immortality, and his fall affected all life upon the earth as well as the earth itself.

Sixth, the Atonement of Jesus Christ was planned before the world was ever created so that men could come to a fallen earth, overcome death and their sins, and return to live with God.

In the world another theory of how things began is popularly held and widely taught. This theory, that of organic evolution, was generally developed from the writings of Charles Darwin. It puts forth different ideas concerning how life began and where man came from. In relation to this theory, the following statements should help you understand what the Church teaches about the Creation and the origin of man.

'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 declares 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; and 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.' (First Presidency (Joseph F.Smith, John R.Winder, Anthon H.Lund) in Clark, Messages of the First Presidency, 4:205.

'Any theory that leaves out God as a personal, purposeful Being, and accepts chance as a first cause, cannot be accepted by Latter-day Saints.... That man and the whole of creation came by chance is unthinkable. It is equally unthinkable that if man came into being by the will and power of God, the divine creative power is limited to one process dimly sensed by mortal man.' (Widstoe, Evidences and Reconciliations).

'I am grateful that in the midst of the confusion of our Father's children there has been given to the members of this great organization a sure knowledge of the origin of man, that we came from the spirit world where our parents were begotten by our Father in heaven, that he formed our first parents from the dust of the earth, and that their spirits were placed in their bodies, and that man came, not as some have believed, not as some have preferred to believe, from some of the lower walks of life, but our ancestors were those beings who lived in the courts of heaven. We came not from some menial order of life, but our ancestor is God our Heavenly Father.' (George Albert Smith, in Conference Report, Oct.1925, p.33.)

'Of course, I think those people who hold to the view that man has come up through all these ages from the scum of the sea through billions of years do not believe in Adam. Honestly I do not know how they can, and I am going to show you that they do not. There are some who attempt to do it but they are inconsistent - absolutely inconsistent, because that doctrine is so incompatible, so utterly out of harmony, with the revelations of the Lord that a man just cannot believe in both.

'....I say most emphatically, you cannot believe in this theory of the origin of man, and at the same time accept the plan of salvation as set forth by the Lord our God. You must choose the one and reject the other, for they are in direct conflict and there is a gulf seperating them which is so great that it cannot be bridged, no matter how much one may try to do so...

'... Then Adam, and by that I mean the first man, was not capable of sin. He could not transgress, and by doing so bring death into the world; for, according to this theory, death had always been in the world. If, therefore, there was no fall, there was no need of an atonement, hence the coming into the world of the Son of God as the Saviour of the world is a contradiction, a thing impossible. Are you prepared to believe such a thing as that?' (Smith, Doctrines of Salvation,1:141-42.)

Pages 33-34 Old Testament Student Manual. 'Points to Ponder.' Hope this helps. Josh.

Thank you Very Much.

I was looking all over for this.

There will always be those who will take the direct statements of God and say;

"All we need is a more liberal Prophet."

Edited May 4, 2010 by JohnnyRudick

[Finrock]

Good evening Moksha! :)

When Joseph F. Smith made this statement, it was geared toward the controversy of the evolution of the species being taught at BYU. There were a couple of Apostles with a scientific background who supported allowing the teaching of evolution and wished to refrain from painting the Church into a corner position that would later be viewed as incorrect.

Actually, the authorship is appropriately attributed to the First Presidency of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. This distinction constitutes an official declaration and not a personal opinion. It entails binding doctrine. The "Origin of Man" declaration has not been superceded.

The link I provided in post #102 is from a 2002 Ensign article which featured the "Origin of Man". It was preceded with the following explanation:

"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" (First Presidency, “The Origin of Man,” Ensign, Feb 2002, 26; Bold added).

Regards,

Finrock

[Snow]

Good evening Moksha! :)

Actually, the authorship is appropriately attributed to the First Presidency of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. This distinction constitutes an official declaration and not a personal opinion. It entails binding doctrine. The "Origin of Man" declaration has not been superceded.

The link I provided in post #102 is from a 2002 Ensign article which featured the "Origin of Man". It was preceded with the following explanation:

"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" (First Presidency, “The Origin of Man,” Ensign, Feb 2002, 26; Bold added).

Regards,

Finrock

I don't know what you think you are reading but the 1909 statement does not give a doctrinal position on the evolution man. I know, because I read it. Moreover, it was followed by a statement months later that expressed the neutral position of the Church with greater clarity than the ambiguous 1909 statement and additional clarifying statements in the Church magazine to clarify the ambiguity.

To the extent you are representing that the Church does have a doctrinal position on the evolution of man, you are spreading false doctrine.

[Snow]

'....I say most emphatically, you cannot believe in this theory of the origin of man, and at the same time accept the plan of salvation as set forth by the Lord our God. You must choose the one and reject the other, for they are in direct conflict and there is a gulf seperating them which is so great that it cannot be bridged, no matter how much one may try to do so...

Pages 33-34 Old Testament Student Manual. 'Points to Ponder.' Hope this helps. Josh.

It drives on batty to read this kind of stuff, mainly because it is simply untrue. I, and hundreds of thousands, if not millions of Latter-day Saints, including prophets and apostles in this dispensation accept the plan of salvation AND either the theory of evolution or the potential correctness of the theory of evolution and see no conflict between the two.

As we move into the future, more and more and more and more Latter-day Saints will do the same. Fortunately, we are a people committed to knowledge and learning, not shackled to the past.

[JohnnyRudick]

I'll just stick to the plane and not so hard to understand statements of the

leaders of the Church and the reveled Scripture.

Simple mind I guess:)

[Dravin]

I'll just stick to the plane and not so hard to understand statements of the leaders of the Church and the reveled Scripture.

The thing is from the other side that is what other people are doing. Both side have positions they believe are congruent with doctrine.

[Snow]

I'll just stick to the plane and not so hard to understand statements of the

leaders of the Church and the reveled Scripture.

Simple mind I guess:)

No, not so simple.

Which leaders plain statements are you going to stick with?

Brigham Young

Orson Hyde

BH Roberts

James Talmage

John Widstoe

Steven L. Richards

David O McKay

etc... all of whom were open to correctness in the theory of evolution???

or

Joseph Fielding Smith who thought it impossible to reconcile evolution with the plan of salvation - despite the ability of other prophets and apostles to do so???

or

Bruce McConkie who thought that evolution was "spawned and sponsored by Satan," despite the neutral or even favorable views of other prophets and apostles???

or

Do you accept the Church's official 1910 statement that "the mortal bodies of men evolved in natural processes" was one of the possibilities for the origin of man???

[JohnnyRudick]

No, not so simple.

Which leaders plain statements are you going to stick with?

Brigham Young

Orson Hyde

BH Roberts

James Talmage

John Widstoe

Steven L. Richards

David O McKay

etc... all of whom were open to correctness in the theory of evolution???

or

Joseph Fielding Smith who thought it impossible to reconcile evolution with the plan of salvation - despite the ability of other prophets and apostles to do so???

or

Bruce McConkie who thought that evolution was "spawned and sponsored by Satan," despite the neutral or even favorable views of other prophets and apostles???

or

Do you accept the Church's official 1910 statement that "the mortal bodies of men evolved in natural processes" was one of the possibilities for the origin of man???

The ones who agree with what has already been established

as what God declared concerning this Earth.

But that is just simple minded me.

[Snow]

The ones who agree with what has already been established

as what God declared concerning this Earth.

But that is just simple minded me.

That's a nothing statement.

What do you believe on the matter - not necessarily do you believe in evolution - you strike as a reject the science type of guy - but what do you believe on the matter of the Church's neutrality on the theory of evolution. Is the Church correct in such a stance or are they verging on collaboration with Satan as some have represented?

[Finrock]

Good evening Snow! :)

I don't know what you think you are reading but the 1909 statement does not give a doctrinal position on the evolution man.

The evolution of man in it's broadest sense isn't in debate, at least it isn't with me. Attributing this to my speech is arguing a strawman. In actuality what I have argued is that there is a doctrinal position on the origin of man, which the statement titled "Origin of Man" speaks to, which represents an official interpretation of scripture.

My claim is simply if any member of the Church perpetuates the idea that Adam was not the first man (Moses 1:34) or that Adam developed "...from lower orders of the animal creation", they are perpetuating false doctrine because the scriptures and official statements of the Church teach otherwise.

If you disagree with my conclusion, then demonstrate how it is false. It's not complicated at all. :) To do this you'll need to deal with the actual content of my post. Second, no proof by assertion allowed. It's just not polite and ultimately meaningless. Lastly, there is no need to lean on ad hominems, strawmen, or red herrings! Facts and reason will speak for themselves. Now, simply demonstrate that the scriptures and official statements of the Church either actively teach that Adam was not the first man and that he developed from lower orders of the animal creation or that they support such a position. If you are right and I am wrong, you should have no trouble demonstrating it from the scriptures and official statements of the Church. :)

Good luck and I truly look forward to a response that deals with the actual content of my post and demonstrates its contradiction.

Regards,

Finrock

[Seminarysnoozer]

Good evening Snow! :)

The evolution of man in it's broadest sense isn't in debate, at least it isn't with me. Attributing this to my speech is arguing a strawman. In actuality what I have argued is that there is a doctrinal position on the origin of man, which the statement titled "Origin of Man" speaks to, which represents an official interpretation of scripture.

My claim is simply if any member of the Church perpetuates the idea that Adam was not the first man (Moses 1:34) or that Adam developed "...from lower orders of the animal creation", they are perpetuating false doctrine because the scriptures and official statements of the Church teach otherwise.

If you disagree with my conclusion, then demonstrate how it is false. It's not complicated at all. :) To do this you'll need to deal with the actual content of my post. Second, no proof by assertion allowed. It's just not polite and ultimately meaningless. Lastly, there is no need to lean on ad hominems, strawmen, or red herrings! Facts and reason will speak for themselves. Now, simply demonstrate that the scriptures and official statements of the Church either actively teach that Adam was not the first man and that he developed from lower orders of the animal creation or that they support such a position. If you are right and I am wrong, you should have no trouble demonstrating it from the scriptures and official statements of the Church. :)

Good luck and I truly look forward to a response that deals with the actual content of my post and demonstrates its contradiction.

Regards,

Finrock

I think where a lot of LDS get confused about this topic is that a lot of leaders of the church (in my opinion) make statements like, we are the same "species" as God and we are the offspring of God to help those of other beliefs that we had a pre-existence. That the spirit was not created with earthly birth, that it existed before. Those statements mostly are made to support that idea, not to argue against evolution of the body (unless specifically stated so). I think, (ask prisonchaplain) most Christians believe we began our existence in this life, with our birth here.

I don't think those statements should be used as any kind of "proof" against evolution. I think I am more okay with the idea of evolution because I can separate the body from the spirit. I know that I am not my body, I am my spirit. This body is a temporary existence. If one understands that, the possibilities for how this body is made and prepared for our existence here opens up. If one believes that the mortal corrupted body we possess somehow is God's procreation, then we are limited in how that can come about. The way to make sense of this is to know that we are not our bodies, we are our spirits and will eventually have a permanent body but it is not this one. Our spirit, of course, remains the same one, the same "species" of God.

[Hemidakota]

The best blessing about spirit properties, it has a quality of elasticity. For those who complain of not being 'FAIR' in mortality may have another opportunity in the celestial kingdom.

Edited May 4, 2010 by Hemidakota

[Hemidakota]

Moreover, it was followed by a statement months later that expressed the neutral position of the Church with greater clarity than the ambiguous 1909 statement and additional clarifying statements in the Church magazine to clarify the ambiguity.

Meaning, WE DON'T KNOW AND THE LORD HAS NOT REVEALED IT AT THIS TIME FOR THE CHURCH AS A WHOLE [the details].

Even Prophets, may not be privy to every aspects of the earths origins. It may not be the 'WILL OF THE LORD' in not revealing the details but have other purposes in being in that position to accomplish. This is not one of them.

Neither, we should wait for this doctrine to come to the church. If a person have a desire to see for themselves the origins of our own galaxy, the earth, or our spiritual birth, we have the ability to ask GOD for own salvation or edification.

[Hemidakota]

Would you please supply the official scripture and chruch declaration that Adam did not evolve from another species?

Perhaps you and I can consider and reason together and determine the accurace and completeness of your statement.

The Traveler

Unless the Book of Moses [go back and reread chapter 3] is not doctrine, then what is?

[JohnnyRudick]

Unless the Book of Moses [go back and reread chapter 3] is not doctrine, then what is?

Ditto:)

[JohnnyRudick]

Good evening Snow! :)

The evolution of man in it's broadest sense isn't in debate, at least it isn't with me. Attributing this to my speech is arguing a strawman. In actuality what I have argued is that there is a doctrinal position on the origin of man, which the statement titled "Origin of Man" speaks to, which represents an official interpretation of scripture.

My claim is simply if any member of the Church perpetuates the idea that Adam was not the first man (Moses 1:34) or that Adam developed "...from lower orders of the animal creation", they are perpetuating false doctrine because the scriptures and official statements of the Church teach otherwise.

If you disagree with my conclusion, then demonstrate how it is false. It's not complicated at all. :) To do this you'll need to deal with the actual content of my post. Second, no proof by assertion allowed. It's just not polite and ultimately meaningless. Lastly, there is no need to lean on ad hominems, strawmen, or red herrings! Facts and reason will speak for themselves. Now, simply demonstrate that the scriptures and official statements of the Church either actively teach that Adam was not the first man and that he developed from lower orders of the animal creation or that they support such a position. If you are right and I am wrong, you should have no trouble demonstrating it from the scriptures and official statements of the Church. :)

Good luck and I truly look forward to a response that deals with the actual content of my post and demonstrates its contradiction.

Regards,

Finrock

Ditto again:)

[JohnnyRudick]

That's a nothing statement.

What do you believe on the matter - not necessarily do you believe in evolution - you strike as a reject the science type of guy - but what do you believe on the matter of the Church's neutrality on the theory of evolution. Is the Church correct in such a stance or are they verging on collaboration with Satan as some have represented?

My response is contained in the above "dittos";)

[Hemidakota]

It is not rejecting the WHOLE COMPLETE notion about evolution, but who is the author of this fable story. Adding fables [lies] to truths, what we call, half-truths, is not from GOD. We all know who stands behind this and is the real culprit.

In being GOD, HE needs to be a GOD of science in order to understand the laws of the lesser to the higher. Molding and fashioning inert matter, giving it life.

[Finrock]

Good morning Seminarysnoozer. I hope you've been doing well! :)

I've been trying to pay my response debt in the last few days, so I apologize for the late response.

Thanks. 1. Yes 2. Yes 3. It doesn't cease but it could be greatly obscured by the passions of the body, the spirit is simply hidden underneath those passions. 4. I don't know. We can make individual cells live outside the body. Why not? 5. Yes, absolutely ... that was my point - this body is not who we really are.

I agree with all those things. Where are you going with this?

Thank you for taking the time to do this exercise and for trusting that I'm not trying to set you up.

Since you agree with 5, I'll consider question 4 moot, even though you were uncertain. What I wanted to do was establish if and where, we disagreed. Based on your responses we both believe in the same things up to this point, so any disagreement doesn't exist in where we derive our identity from, which is our spirit.

One proof of that is to think about people born with trisomy 21 or 18. Or do you think their spirits were of that form and therefore they were born to a body with similar traits? That seems really absurd to me. Well, then you might say, they have diseases. But this is my point, we all have "diseases" and genetic variations from the original creation. I know that because we all die. The only perfect creation is one that doesn't die. So, we are all changed in our appearance and talents and abilities and likes and dislikes to formulate this test. If we all had perfect bodies I would go as far as saying that we would look all very similar and likely nothing like how we look now (unless you think will live forever in your current state and you think you have a perfect body of course - which would be a very arrogant statement).

The other thing to think about is the fact that we say that we are all created in the image of God and yet there is a lot of variability in the way humans look. Just think of the tallest man ever 8'11'' compared to the shortest 1'10''. Looking at just one aspect, height, if there is a 7' variability and yet we are all created in the image of God then that is how far off we could be from God's physical person in just one aspect. When we are all restored to the original creation which is Adam and Eve, the perfect version of our bodies, restoring every 'hair of the head' we will all look quite different from the way we now look. Our current look is one of millions of genetic mutations and defects and even "curses".

It is here where I believe you are misunderstanding what I'm saying, or missing the point. Are you familiar with Plato's Theory of Forms? Perhaps a discussion of Plato's forms will be helpful in illustrating my point.

Plato describes that the, "...forms are eternal and changeless, but enter into a partnership with changeable matter, to produce the objects and examples of concepts, we perceive in the temporal world. These are always in a state of becoming, and may participate in a succession of forms. The ever changing temporal world can thus, only be the source of opinion. Plato likens the opinions derived from our senses, to the perception of shadows of real objects, cast upon the wall of a cave. True knowledge however, is the perception of the archetypal forms themselves, which are real, eternal, and unchanging (Plato's Theory of Forms, Ian Bruce).

When I speak of the "form" of our body, I am suggesting that our physical bodies are patterned after the unchanging and eternal archetypal form of Man, which archetype is God's body. Thus, all things, all creatures, have been physically patterned after their eternal forms, all things in their sphere (D&C 77:2). This doesn't mean that the physical body or structure of a thing perfectly matches the eternal form that it is patterned after, but that it is in it's likeness and in a "state of becoming."

Now, before I take my comments to their logical ends, I want to inquire to see what you understand and feel about my comments in this post?

Regards,

Finrock

PS

This post should also encompass the comments in your latest post to me.

Edited May 4, 2010 by Finrock
corrected spelling and grammar

[Finrock]

Hello again Seminarysnoozer. :)

I think where a lot of LDS get confused about this topic is that a lot of leaders of the church (in my opinion) make statements like, we are the same "species" as God and we are the offspring of God to help those of other beliefs that we had a pre-existence. That the spirit was not created with earthly birth, that it existed before. Those statements mostly are made to support that idea, not to argue against evolution of the body (unless specifically stated so). I think, (ask prisonchaplain) most Christians believe we began our existence in this life, with our birth here.

I don't think those statements should be used as any kind of "proof" against evolution. I think I am more okay with the idea of evolution because I can separate the body from the spirit. I know that I am not my body, I am my spirit. This body is a temporary existence. If one understands that, the possibilities for how this body is made and prepared for our existence here opens up. If one believes that the mortal corrupted body we possess somehow is God's procreation, then we are limited in how that can come about. The way to make sense of this is to know that we are not our bodies, we are our spirits and will eventually have a permanent body but it is not this one. Our spirit, of course, remains the same one, the same "species" of God.

Even though a big part of what you are describing I think is addressed in my last post to you, I did want to specifically deny two assertions your posts associates with me.

1. I don't know how else to state this than how I've stated it, but I am not arguing against evolution. I have not been using the statements that "we are the offspring of God" as a proof against evolution. I have been using it as a proof against the perpetuation of the idea that Adam was not the first man or that Adam evolved from "lower orders of the animal creation."

2. I've never suggested that we are begotten sons and daughters of God in the flesh.

Hopefully as we explore my other post, we can clear up any further misunderstandings between us. :)

Regards,

Finrock

Edited May 4, 2010 by Finrock
added emphasis to "in the flesh"