human evolution, teachings within the temple and exalting ordinances.

[riverogue]

So my scenario goes like this- Suppose an otherwise penitant, dedicated, loving professor of anthropology, who believes that God created humans by intelligent design through evolution. He believes that God indeed called Joseph Smith to restore the church along with the living prophet Thomas S. Monson. However he believes that God reveals his doctrine to the church line upon line, precept upon precept, hence the Lord may be weening his children off of certain divinely inspired moral stories through recent inspired scientific discoveries so that they can more fully understand his ways. This professor converts to the LDS faith and wants his endowment. Must he reject what he believes in human evolution, accepting literally the Adam and Eve teachings learned in his endowment ceremony, as apposed to it being a divinely inspired parable, to receive his endowment, temple marriage, and exaltation? Can he no longer teach anthropology to his students so as not to be apposed to currently held doctrines?

[Dravin]

No.

[Bensalem]

So my scenario goes like this- Suppose an otherwise penitant, dedicated, loving professor of anthropology, who believes that God created humans by intelligent design through evolution. He believes that God indeed called Joseph Smith to restore the church along with the living prophet Thomas S. Monson. However he believes that God reveals his doctrine to the church line upon line, precept upon precept, hence the Lord may be weening his children off of certain divinely inspired moral stories through recent inspired scientific discoveries so that they can more fully understand his ways. This professor converts to the LDS faith and wants his endowment. Must he reject what he believes in human evolution, accepting literally the Adam and Eve teachings learned in his endowment ceremony, as apposed to it being a divinely inspired parable, to receive his endowment, temple marriage, and exaltation? Can he no longer teach anthropology to his students so as not to be apposed to currently held doctrines?

No, he is not required to relinquish his beliefs on evolution, be it by intelligent design or by Darwinism. And yes, he may continue to teach his own scientific theories at school.

Alienation of learned minds is not part of Christ’s program in the LDS church.

Christian fascism which requires a certain thinking on the matter will fail at stopping the growth of human knowledge just as surely as the Nazi tyrannizes resulted in their failure to acquire the atomic bomb before the US.

These “do-gooders” of the Christian faith who insist on things like a seven (24-hour) day creation or promote dinosaurs existing with Adam and Eve will fall to the wayside of historical religious folly the same as the Catholics did in the case of Galileo.

[MarginOfError]

And how can you be so sure that the Adam and Eve represented in the temple are literal representations? There's a good case to be made that they are metaphorical.

[Blackmarch]

So my scenario goes like this- Suppose an otherwise penitant, dedicated, loving professor of anthropology, who believes that God created humans by intelligent design through evolution. He believes that God indeed called Joseph Smith to restore the church along with the living prophet Thomas S. Monson. However he believes that God reveals his doctrine to the church line upon line, precept upon precept, hence the Lord may be weening his children off of certain divinely inspired moral stories through recent inspired scientific discoveries so that they can more fully understand his ways. This professor converts to the LDS faith and wants his endowment. Must he reject what he believes in human evolution, accepting literally the Adam and Eve teachings learned in his endowment ceremony, as apposed to it being a divinely inspired parable, to receive his endowment, temple marriage, and exaltation? Can he no longer teach anthropology to his students so as not to be apposed to currently held doctrines?

Nope nothing in the scriptures or the temples says that either option is the absolute truth.....

I'd probably vote for evolution as theres quite a bit that seems to point in that direction both in the scriptures as well as science.

[NeuroTypical]

When you go to the temple, you sit next to people who believe the earth is 4.54 billion years old, and people who believe it's 5000 years old. Someone is right and someone is wrong (unless they're both wrong). But we mormons can pretty much do everything we need to do on this earth, and be everything we need to be, without having to adhere to one side of the evolution vs. creation debate.

This is a non-issue.

LM

[rameumptom]

Given that the Creation story in the temple and the various creation versions in LDS scripture all differ, I'd say there is plenty of room for believing that at least portions of it are symbolic. I think God leaves it up to us to determine for ourselves just which things are literally true, while insisting that we believe the key concepts behind it (literal or symbolic): God created the world, mankind fell from God's grace, Christ's atonement restores us to His presence.

We tend to focus too much on whether things are historical or scientific, and miss out on the important issues. We swat at gnats and swallow camels. We miss out on the atonement by over-focusing on how the Creation occurred.

[Traveler]

When you go to the temple, you sit next to people who believe the earth is 4.54 billion years old, and people who believe it's 5000 years old. Someone is right and someone is wrong (unless they're both wrong). But we mormons can pretty much do everything we need to do on this earth, and be everything we need to be, without having to adhere to one side of the evolution vs. creation debate.

This is a non-issue.

LM

You are partly correct - however it is possible to go to the temple and sit next to a translated saint of G-d as well as someone in the midst of apostasy. The point being that such things should not occupy our minds and hearts while attending the temple. Our awareness of others concerns our understanding of the atonement and our abilities to forgive – thus the focus is with ourselves and not who we may be sitting next to or their position before G-d.

If a saint of G-d cannot decipher any truth and the value of any truth concerning the creation of things– it is unlikely that they will understand many principles of G-dliness more clearly. However, it does appear that the ability to love and have compassion for others surpasses the knowledge and understanding of any truthful doctrine.

The Traveler

[Seminarysnoozer]

So my scenario goes like this- Suppose an otherwise penitant, dedicated, loving professor of anthropology, who believes that God created humans by intelligent design through evolution. He believes that God indeed called Joseph Smith to restore the church along with the living prophet Thomas S. Monson. However he believes that God reveals his doctrine to the church line upon line, precept upon precept, hence the Lord may be weening his children off of certain divinely inspired moral stories through recent inspired scientific discoveries so that they can more fully understand his ways. This professor converts to the LDS faith and wants his endowment. Must he reject what he believes in human evolution, accepting literally the Adam and Eve teachings learned in his endowment ceremony, as apposed to it being a divinely inspired parable, to receive his endowment, temple marriage, and exaltation? Can he no longer teach anthropology to his students so as not to be apposed to currently held doctrines?

I agree with what has been said so far. The temple is for the individual attending the session, to learn more about her/his relationship with God and the plan. I don't think it was ever intended as a lecture on anthropology.

As Russel M. Nelson said, "In this house of learning, we are taught in the Lord’s way. His ways are not our ways. We should not be surprised if teaching techniques differ from those employed in educational pursuits more familiar to us. Temple ordinances and covenants have been an integral part of the gospel since the days of Adam and Eve. Anciently, symbols were used to teach profound truths, and this method of instruction is used in the temple today.

It is necessary, therefore, that we ponder the symbols presented in the temple and see the mighty realities for which each symbol stands. “The temple ordinances are so imbued with symbolic meaning as to provide a lifetime of productive contemplation and learning.” The teachings of the temple are beautifully simple and simply beautiful. They are understood by those who have had little opportunity for education, yet they can excite the intellect of the highly educated."

Edited November 30, 2010 by Seminarysnoozer
took out specific words, sorry

[MarginOfError]

I agree with what has been said so far. The temple is for the individual attending the session, to learn more about her/his relationship with God and the plan. I don't think it was ever intended as a lecture on anthropology. Without saying too much, I believe the word "imagine" is used in the temple.

That is definitely too much information to share, and it should be stricken from the record.

I thought it was well accepted that the only words spoken in that temple that we are allowed to share are the articles.

[tubaloth]

In the end I think it is a matter of not taking God out of Religion. If individual can reconcile his beliefs with the LDS teachings I see no problem with it. The problem would occur if the LDS teachings (Revelation) are lowered for other theories.

For example in 2 Nephi we know death did not come into the world until after the fall. If an individual can still believe in the teachings of the Book of Mormon and what they have learned then I see no problem with it.

[sweetiepie]

Ok, so I am a psychology major, and SAH mother of 5, so bear with my thoughts...but didn't the world have to go through its own evolution to prepare to sustain life? Wasn't part of that the dinasours, etc? Then birds, mammals, and fish had to evolve? Doesn't that make sense that humans had to evolve? I have a crazy thought...maybe (cavemen for lack of a better word...or would homosapiens work?) did not have an actual spirit inside of them? Maybe they were less intelligent and evolved into what we know as Adam and Eve? The first humans with a spirit?

Ok tear that one apart. :)

[Vegemighty]

I've also heard theories that the adam and eve story is a recollection of the time hunter-gatherers and farmer-herders were first starting to come into conflict. The garden of eden is the time were you could just walk into the forest and eat its bounty, and then the fall is them having to toil in the fields to make grain. Reflecting the transition from one type of society to another. And then the conflict between cain and abel also reflects the conflicts between hunter-gatherers and the workers of land.

I just thought that was an interesting take on it.

[riverogue]

I've been perplexed because when I attend church, I often hear people baring testimony about literalness of the stories in the scriptures. Sometimes they say that God would not deceive us so those stories have to be literal. I see it as a two way street, though. The way I thought about it yesterday, either the stories in the scriptures are literal and God is allowing us to be deceived by certain theories of science, or that God has allowed us to be deceived by certain stories of the scriptures written by man but include moral inspirations from God,but which are historically false, and that science that contradicts it, are for the most part true. For an example of the latter: writings in the scriptures include the fall of Adam which brought death into the world, but that we are deceived by whatever righteous intention of God in all the evidence he created about death in the world before Adam. In contrast, the thousands of feet of limestone above Provo is all due to calcium carbonate shells and skeletons of dead sea life accumulated over millions of years. You can actually look at different limestones under a microscope and see the fossils. When you look at those mountains your actually looking at trillions upon trillions of compressed fossils. I think there is no way that could accumulate in a few thousand years. One also sees the thousands of fossil remains of primitive hominids with evidence of a successive line of development into homo Sapiens. For the case of excessive but interest oriented ramblings, let me say I like birds. Did you know that we can inject their eggs with a type of hormone activating genes that lay dormant, causing them to grow teeth like dinosaurs. (I wonder if scientists could do something similar in humans, like grow a tail). Anyway, dinosaurs are classified into two main groups the latter to develop in the Mesozoic are called ornithosaurs which have beaks, low bone density, hip bone structures, young ones living in nests being waited upon by their parents, and sometimes downy feathers like birds. Peleontologists now almost universally agree that birds are actually living dinosaurs, descended from one particular type. They are not much different from the dinos we dig up, than whales are from the 4 legged mammals they derived their homogenous hip and leg bones from. However, it seems to some as if God created that false evidence so that we can rely on faith in his revealings within the scriptures about creationism, and the mortal fall of mankind along with other life. I've been thinking that isn't really faith as it is dare I say ignorance. I wonder how lost early man might have felt if God didn't inspire some type of explanation of their mortal beginnings that they were able to understand, then throwing in inspired morals to help them live happy. But I think God's best definition of faith is for example: the student finally passing is algebra class after failing it twice, a unemployed father finding a job to feed his family after a long time of earnestly searching, or for the methadone or porn addict overcoming their addiction. Just some things I've been thinking, and I've I rambled long enough, so I'll let ya'll go.

Edited December 1, 2010 by riverogue

[GeneC]

I call it God's irrevocable facts and truth vs the philosophies of man.

15&16 The Footstool of God

Evolution and Natural Law

This working article of faith among thorough-going naturalists explains the pervasiveness of the evolutionary doctrine among cosmologists, geologists, paleontologists, biologists, and other scientists. While men should not be faulted for advancing any hypothesis they choose in their search for truth, some can be justifiably criticized for practicing sleight of hand and transforming questionable theory into unquestionable fact.

Such unscientific science has led to the widespread practice of arbitrarily dismissing every theory but the evolutionary theory for the origin of the universe, the earth, life, man, and human culture. For too many intellectuals, evolution is the key which unlocks the door to all beginnings.

Why do these men insist upon exalting theory to the heights of incontrovertible fact? Whatever their motives, one thing is indisputable: not a single aspect of the companion theories of cosmic, organic, and cultural evolution is dependent upon any mind, any power, any cause or any god other than natural law itself. Evolution is a self-generating process.

The naturalistic approach to the question of origins is defended as being objective, but the dogmatic stand of some of its practitioners suggests that their "objectivity" is actually a euphemism for pride. No human enterprise can justify the absence of humility—the recognition of God's works and ways and man's fundamental dependence upon him. (See D&C 59:21.) A proud science is no more excusable than a proud man. Orson Pratt observed:

Now, the Lord has powers beyond those with which we are acquainted. He has almighty powers. He has only intrusted us his children of mortality with a knowledge of some of the more gross principles and laws of this fallen creation, and when we, through hard study, search out the relation of one law to another, we think we are learned men; but I think when we learn in that great university the sciences of which the Lord our God is the great Teacher, we shall learn more rapidly and comprehend more easily the things of his kingdom, than we now do the things of time. (JD, 19:294.)

While the theistic science of the middle ages can be rightly criticized for its prejudices, some of its present offspring are guilty of an even greater sin: by enthroning law they have dethroned the Law-giver. The wedding of science to natural law is a marriage of convenience, not of necessity. Scientific research does not require the abandonment of faith in God's sovereignty over law. That faith, so emphasized in Christianity, was simply surrendered for the lesser faith of naturalism.

The history of science is usually taught in a manner to make religion—"the church"—an arch-villain in the piece. The persecution of Galileo and others is recounted in a manner to suggest that all religion is an enemy to open inquiry. Consequently, the notion is almost universal that in so far as the physical order is concerned, religion has nothing to say and no right to say it. The tyranny of blind faith has been supplanted by the tyranny of blind reason.

Modern evolutionary theory is a dark child of the unholy alliance between science and natural law. It is the construct of creation imposed by human reason in the absence of an overruling intelligence. In other words, evolution is the only process man can conceive of for creation without a Creator.

This is precisely why evolution, in all of its aspects, involves incredibly long periods of time. It is illogically assumed that anything can happen if there is sufficient time. The failure to demonstrate so naive a notion does not deter evolutionists from repeating it like a litany.

However, the truth is that there are aspects of creation that are truly miraculous. They involve laws which transcend the understanding of man—laws which were and are uniquely employed by the Almighty in his own creative labors. But those who insist upon explaining everything on strictly naturalistic principles deny the miraculous and, perforce, the Miracle Worker.

[JohnnyRudick]

Given that the Creation story in the temple and the various creation versions in LDS scripture all differ, I'd say there is plenty of room for believing that at least portions of it are symbolic. I think God leaves it up to us to determine for ourselves just which things are literally true, while insisting that we believe the key concepts behind it (literal or symbolic): God created the world, mankind fell from God's grace, Christ's atonement restores us to His presence.

We tend to focus too much on whether things are historical or scientific, and miss out on the important issues. We swat at gnats and swallow camels. We miss out on the atonement by over-focusing on how the Creation occurred.

And yet, tray as I must, I find no contradiction in the Scriptures.

Just points of reference.

[Dravin]

This is precisely why evolution, in all of its aspects, involves incredibly long periods of time.

You're getting sloppy. Evolution as an explanation for the diversity of life (which it is but that's not every aspect of evolution) is postulaed as happening over many, many years. However to say it takes incredibly long periods of time in all its aspects is false. The average beak size of an island bird changing as a result of drought to take advantage of tougher seeds (not a hypothetical) is evolution as is the evolution that can be observed in HIV. Those examples are aspects of evolution and do not take incredibly long periods of time. Evolution is an explanation for why and how things change. It is applied on both the diversity of life scale of things and the individual species or population level and need not encompass the shift from one species to another like a lot of people think of when they think of evolution.

Edited December 1, 2010 by Dravin

[mightynancy]

The way I thought about it yesterday, either the stories in the scriptures are literal and God is allowing us to be deceived by certain theories of science, or that God has allowed us to be deceived by certain stories of the scriptures

These aren't the only options. In his mortal ministry (and presumably before and after), Jesus Christ taught in parables. He didn't really mean to instruct us on gardening, did he? Using metaphor as an instructive method can hardly be called deception.

[Dravin]

These aren't the only options. In his mortal ministry (and presumably before and after), Jesus Christ taught in parables. He didn't really mean to instruct us on gardening, did he? Using metaphor as an instructive method can hardly be called deception.

Likewise if I'm teaching a child about sex I don't start them off with a Intro to Human Sexuality 101 lesson. I probably start with, "When a Mommy loves a Daddy..." type lesson. I'm with LM in that evolution, either the denial or acceptance there of, is not important to our exaltation or even our spiritual health in general. So it doesn't seem strange to me that God might gloss over the creation with a simplistic version of events.

I surely believe God created this world and the life upon it. It's a question of mechanism not author. I guess we'll know the exact mechanism and debate will end when D&C 101:32-33 comes to pass.

Edited December 1, 2010 by Dravin

[rameumptom]

Ok, so I am a psychology major, and SAH mother of 5, so bear with my thoughts...but didn't the world have to go through its own evolution to prepare to sustain life? Wasn't part of that the dinasours, etc? Then birds, mammals, and fish had to evolve? Doesn't that make sense that humans had to evolve? I have a crazy thought...maybe (cavemen for lack of a better word...or would homosapiens work?) did not have an actual spirit inside of them? Maybe they were less intelligent and evolved into what we know as Adam and Eve? The first humans with a spirit?

Ok tear that one apart. :)

Hugh Nibley suggested, based upon statements made by Joseph Smith and BH Roberts, that this earth has gone through many Destruction/Creation periods. We see this in the scientific record, as 90% of all life was destroyed about 250 million years ago (probably from an asteroid strike). This led to the rise of the dinosaurs, who ruled until about 60 million years ago, when another asteroid destroyed them and a major portion of life on earth. This led to the rise of mammals, who evolved from little rodents in dinosaur days to what we see now.

Then, the last Ice Age, about 10,000 years ago destroyed more species (mammoths, mastodons, sabre tooth tiger, Neanderthals), and opened the door for modern man.

The Flood is another Destruction/Creation story that fits into this genre.

So, with this hypothesis (it isn't a theory, as it cannot be tested), we can see how Joseph Smith's and scriptural teachings can better jibe with science. Personally, this is the version I tend to go with, until a better hypothesis appears.

Was Adam evolved from apes? Don't know. Don't care. What I do know is he was chosen to be the first man, whether that is first physical man on earth, or first spiritual man chosen to have the gospel, I don't know.

[Traveler]

One of the great problems in history has been the reaction of “establishment” to new ideas. We see this scenario played out over and over. As Jesus walked the earth as the promised Messiah his greatest opposition was the very society that existed for the primary purpose of receiving him. When Joseph Smith walked out of the sacred grove his greatest opposition was the established religions dedicated to the worship of that G-d with whom young Joseph just conversed. By their very nature in the discovery and process of discovery and new concepts, the very process of learning and advancing understanding and wisdom is in opposition to established concepts and understanding.

One of the basic theistic concepts coming out of the dark ages is that G-d is a mystical being so superior to man that it is impossible for man to comprehend anything about G-d or his ways. This allowed for the inability of the current religious or science to explain anything in a reasonable manner. G-d and his works were defined as unknowable and even unreasonable to man. The very definition of faith took on the meaning of believing regardless of or lack of any reasonable thought or observation.

I have hoped that within the LDS community the spirit would influence a unity of understanding of any and all truths. It is my understanding that the Holy Ghost will testify regarding all truths. Why then is science viewed so differently among the society of the saints? Many times in discussions with well meaning saints I have been asked how I can believe in evolution and still be an active member. My answer has always been that I have diligently studied and then sought the spirit in my desire to understand. It appears to me that many among even the saints are resistant to new revelation – especially when it is in contrast to traditional thinking. That there is a fear to learn.

I have been critical of those good saints that criticize evolution primarily because they are ignorant of what evolution entails. I have tried to learn to govern my thoughts of criticism. I enjoy discussing principles and things of scientific nature but I do not enjoy accusations or criticisms. I am comfortable that any truth I learn in science will only affirm my understanding of G-d and his works. I have discovered that many are not comfortable with learning or discussing these things. I also realize that it is not necessary to cram truth down the throat of anyone. There are more important issues than explaining evolution to those hostile to the concept.

Evolution is change. Any evidence of change is evidence of evolution. In my mind an evolutionist is someone that believes that the principles and laws associated with change are constant and can be studied and understood.

As for Adam and Eve – I believe that the process of creating bodies for them followed the same principles and laws as the bodies created for their direct descendents that inhabit this earth currently. I see nothing in scripture to doubt this. I believe creation is not such a great mystery – that if we like we can study and learn the processes by which G-d creates every creature we encounter. I also realize that there are significant “powers” of opposition to man learning and understanding anything about G-d or how G-d does anything.

The Traveler

Edited December 1, 2010 by Traveler

[GeneC]

You're getting sloppy. Evolution as an explanation for the diversity of life (which it is but that's not every aspect of evolution) is postulating as happening over many, many years. However to say it takes incredibly long periods of time in all its aspects is false. The average beak size of an island bird changing as a result of drought to take advantage of tougher seeds (not a hypothetical) is evolution as is the evolution that can be observed in HIV. Those examples are aspects of evolution and do not take incredibly long periods of time. Evolution is an explanation for why and how things change. That it applied on both the diversity of life scale of things and the individual species or population level and need not encompass the shift from one species to another like a lot of people think of when they think of evolution.

Yeah, I'm sloppy as all get out!!!!!

But;, so then must Rodney Turner be sloppy, (The Footstool of God) Earth in Scripture and Prophecy) pages 15 and 16.

But so then must Boyd K Packer be sloppy, sir, as he states in his book

(Let Not Your Heart Be Troubled) pages 289-290 stated,

"No lesson is more manifest in nature than that all living things do as the Lord commanded in the Creation. They reproduce "after their own kind" (gee, where did I hear that Oakland, Salt Lake, Provo, Saint George, Manti?) (see Moses 2:12, 24). They follow the pattern of their parentage. Everyone knows that: every four-year old knows that! A bird will not become an animal nor a fish: a mammal will not beget reptiles; nor "do men gather . . . figs of thistles" (Mat-thew 7:16).

In the countless billions of opportunities in the reproduction of living things, one kind does not beget another. If a species ever does cross, the offspring generally cannot reproduce. The pattern for all life is the pattern of the parentage.

This is demonstrated in so many obvious ways that even an ordinary mind should understand it. Surely no one with reverence for God could believe that His children evolved from slime or from reptiles. (Although one can easily imagine that those who accept the theory of evolution don't show much enthusiasm for genealogical research!) The theory of evolution (and it is a theory) will have an entirely different dimension when the workings of God in creation are fully revealed.

Since every living thing follows the pattern of its parentage, are we to suppose that God had some other strange pattern in mind for His offspring? Surely we, His children, are not, in the language of science, a different species than He is.

What is in error, then, when we use the term godhood to describe the ultimate destiny of mankind? We may now be young in our progression—juvenile, even infantile, compared with God. Nevertheless, in the eternities to come, if we are worthy, we may be like unto Him, enter His presence, "see as [we] are seen, and know as [we] are known," and receive "a fullness" • (D&C 76:94).

This doctrine is in no way at variance with the scriptures. Nevertheless it is easy to understand why some Christians reject it, because it introduces the possibility that man may achieve godhood.

Boyd K. Packer

except for (gee, where did I hear that Oakland, Salt Lake, Provo, Saint George, Manti?)

Edited December 1, 2010 by ThankGodForRepentence

[HiJolly]

Yeah, I'm sloppy as all get out!!!!!

But;, so then must Rodney Turner be sloppy, (The Footstool of God) Earth in Scripture and Prophecy) pages 15 and 16.

I'm not sure what Bro/Dr. Turner says therein, but I really appreciated his Master's Thesis back in 1953 entitled "The Position of Adam in Latter-day Saint Scripture and Theology". Excellent article! Helped me understand the Adam-God teachings of Brigham Young a lot more than I had previously.

But so then must Boyd K Packer be sloppy, sir, as he states in his book

(Let Not Your Heart Be Troubled) pages 289-290 stated,

<snip>

Boyd K. Packer

except for (gee, where did I hear that Oakland, Salt Lake, Provo, Saint George, Manti?)

Yes, that is very "sloppy". It is obvious that President Packer doesn't understand much of anything regarding truth revealed by God through the bio sciences.

He's still a great man and excellent Church administrator, who has assisted my family personally for which I am immensely grateful.

The Traveler's post was excellent.

HiJolly

[Seminarysnoozer]

Ok, so I am a psychology major, and SAH mother of 5, so bear with my thoughts...but didn't the world have to go through its own evolution to prepare to sustain life? Wasn't part of that the dinasours, etc? Then birds, mammals, and fish had to evolve? Doesn't that make sense that humans had to evolve? I have a crazy thought...maybe (cavemen for lack of a better word...or would homosapiens work?) did not have an actual spirit inside of them? Maybe they were less intelligent and evolved into what we know as Adam and Eve? The first humans with a spirit?

Ok tear that one apart. :)

I have brought that idea up in previous conversations about evolution which seems to be ignored for the most part because I think in general most LDS believe every living creature has its own unique separate spirit associated with that entity. I am not sure about that and still ponder the possibility of life without an individual spirit attached to it. Like the heart kept alive for a length of time ready to be transplanted into someone else after the person has died. Or the fetus in the womb that does not produce a "quickening" and is stillborn. etc.

I think this is a reasonable idea, by definition if Adam and Eve were the first hominids to have an "intelligence" spirit put into them, then they would be the first man. And if the life forms before that had no individual spirit attached to them then there could be no "death" as death is the separation of the spirit from the body and the spirit lives on as a separate entity. Just like the earth has a "spirit" form, or a rock or the moon has a spirit form, I don't think it is too far off to say that other creatures may have that kind of spirit. Otherwise, if there are individual spirits for each rock out there that would be a lot of spirits, and if I break a rock in half have I created now two spirits? Just like harvesting a kidney from someone who remains alive, as the kidney is sitting in the red cooler, does it have a separate spirit attached to it? ... it is alive.

[Dravin]

Edit: Never-mind, it looks like HiJolly has addressed it.

Edit 2: Thank, you might want to reconsider your use of bold. In internet circles is comes across as screaming when used to such an extent (in small amounts it's stressing). It probably undermines your intent when you come across as someone ranting and on the edge of losing control. I notice some of your bolded text (all of it?) is supposed to be quotation. If so I recommend the quote feature on the board. That the text you are 'shouting' may be from Elder Packer doesn't necessarily change the perception much.

Edited December 1, 2010 by Dravin