Useless Body Parts

[Vort]

I can't digest that right now. I'm going back to Primary.

I may be wrong, but I think what HiJolly was saying is that, in the context of their roles in the endowment presentation, Adam and Eve are placeholders and do not necessarily literally represent our first parents Adam and Eve. If this was his meaning, then he is undoubtedly correct, at least with some elements of the endowment presentation.

EDIT: Upon further reading of the thread, maybe I'm wrong about HiJolly's meaning. Fwiw, I completely believe in and accept the literal existence of Father Adam and Mother Eve. I also accept the reality of organic evolution, and spend very little time or effort trying to reconcile the two.

Edited May 17, 2012 by Vort

[annewandering]

Fwiw, I completely believe in and accept the literal existence of Father Adam and Mother Eve. I also accept the reality of organic evolution, and spend very little time or effort trying to reconcile the two.

I do think about it sometimes when I am staring at the walls. There are so many possibilities that it is impossible for me to narrow them down to only a couple of likeliest theories.

What I have always wondered is if the so called pre-man beings were not human then where to they fit into the eternal perspective. If they are pre-man then they are not human. But if they are preman they arent just animals either.

Maybe they were intelligences that were very similar to the ones that became spirit children of God but not as bright of light. Everything that exists, existed premortally.

[skalenfehl]

Wingnut, Dravin, I am not calling anyone out. Please. I do not wish to create contention either. And I usually edit my posts when I misspell things or need to clarify something. So let me back track. You said that you do not believe that the temple ceremonies are to be taken literally. Let's begin with that. Precisely what do you mean? Are you referring specifically do the endowment? I also wish to clarify that I in no way even implied that you are not clothed in righteousness, although the fact that you mention ceremonies does imply that you have been through the temple for one ordinance or another.

To clarify, what I said is that only members who receive their endowments are qualified to converse with the Lord through the veil. Literally. Whether in this life when we seek and receive the Second Comforter or when we eventually are brought before Christ after this mortal life. It is the very ordinance of the endowment that clothes our nakedness so that we become like Him when we finally meet Him. It is the ONLY way that we can qualify to be brought into His presence for no unclean thing can enter into His presence. The entire purpose of this ordinance is to give us the education and to literally endow us with power to do so. It has been this way since Adam and Eve. The brother of Jared is the perfect example of being endowed with knowledge and power to part the veil and be redeemed from the Fall of Adam in order to be brought back into His presence.

As for Adam and Eve, and in the spirit of staying on topic, they were created precisely as taught to us in the scriptures and in the temple, in the image of God. To teach otherwise, even to inject evolution and what not is to teach the precepts of men and mingling them with scripture. This defeats the purpose of the Atonement of Jesus Christ and the Creation of man.

[Dravin]

I also wish to clarify that I in no way even implied that you are not clothed in righteousness, although the fact that you mention ceremonies does imply that you have been through the temple for one ordinance or another.

You quoted her, and then went on about needing to be righteous and told her to study her scriptures. That's rather easily taken as a call to repentance (aka calling her out). If all you wanted to do was ask her exactly what she meant, all you need to do is ask that. If all you want to do is state why you believe the Endowment is 100% literal, or in what ways it is literal, then just state why you believe that is. Quoting someone directs your statement to that person without any sort of qualifier. And if what follows the quote boils down to, "You need to be righteous and study your scriptures." Yeah, it's gonna be taken as a calling out, your sign off of the post the above quote is taken from would rather easily be taken as more of the same. You basically sign off with, "You teach the precepts of men, mingled with scripture."

Edited May 17, 2012 by Dravin

[Dravin]

I may be wrong, but I think what HiJolly was saying is that, in the context of their roles in the endowment presentation, Adam and Eve are placeholders and do not necessarily literally represent our first parents Adam and Eve. If this was his meaning, then he is undoubtedly correct, at least with some elements of the endowment presentation.

EDIT: Upon further reading of the thread, maybe I'm wrong about HiJolly's meaning. Fwiw, I completely believe in and accept the literal existence of Father Adam and Mother Eve. I also accept the reality of organic evolution, and spend very little time or effort trying to reconcile the two.

I agree with your first paragraph, and I also agree that people aren't talking about those aspects of the Endowment being symbolic. I suspect, though they'll ultimately have to speak for themselves, they mean the depiction of the events are symbolic in nature and not necessarily a historical reenactment at parts. Some view the depictions almost like archival footage or a History Channel reenactment (those I would put on the more literal side of the spectrum) and others view it as a play/drama containing and designed to teach and instruct on truth (which will take you to the more symbolic side of things).

[skalenfehl]

You quoted her, and then went on about needing to be righteous and told her to study her scriptures. That's rather easily taken as a call to repentance (aka calling her out). If all you wanted to do was ask her exactly what she meant, all you need to do is ask that. If all you want to do is state why you believe the Endowment is 100% literal, or in what ways it is literal, then just state why you believe that is. Quoting someone directs your statement to that person without any sort of qualifier. And if what follows the quote boils down to, "You need to be righteous and study your scriptures." Yeah, it's gonna be taken as a calling out, your sign off of the post the above quote is taken from would rather easily be taken as more of the same. You basically sign off with, "You teach the precepts of men, mingled with scripture."

Wingnut, please accept my apology. I should have been more thoughtful with my response.

[Dravin]

Wingnut, please accept my apology. I should have been more thoughtful with my response.

:) One thing I've learned time and time again, the tone with which we read our own posts isn't necessarily the tone with which they are read by others. More than once I've fallen prey to what I think is a nice simple mild mannered, if straight forward, post being taken as an attack.

[skalenfehl]

I need to learn to measure my words more carefully. And btw, Dravin, we're neighbors! I live in Brigham City, too! :)

[Dravin]

I need to learn to measure my words more carefully. And btw, Dravin, we're neighbors! I live in Brigham City, too! :)

Hm... my location should read Indianapolis. Maybe I missed changing my location somewhere, where in my profile does it give my location as Brigham City?

In other comments: I kinda miss peach days.

[JudoMinja]

As for Adam and Eve, and in the spirit of staying on topic, they were created precisely as taught to us in the scriptures and in the temple, in the image of God. To teach otherwise, even to inject evolution and what not is to teach the precepts of men and mingling them with scripture. This defeats the purpose of the Atonement of Jesus Christ and the Creation of man.

I do not think that seeking to combine science with religion is the same as teaching the "precepts of men". All the scriptures that warn against the precepts of men do so in a manner that suggests it is warning against those who seek to replace scripture or doctrine with worldly teachings. To say something like- "life evolved through a sequence of random chance with no ultimate design in mind other than survival and there was no creator" would be to teach the precepts of men. But to say something like- "this theory of evolution makes some sense and could be the process God used to create life with the ultimate goal being the creation of our bodies in His image" is not teaching the precepts of men. See the difference?

I believe it is important to turn to the testimony of the Holy Spirit when seeking to determine the truth of anything- but the scriptures also tell us that part of the process in seeking His testimony is to first study it on our own.

"But, behold, I say unto you, that you must study it out in your mind; then you must ask me if it be right, and if it is right I will cause that your bosom shall burn within you; therefore, you shall feel that it is right." (D&C 9:8)

I have found that this process works best when I study something enough to come to my own tentative conclusions. I then turn to the Lord in prayer to ask if my conclusion is correct. I've found that when I'm on the right track with something I get that burning in the bosom to tell me it is right, and when I'm way off course I get the "stupor of thought" described in the next verse.

Do I teach evolution at church? No. Because evolution is not doctrine. Will I be teaching evolution to my son? Yes. Because I believe the theory to be true, albeit incomplete.

How do the creation and evolution come together? I don't know for sure. I have my own speculations, and the post earlier about Aslan breathing "intelligence" into the "speaking creatures" comes pretty close to my understanding of things. Are my speculations correct? Maybe. Maybe not. But I've prayed about it and feel that the Spirit has told me I'm at least on the right track and the more I study both the scriptures and science, the more accurate my speculations will become.

[skalenfehl]

I had not slept in over a day when I replied and I think I lumped answering many posts into one, addressing a singular post, which had little relevance to the rest of the discussion. I can see that I really needed to address each post individually after getting some sleep. I apologize again to all.

Personally speaking, I am sure evolution has its proper place. In my mind, it has no place within the purposes of the great plan of salvation where the creation of the world, the fall of Adam and the Atonement of Jesus Christ are concerned. Just my own mortal, finite opinion. Adam and Eve were created exactly as the scriptures tell us.

[skalenfehl]

Hm... my location should read Indianapolis. Maybe I missed changing my location somewhere, where in my profile does it give my location as Brigham City?

In other comments: I kinda miss peach days.

LDS Social Network Forums - Show Groups

Love Peach Days. And Maddox. And all the fruit stands...Also really looking forward to the temple opening up in a couple months.

[Dravin]

BTW skalenfehl, to answer your question directed to Wignut for myself, keeping in mind her thoughts may be different:

It is the very ordinance of the endowment that clothes our nakedness so that we become like Him when we finally meet Him. It is the ONLY way that we can qualify to be brought into His presence for no unclean thing can enter into His presence. The entire purpose of this ordinance is to give us the education and to literally endow us with power to do so. It has been this way since Adam and Eve. The brother of Jared is the perfect example of being endowed with knowledge and power to part the veil and be redeemed from the Fall of Adam in order to be brought back into His presence.

While I agree that the endowment prepares us/does this in a quite literal manner how it prepares us for this is not necessarily literal. We are told at points to think of X as Y during the ceremony, which is symbolism. Also the symbolism of certain things is explained. So at minimum and completely aside from evolution or any such thing the endowment ceremony is symbolic in ways and at points. What this means is we can’t look at literalism or symbolism as binary states, elements of both are involved in the endowment.

As far as symbolism as it applies to depictions as a literal history, I think that even if we stay with the more literal side of the spectrum what is portrayed is symbolic of what happened. I personally don’t take it as a word for word, gesture per gesture, recreation of a historical event. In a sense even on the literal side of things you can think of it as a middle school play about the civil war or some other historical event. What is portrayed often isn’t a literal happening but a simplification and compaction of a real event. Even something like a 1 hour documentary runs into a level of this, it's just the nature of teaching something in a short amount of time.

How much simplification and compaction you believe occurred shifts you around on the literal versus symbolic side of things. On the extreme side of symbolism you believe it’s somewhat like a middle school play of the first thanksgiving, there may be a nugget of a historical truth at it’s heart but it is primarily a drama intended to teach a message and isn’t necessarily concerned with giving an objective and historical view of what happened.

I personally, and I know there are those who disagree, am inclined to believe there is a fair amount of simplification and compaction, possibly even abstraction, that occurs. Just how much I'm not entirely sure.

Edited May 17, 2012 by Dravin

[skalenfehl]

I would love to sit down with you one day in the celestial room. I definitely agree with you. I also refer you to the brother of Jared's experience as well as the Terrestrial Nephites (all Telestial Nephites and Lamanites were destroyed in the whirlwinds, fires, earthquakes, etc), who Jesus Christ visited at Bountiful, all of whom received the Second Comforter. A careful study will show some parallels to each other but more so with what occurs in the endowment session.

[applepansy]

As I read through the entire thread I didn't get the sense that Skalenfehl was calling out anyone in particular, rather responding to the thread as a whole.

Skalenfehl, I agree with you.

I also agree with Dravin's following statementt

:) One thing I've learned time and time again, the tone with which we read our own posts isn't necessarily the tone with which they are read by others. More than once I've fallen prey to what I think is a nice simple mild mannered, if straight forward, post being taken as an attack.

Timpman,

Just because science can't explain all our body parts doesn't mean there isn't a purpose we don't understand. The appendix is an example of what many in science and medicine has considered an unnecessary body part. A few years ago they finally started figuring it out. Eventually we will know the purpose of what we think of as unnecessary body parts. In the meantime, its not important to our salvation.

[Wingnut]

I had not slept in over a day when I replied and I think I lumped answering many posts into one, addressing a singular post, which had little relevance to the rest of the discussion.

I think this was the problem. I had a hard time seeing how your comments applied specifically to the post of mine that you quoted. It seemed like you were "calling me out," but I know that's not your style, and in any case, it was pretty confusing. I wasn't upset, just really confused. :)

As far as symbolism as it applies to depictions as a literal history, I think that even if we stay with the more literal side of the spectrum what is portrayed is symbolic of what happened. I personally don’t take it as a word for word, gesture per gesture, recreation of a historical event. In a sense even on the literal side of things you can think of it as a middle school play about the civil war or some other historical event. What is portrayed often isn’t a literal happening but a simplification and compaction of a real event. Even something like a 1 hour documentary runs into a level of this, it's just the nature of teaching something in a short amount of time.

This I agree with, and is pretty much what I meant. I know people who take the temple/endowment videos to be very literal, word for word, re-enactment representations of what happened to Adam and Eve. I definitely do not. I think the whole point of temple ordinances is to put ourselves in someone else's shoes, whether it's the people we're doing work for (as we serve them), or Adam's and Eve's (figuratively, as we are taught about our own spiritual separation from God).

[EarlJibbs]

Maybe "Monkeys" evolved from us :/

[bytor2112]

Seriously...my Pandora comment was removed????

[Seminarysnoozer]

HiJolly, can you you briefly tell me how you reconciled it? Did God insert Adam and Eve at the right point in the process of evolution?

I think your question starts out with a wrong premise, that God inserted them into the mortal world. God created Adam and Eve in a paradisacal state and realm. It is the Fall of Adam, not God that "inserted" them into mortality. Therefore, our bodies with all its corruption and faults and vestigial parts, even death itself was "created" by the Fall, not God.

Why did the Fall create these vestigial parts? I don't know, but that is what the difference between corruption and perfection is, things that are useless, serve no real purpose or at least turn back to dust in the end. This is allowed to happen so we can know good from evil. Fortunately, this body is temporary. When it gets restored back to the original creation it won't have all that corrupted vestigial stuff created by (d)evolution. It is interesting that "blood" sometimes refers to 'genetics' or the passing on of genes. The created bodies had no "blood" (read into that what you will - just a thought).

[pam]

Seriously...my Pandora comment was removed????

I've gone through this entire thread and nowhere was there a Pandora comment. If it had been deleted it would still show it to moderators but invisible to the general public. I'm just not seeing it.

[HiJolly]

I think your question starts out with a wrong premise, that God inserted them into the mortal world. God created Adam and Eve in a paradisacal state and realm. It is the Fall of Adam, not God that "inserted" them into mortality. Therefore, our bodies with all its corruption and faults and vestigial parts, even death itself was "created" by the Fall, not God.

Excellent.

HiJolly

[Timpman]

I think your question starts out with a wrong premise, that God inserted them into the mortal world. God created Adam and Eve in a paradisacal state and realm. It is the Fall of Adam, not God that "inserted" them into mortality.

Well, nothing makes sense now. Actually this goes beyond not making sense. It makes me doubt EVERYTHING about my life. Bla bla bla. Don't know what else to say about it.

[annewandering]

Well, nothing makes sense now. Actually this goes beyond not making sense. It makes me doubt EVERYTHING about my life. Bla bla bla. Don't know what else to say about it.

Timpman, I do not regard seminarysnoozers comment to be doctrine at all. It is a theory. One of many.

So what does make sense for you? Your theory has as much chance of being true as most any other theory.

Have you read the Pearl of Great Price lately? A lot of this is explained there a lot better than in Genesis. It doesnt explain everything but it does help. Dont let this affect your testimony. They are things that really dont need to be known. Hope, faith, repentance, gift of the Holy Ghost. Those are the things that matter.

[mordorbund]

You've all got it backwards. Gather round and I will learn you in the Mordorbund Mysteries (trademark pending). Within each of us is the potential to become a god or a devil. We are free agents (think baseball) who can chose who we want for a master. In serving him, we will become like him. In the resurrection our bodies will be restored to us. Good for good and evil for evil.

These supposedly useless parts are not for this life but the next. If you have followed Christ, then like Him you can enter enclosed spaces without opening a door. This is enabled via the appendix (I thought this was common knowledge - it's in the sealed writings of Joseph Fielding Smith). Also, resurrected tonsils grant you the ability to speak with a still small voice or with rushing waters. If you have followed Satan, then like him your coccyx will grow into a full spiny tail. Oh, and your skull started off fragmentary at birth so it could properly develop horns if merited (can't remember where I learned that, I think while using public transportation).

[mnn727]

The problem is that people believe their leaders are infallible when they speak, even though the leaders have told them they are not. Thus when President xyz says the story of Adam and Eve was literal - that just ain't necessarily so.