Evolution, The Gospel, Science

[Hemidakota]

Especially, having ‘clean’ genetic codes that can propagate without problems.

[Justice]

You are proposing there are two begotten children of God then?

There was only One begotten in the flesh, or in mortality. It is often not completed, but that is the intent. Adam, being born into immortality, then falling into mortality by his choice, does not fit the same criteria as Christ.

John 1:

14 And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth.

2 Nephi 25:

12 But, behold, they shall have wars, and rumors of wars; and when the day cometh that the Only Begotten of the Father, yea, even the Father of heaven and of earth, shall manifest himself unto them in the flesh, behold, they will reject him, because of their iniquities, and the hardness of their hearts, and the stiffness of their necks.

Jacob 4:

11 Wherefore, beloved brethren, be reconciled unto him through the atonement of Christ, his Only Begotten Son, and ye may obtain a resurrection, according to the power of the resurrection which is in Christ, and be presented as the first-fruits of Christ unto God, having faith, and obtained a good hope of glory in him before he manifesteth himself in the flesh.

Resurrection of Christ only being possible because He was born flesh or mortal.

D&C 93:

11 And I, John, bear record that I beheld his glory, as the glory of the Only Begotten of the Father, full of grace and truth, even the Spirit of truth, which came and dwelt in the flesh, and dwelt among us.

He was the Only Begotten Son in the flesh, or in mortalilty, or after the fall.

GS Father In Heaven

The Father of the spirits of all mankind (Ps. 82: 6; Matt. 5: 48; John 10: 34; Rom. 8: 16-17; Gal. 4: 7; 1 Jn. 3: 2). Jesus is his Only Begotten Son in the flesh. Man has been commanded to obey and give reverence to the Father and to pray to him in Jesus’ name.

Isaac was in similitude of God's only begotten son, even though Isaac was not Abraham's only son. He was considered his only begotten son because he was the only one born in the covenant (Jacob 4: 5,11).

Genesis 22:

2 And he said, Take now thy son, thine only son Isaac, whom thou lovest, and get thee into the land of Moriah; and offer him there for a burnt offering upon one of the mountains which I will tell thee of.

• • •

12 And he said, Lay not thine hand upon the lad, neither do thou any thing unto him: for now I know that thou fearest God, seeing thou hast not withheld thy son, thine only son from me.

• • •

16 And said, By myself have I sworn, saith the Lord, for because thou hast done this thing, and hast not withheld thy son, thine only son:

I believe the scriptures are clear that God is our Father in Heaven. To think any different would be putting a twist on those words. I believe Adam and Eve were born the same way all men and women were born throughout all time and eternity, but they were born immortal because their Mother was immortal.

Edited May 24, 2010 by Justice

[Moksha]

Curious, where do you think the Land of Nod and Land of Shum are located today?

Don't really know, but I suspect the Valley of Shadow was in Newark, New Jersey.

[Hemidakota]

Ok...

[Seminarysnoozer]

There was only One begotten in the flesh, or in mortality. It is often not completed, but that is the intent. Adam, being born into immortality, then falling into mortality by his choice, does not fit the same criteria as Christ.

I believe the scriptures are clear that God is our Father in Heaven. To think any different would be putting a twist on those words. I believe Adam and Eve were born the same way all men and women were born throughout all time and eternity, but they were born immortal because their Mother was immortal.

Your suggestion that Adam was also begotten of God in the flesh (immortal flesh) is your opinion right? There is no gospel doctrine to that effect.

I am curious how you think your immortal body will be made after this life. Does it have to be procreated by someone? or can it just be made, created?

And if you believe that the body has to be procreated and yet we believe that immortal beings can procreate spirits, how is that done? Is there some switch that they can turn on and off to determine if the offspring comes out spirit or flesh? That seems really odd to me.

I think one has to believe that either we are literal offspring of God in the spirit or we are literal offspring in the flesh. I don't think it is possible to be both. Like you were suggesting with your discussion about Isaac, I think the "begotten" status has to do with being chosen of God as Isaac was not the only son. I think there is more in the gospel doctrine, at least the way I understand it, to support the idea that we are literal sons and daughters of God in the spirit. This body, just like our future perfect body is just a covering to the spirit, it is not who we really are, any more than the person who is born with trisomy 18 is who that person really is.

So, do you think the perfected body we receive after this life could be made or does it have to be procreated by some "immortal mother"? And if you think that could be made, there is no reason to think Adam's original created body has to be procreated.

The other thing to think about is that in a perfect world, there is no need to mix DNA, in my opinion. The process of forming a zygote from two gametes is inherently a process where there is an exchange or passing on certain genes from each parent to produce a new combination of genes (i.e evolutionary processes). Tell me, do you think that the genetic information between your Heavenly Father and Heavenly Mother differ so much that there is a requirement to have an exchange of genetic information? By suggesting that there is such a process amongst immortals is to say that there is a need for that kind of process which is also to say then that there is some randomness to the creation process of an immortal body. If the perfect body is really perfect, I see no need for a random exchange of genetic material between a male version and a female version of perfect because there would really be no exchange (except maybe the sexual genes if there is such a thing, but I can tell you for sure that wouldn't be left to 'flip of a coin'). Now, if you say, 'we don't know how it is done' etc., great! but then, why in the world do people say that Adam was born just like everyone else is. Unless you can say for sure that you know how a perfect body is made, just like the one you will receive after this life is over, you can't say that Adam was born just like every mortal body was born, you don't know that.

I think that the creation of Adam and Eve was unique, one that could fall. I think it had to be different to meet that unique situation, so there is every reason to say that it didn't have to happen "the same way all men and women were born."

[Hemidakota]

Your suggestion that Adam was also begotten of God in the flesh (immortal flesh) is your opinion right? There is no gospel doctrine to that effect.

If there were more time for Joseph to present this firsthand witness, it may had become doctrine today. Remember, by whom hands did the early Apostles learned much of the creation? Joseph Smith. There were times; they had closed door session between the brethren and the prophet.

Even if Joseph was quiet about this subject, his biggest fear was the early saints would of stone him for those revelatory insights that the Lord gave him. I have to agree with his sentiment. They were simple not ready to heed his words. Still today, we are left in the same position with the early Saints. More of what was revealed will be given to those who are lived into the millennium. The sealed plates and many other writings [knowledge] will come forth like a broken damn to those who inherit the next state of this earth.

Something to consider…

I am curious how you think your immortal body will be made after this life. Does it have to be procreated by someone? or can it just be made, created?

I really don’t think this was the intent of the posting. However, this is already explained by the restoration prophet and those in the Book of Mormon how two immortal beings produced a-mortal being. This is not created out of heavenly matter.

But it does question on how a translated person receives a glorified state? Or, even how this earth will inherit a celestial glory.

And if you believe that the body has to be procreated and yet we believe that immortal beings can procreate spirits, how is that done? Is there some switch that they can turn on and off to determine if the offspring comes out spirit or flesh? That seems really odd to me.

Adding to the intent of the previous poster, can a spirit bear a-mortal being? No. It will require two immortal beings to produce a-mortal being. As there is no creation methods that two spirit beings can produce offspring. It requires a higher form of life to create a lower form of life. This is why evolution theory fails every time. You simply cannot propagate from a lower to an higher form of life without assistance.

Is by birth, a-mortal being brought forth by natural birth? Yes! Is there another means beside birth, spirits are created and not born? I think the answer lies in the book of Genesis first couple of chapters on how spirits are created. Even spiritual matter [purer] use has to be formed and organized for the intelligence to inhabit the spirit body to make it functional. But, what is of the story of using physical matter to form and create an Adam or first human? It is a story but a gem that most members failed to realize the wealth of knowledge GOD has allowed to be written. It has a divine purpose for those who ‘eyes are open.’

I think that the creation of Adam and Eve was unique, one that could fall. I think it had to be different to meet that unique situation, so there is every reason to say that it didn't have to happen "the same way all men and women were born."

As most believe, no offense to Lehi interpretation of why they simply couldn’t have children in the garden was not because the body they occupied but knowledge to do so was very limited. However, there is another twist to this story that most would be surprised to think about, they simply were aware of it and did not act on it. But that is another post.

Was it a divine twist in preventing them to gain knowledge to do so? Yes and no. Yes because there offspring would be what? A-mortal being. They would not have same experience and choices that was presented to our Heavenly Parents, who went through those trials of mortality prior to their own exhortation. No. It was not part of the Plan of Salvation. Nor was Lucifer privy to the follow-on councils after he was removed from that sphere.

President Young, Apostle P. Pratt, and few others, concur that both Adams were brought to the garden. How could they possible of known this and why would they have stated this observation?

If I had to ask, via the Urim and Thummim the most important question, “GOD, reveal to me, the first Adam, whom was created and the head of what is term humans.”

Again, thanks for your postings and insights.

Edited May 25, 2010 by Hemidakota

[Seminarysnoozer]

I appreciate your responses too Hemidakota. I have thought about these topics more than I ever have because of this forum and I appreciate that. We've talked about similar topics in other threads so I won't dwell on that. I want to mention one other thought though, I think in this existence we give a lot of importance to what we know and what we see which is the physical existence. As I read through the scriptures and learn little by little about the gospel, admitting that my knowledge is small, it seems that the most important aspect of our existence is our spiritual nature. To me, it seems that that is who we really are. This body we have now is a mask, a covering and possibly even the veil itself. It suppresses our true nature and pulls us away from God. It is where the 'natural man' comes from. Whereas our spiritual being is good, starting out naive but driven by good intent and our Godly heritage comes from that. With that in mind, I see no need for our physical bodies here to have any kind of divine heritage only in that it is in the image of God and the likeness so that when we get our real physical bodies we have command over them fully. In this life, though, the body is mostly in control, it takes effort to overcome it's tendencies and that is why the natural man is an enemy to God. As this life is an artificial, probationary, trial period, like flying the flight simulator as opposed to the several million dollar jet airplane, there is no need to say that it is made in the same way that God's body is made, only in similitude to it. Just like the computer generated flight simulator machine is not made the same way the actual plane is made. Sure, it could be ... but there is no need to make it the same way.

[rameumptom]

Originally Posted by JohnnyRudick

Because we may have an exception, the rule is,

These are a literal decent.

. . .

Luke 3:37 Which was the son of Mathusala, which was the son of

Enoch, which was the son of Jared, which was the son of Maleleel,

which was the son of Cainan,

Luke 3:38 Which was the son of Enos, which was the son of Seth,

which was the son of Adam, which was the son of God.

Okay, then how do you explain the different genealogy in Matthew? Do we suddenly have to believe Jesus has two separate genealogies?

Or how about the way Judas Iscariot killed himself? Did he hang himself, or jump off a cliff? Or the men with Paul, did they hear or see the Lord? Shall I give more examples? Just which ones of these are "literal" and which ones are not?

How about the Creation? Was man created before or after the animals? Which story is correct, and which one is wrong?

This is the problem with going with a perfectly literal view of the scriptures is that there are discrepancies that should spell out in Large, Bold Letters that something is not quite right in the historical/literal department. When you Creationists can clearly explain these problems with the scriptures, and use good evidence to prove your point, THEN you can say we are interpreting the scriptures wrong. It does me no good to literally believe in the Creation story, when there are 5 different versions! Yes, I know something is going on here, but I'm not quite sure just what it is.

[Hemidakota]

Seminarysnoozer, have you ever heard of this phrase, "...we are a seven layer being..."?

[Seminarysnoozer]

Seminarysnoozer, have you ever heard of this phrase, "...we are a seven layer being..."?

No, but I've heard Shrek say he was like an onion.

[Hemidakota]

Nice...I truly laugh when I watch Shrek with the kids.

[Seminarysnoozer]

Adding to the intent of the previous poster, can a spirit bear a-mortal being? No. It will require two immortal beings to produce a-mortal being. As there is no creation methods that two spirit beings can produce offspring. It requires a higher form of life to create a lower form of life. This is why evolution theory fails every time. You simply cannot propagate from a lower to an higher form of life without assistance.

Is by birth, a-mortal being brought forth by natural birth? Yes! Is there another means beside birth, spirits are created and not born? I think the answer lies in the book of Genesis first couple of chapters on how spirits are created. Even spiritual matter [purer] use has to be formed and organized for the intelligence to inhabit the spirit body to make it functional. But, what is of the story of using physical matter to form and create an Adam or first human? It is a story but a gem that most members failed to realize the wealth of knowledge GOD has allowed to be written. It has a divine purpose for those who ‘eyes are open.’

You are using a few terms that come across as you are assuming they are common knowledge and maybe I am seeing that way because I don't have even common knowledge yet ... so, maybe you can help me understand.

1. What is "a-mortal"? is that simply mortal. Not sure if there is an added significance to the "a-".

2. You mentioned immortal beings creating a mortal being and argued that it requires a higher form of life to create a lower form of life. To me then, you are assuming that our current state is higher than that of the spirits without a body. I don't see it that way. Yes, our potential and our future state will be higher once we receive our glorified body. But, I don't think this existence, with this corrupted body that dies and that is separated from God would be considered a "higher" form. To me, it is a lower form, which makes this life a test, a probationary period. And, yes, spirits who did not keep their first estate are lower because they have been cast out and have no more potential. Obviously, we are not talking about those spirits.

Even having said that, I don't think "spiritual beings" created this body anyways. I believe our Heavenly Father created Adam and Eve's body, Heavenly Father a glorified being of flesh and bones.

3. I've seen this posted a few times and I don't understand this concept that intelligence "inhabits a spirit body." I thought the spirit body was made from intelligence material. The spirit body is intelligence, not that it is something that requires cohabitation to function. There are several uses of the word "intelligence" and this is what makes it confusing. But I don't think a spirit body can be made without using "intelligence" material which by separating it into a quantified amount and whatever process it is to do that results in forming the spirit being. I don't see it as a two step process, that a spirit being is born and then has to be placed into a "spirit body". I think the process of being spiritually born is that very process of creating a spirit body. Unlike the process of forming the soul of man which is the union of a spirit, a separate entity that can exist on it's own, entering another separate entity which can exist on it's own, the physical body. I can't comprehend a "spirit body" that exists as a separate entity moments before it receives intelligence to make it a spirit being. Because to make a spirit body, that requires "intelligence." Intelligence material is eternal and has always been around. But as soon as there is a description of "intelligences" or spirit beings, by definition, to me, that means they already have a spirit body. It comes down to deciding whether our "spirit bodies" are children of God or are we as individual intelligences are children of God. To me, it is one in the same, but if you separate it like that then you are suggesting that the "spirit body" alone is the child of God, not the formation of the individual entity of intelligence. .... sorry, I have probably confused the matter more, I hope you see where I am coming from though.

[JohnnyRudick]

There was only One begotten in the flesh, or in mortality. It is often not completed, but that is the intent. Adam, being born into immortality, then falling into mortality by his choice, does not fit the same criteria as Christ.

John 1:

14 And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth.

2 Nephi 25:

12 But, behold, they shall have wars, and rumors of wars; and when the day cometh that the Only Begotten of the Father, yea, even the Father of heaven and of earth, shall manifest himself unto them in the flesh, behold, they will reject him, because of their iniquities, and the hardness of their hearts, and the stiffness of their necks.

Jacob 4:

11 Wherefore, beloved brethren, be reconciled unto him through the atonement of Christ, his Only Begotten Son, and ye may obtain a resurrection, according to the power of the resurrection which is in Christ, and be presented as the first-fruits of Christ unto God, having faith, and obtained a good hope of glory in him before he manifesteth himself in the flesh.

Resurrection of Christ only being possible because He was born flesh or mortal.

D&C 93:

11 And I, John, bear record that I beheld his glory, as the glory of the Only Begotten of the Father, full of grace and truth, even the Spirit of truth, which came and dwelt in the flesh, and dwelt among us.

He was the Only Begotten Son in the flesh, or in mortalilty, or after the fall.

GS Father In Heaven

The Father of the spirits of all mankind (Ps. 82: 6; Matt. 5: 48; John 10: 34; Rom. 8: 16-17; Gal. 4: 7; 1 Jn. 3: 2). Jesus is his Only Begotten Son in the flesh. Man has been commanded to obey and give reverence to the Father and to pray to him in Jesus’ name.

Isaac was in similitude of God's only begotten son, even though Isaac was not Abraham's only son. He was considered his only begotten son because he was the only one born in the covenant (Jacob 4: 5,11).

Genesis 22:

2 And he said, Take now thy son, thine only son Isaac, whom thou lovest, and get thee into the land of Moriah; and offer him there for a burnt offering upon one of the mountains which I will tell thee of.

• • •

12 And he said, Lay not thine hand upon the lad, neither do thou any thing unto him: for now I know that thou fearest God, seeing thou hast not withheld thy son, thine only son from me.

• • •

16 And said, By myself have I sworn, saith the Lord, for because thou hast done this thing, and hast not withheld thy son, thine only son:

I believe the scriptures are clear that God is our Father in Heaven. To think any different would be putting a twist on those words. I believe Adam and Eve were born the same way all men and women were born throughout all time and eternity, but they were born immortal because their Mother was immortal.

This was the way I understood it;

Jesus was born in the flesh of an earthly

mother (Mary) by an immortal being (God).

Adam was born of immortal parents Pre-Fall.

Both are Sons of God, just different situations and mothers.

Jesus is the Only Begotten in the flesh. (Post-Fall)

[Traveler]

....

Adam was born of immortal parents Pre-Fall.

....

(Post-Fall)

Are you speculating or do you have a source?

The Traveler

[marianomarini]

There was a day when I looked at Adam & Eve story as literaly story. Thinking that is very difficult to explain genetics to man of 3 or 4 thousands years ago.

Now I've change my mind.

We can create robots from the dust. Now we can create a new cellula. Not yet able to create life maybe there will be a day when we'll can. So why not could God create man from the dust and give him life?

I think this is more scientific than beleive that it happen by chance.

Our limit is to continue to beleive that Man is the Higher form of intelligent in to the Universe.

Every time we discover something new we think that is the final land.

After some years we discover that it was a new begin.

I would be able to argue in English to show you as man continue to beleive to be in the middle of Universe. No more physicaly but mentally.

Science is not an answer to ALL questions. It apply to few aspects of life. It can't proove that my red is equal to your, it cannot prove what mind is, nor coscience and why we can understand mathematic, philosofy, ecc.

It seem to me that Einstein was rigth. The incredible is that man can understand the logic of universe. If this happen by chance is not a scientific issue.

Edited May 26, 2010 by marianomarini

[Hemidakota]

Are you speculating or do you have a source?

The Traveler

Astronomy, Papyrus, and Covenant - The Creation of Humankind, and Allegory?: A Note on Abraham 5:7, 14-16

Parley P. Pratt, Key to the Science of Theology, 5th ed. (Salt Lake City: Deseret News, 1893), 55—56.

Brigham Young, Discourses of Brigham Young, ed. John A. Widtsoe (Salt Lake City: Deseret Book, 1954), 104—5.

Edited May 26, 2010 by Hemidakota

[Moksha]

... have you ever heard of this phrase, "...we are a seven layer being..."?

Seven layers, eh? Most likely we would make an excellent dip for those new scoop Fritos.

[JohnnyRudick]

Are you speculating or do you have a source?

The Traveler

As I said

"This was the way I understood it; . . ."

Luke 3:37 Which was the son of Mathusala, which was the son of

Enoch, which was the son of Jared, which was the son of Maleleel,

which was the son of Cainan,

Luke 3:38 Which was the son of Enos, which was the son of Seth,

which was the son of Adam, which was the son of God.

Just an observation is all.

Adam had to have been born before the fall according to most scripture I read of the event of his entrance into the garden.

If he was born the same way we were and he is a son of God in the same line of context given in the genealogies, then I "speculate" that God did not have sex with a creature of this earth at that time.

But Jesus is listed as bein the only begotten Son of God and many LDS as I was growing up stress, "In the flesh" which make me "speculate" that having an earthly mother as the Scripture declares (unless there are some who "speculate" that is allegorical) and God as His Father by the power of the Holy Ghost, makes me think that Jesus would be the only Son of God in the fallen flesh after the fall.

The Scripture as usual does not come right out with it but placing Scripture with Scripture, keeping the context straight, makes me think in this direction.

[JohnnyRudick]

Astronomy, Papyrus, and Covenant - The Creation of Humankind, and Allegory?: A Note on Abraham 5:7, 14-16

Parley P. Pratt, Key to the Science of Theology, 5th ed. (Salt Lake City: Deseret News, 1893), 55—56.

Brigham Young, Discourses of Brigham Young, ed. John A. Widtsoe (Salt Lake City: Deseret Book, 1954), 104—5.

The texts of this link works for me.

I will go with that God created Adam in the Garden and breathed into his pre-fall body his spirit that was a begotten son of God.

That will work for me as well.

In other words, I am happy with this take as well.

[Traveler]

As I said

"This was the way I understood it; . . ."

Luke 3:37 Which was the son of Mathusala, which was the son of

Enoch, which was the son of Jared, which was the son of Maleleel,

which was the son of Cainan,

Luke 3:38 Which was the son of Enos, which was the son of Seth,

which was the son of Adam, which was the son of God.

Just an observation is all.

Adam had to have been born before the fall according to most scripture I read of the event of his entrance into the garden.

If he was born the same way we were and he is a son of God in the same line of context given in the genealogies, then I "speculate" that God did not have sex with a creature of this earth at that time.

But Jesus is listed as bein the only begotten Son of God and many LDS as I was growing up stress, "In the flesh" which make me "speculate" that having an earthly mother as the Scripture declares (unless there are some who "speculate" that is allegorical) and God as His Father by the power of the Holy Ghost, makes me think that Jesus would be the only Son of God in the fallen flesh after the fall.

The Scripture as usual does not come right out with it but placing Scripture with Scripture, keeping the context straight, makes me think in this direction.

Thank you – It appears to me that there are a number of possibilities surrounding Adam and Eve. I have considered a number of ideas and I have my favorite. But I am operating on speculation. Because of my scientific background I tend to believe that the way spirits acquire physical bodies today follows the same method as Adam and Eve. (Eccl. 1:9-11).

However, on one point, I believe I have different thought than you. I do not believe that Jesus was a partaker of the fall. It is my understanding that because of our fallen state we cannot atone for any sins and that the reason Jesus could atone for sins is because he was not fallen. This completes my understanding of the Fall because of Adam and the atonement because of Jesus.

The Traveler

[Traveler]

Astronomy, Papyrus, and Covenant - The Creation of Humankind, and Allegory?: A Note on Abraham 5:7, 14-16

Parley P. Pratt, Key to the Science of Theology, 5th ed. (Salt Lake City: Deseret News, 1893), 55—56.

Brigham Young, Discourses of Brigham Young, ed. John A. Widtsoe (Salt Lake City: Deseret Book, 1954), 104—5.

I think you should read your source - Parley is of the idea that Adam was formed in the same manner a brick is formed. This does not appear to me to be a source that Adam was borne of immortal parents.

The Traveler

[JohnnyRudick]

I think you should read your source - Parley is of the idea that Adam was formed in the same manner a brick is formed. This does not appear to me to be a source that Adam was borne of immortal parents.

The Traveler

It's not.

This seems to support the "Creation Model".:-)

[JohnnyRudick]

. . .However, on one point, I believe I have different thought than you. I do not believe that Jesus was a partaker of the fall. It is my understanding that because of our fallen state we cannot atone for any sins and that the reason Jesus could atone for sins is because he was not fallen. . . .

It is my understand from all that I have read on the subject,

Jesus could (also had the right to) atone for us because he was the Son of Mary.

Jesus had the ability where it was not possible for any other man,

because He is the Son of God.

[Seminarysnoozer]

However, on one point, I believe I have different thought than you. I do not believe that Jesus was a partaker of the fall. It is my understanding that because of our fallen state we cannot atone for any sins and that the reason Jesus could atone for sins is because he was not fallen. This completes my understanding of the Fall because of Adam and the atonement because of Jesus.

The Traveler

So you don't think he was mortal in this life? Isn't being mortal a fallen state?

[Seminarysnoozer]

The texts of this link works for me.

I will go with that God created Adam in the Garden and breathed into his pre-fall body his spirit that was a begotten son of God.

That will work for me as well.

In other words, I am happy with this take as well.

I think that also supports the idea that Jesus was the only begotten son of God, meaning the only son born of God in the flesh. Whereas Adam was not born, and therefore cannot be begotten by definition. Adam's body being created instead of born disqualifies him from being begotten in the flesh.