Created From The Dust Of The Earth?

[blazius]

I say perhaps, because the scriptures are largely silent on this issue. It's pretty much irrelevant to my salvation, but the popular LDS belief is that, yes, God was once as we now are...a mortal.

CrimsonKairos, I was reading through this thread and finally came to your post here. You mention that the scriptures are silent on the issue of who God was before the creation of the earth.

Well, I was doing some reading and studying and came across Psalm 90:2 which says,

Before the mountains were brought forth, or ever thou hadst formed the earth and the world, even from everlasting to everlasting, thou art God.

I did a cross reference and came across another verse:

Thy throne is established of old: thou art from everlasting (Ps 93:2).

These two verses from the bible seem to indicate that God has always been who He is: God. Do you have a comment on this?

thanks mucho,

blazius

[Traveler]

<div class='quotemain'>

I say perhaps, because the scriptures are largely silent on this issue. It's pretty much irrelevant to my salvation, but the popular LDS belief is that, yes, God was once as we now are...a mortal.

CrimsonKairos, I was reading through this thread and finally came to your post here. You mention that the scriptures are silent on the issue of who God was before the creation of the earth.

Well, I was doing some reading and studying and came across Psalm 90:2 which says,

Before the mountains were brought forth, or ever thou hadst formed the earth and the world, even from everlasting to everlasting, thou art God.

I did a cross reference and came across another verse:

Thy throne is established of old: thou art from everlasting (Ps 93:2).

These two verses from the bible seem to indicate that God has always been who He is: God. Do you have a comment on this?

thanks mucho,

blazius

Jesus Christ is the key to understanding all important things concerning G-d the Father.

Jesus demonstrates that as man now is - Jesus the Christ once was.

Jesus also demonstrates that as he was resurrected - so shall man be.

The Traveler.

[CrimsonKairos]

Traveler: My objection is that the scriptures teach man was created in the image of God. Since we know God didn't create our "intelligences" (again, as per D&C 93), then it must refer to our spiritual and physical bodies. And if God created our bodies through a process of evolution from chimpanzee to man, how is that in the image of God? Since chimpanzees have "intelligences" (type of consciousness/being) different from man's, then the only way it would make sense is for God to use evolution to "shape" the physical body of man from a chimpanzee's image into "His image," and then once the physiology/appearance of man was "right," God would start combining mankind-type intelligences with the physical bodies at birth, instead of chimpanzee intelligences. It just seems silly to me. Far more likely, in my view, is that Adam was indeed born from a woman or had his spirit combined with an alread-created mature physical body.

Blazius: I have indeed read those scriptures and others you point out. I was saying that if our God was not always a God, the scriptures don't say what He was. See the difference? I'm not advocating one view or the other.

[blazius]

Blazius: I have indeed read those scriptures and others you point out. I was saying that if our God was not always a God, the scriptures don't say what He was. See the difference? I'm not advocating one view or the other.

But the two scriptures I cited above do say what God was, don't you think? I mean, its pretty clear to me that God has always been God according to those two verses. I really don't see any room to speculate, do you? And if you do see room to speculate, can you please explain why?

It is widely known that the Mormon Church believes God was once a man, but I'm just trying to clear up a clear contradiction that I can see between what the bible says and what the LDS Church teaches.

thank you,

blazius

[lewisqic]

In my opinion, your both correct. How? well, "God" is an office, not an individual. In that light, it is true that the office of "God" Has always existed, as shown by the scriptural verses quoted above, and it is also true that the individual that we now worship as "God" holds that office, but he has not always been in that position, and was once as we are now.

[CrimsonKairos]

Blazius, there are disparities between the Bible and some LDS doctrines. There are also disparities between the Bible and the Bible. In other words, you can use the scriptures to prove or disprove whatever you want. Where most LDS find "room to speculate" about our Heavenly Father's "past" is in teachings of latter-day prophets. In that sense, of course there are going to be new teachings not had in the Bible.

Most Jews in Jesus' day rejected Christianity because it introduced doctrines and ordinances not had in their scriptures (i.e. Old Testament). Yet was that an accurate measuring stick for Truth? Was Christianity false because it had new teachings and added new scripture to what was already accepted by Judaism? I'm not trying to prove "I'm right," blazius, I'm simply giving you an alternate viewpoint which you may not have considered.

[Snow]

I've had this question for quite awhile now, any insight would be greatly appreciated...

Was Adam really created from the dust of the earth? I've read several times from differnet LDS prophets and scholars that a man can not be created in any other way than that of which we know now, which is by procreation. If this is the case, who are adams parents? who begot adam?

The Bible represents Adam as having been created 6000 years ago or so. Homo Sapiens have been around for 200,000 years. Obviously any human born 6000 years ago would have had parents.

Blazius, there are disparities between the Bible and some LDS doctrines.

I do not agree - if by disparities you mean conflicts.

There may be conflicts between LDS understanding and Blazius interpretation of the Bible or perhaps between LDS understanding and Blazius' interpretation of today's version (as edited, redacted, transmitted and translated) of the bible but that's a much different matter.

[CrimsonKairos]

There may be conflicts between LDS understanding and Blazius interpretation of the Bible...

That's precisely what I meant.

[Dr T]

Hello Lewis,

I've never heard the concept of "God" being a position/office. From where do you get that idea?

Thank you

[CrimsonKairos]

Dr. T, read D&C 132. It defines godhood as a state of existence (i.e. exaltation).

[blazius]

In my opinion, your both correct. How? well, "God" is an office, not an individual. In that light, it is true that the office of "God" Has always existed, as shown by the scriptural verses quoted above, and it is also true that the individual that we now worship as "God" holds that office, but he has not always been in that position, and was once as we are now.

This cannot be true both from a biblical perspective and from a Book of Mormon perspective.

Genesis 1:1 says that God created the heavens (cosmos) and the earth.

3 Nephi 9:15 says, "Behold, I am Jesus Christ the Son of God. I created the heavens and the earth, and all things that in them are."

If one is a creator He cannot hold a temporal office. If one is the same yesterday, today, and forever that would mean if He is holding an office He has always held the same and will continue to eternally do so.

blazius

[Dr T]

Thanks CK. I've read the D&C before but I don't remember a whole lot of it. Can you recall any such claim biblically? I can't. That's why it feels so new to me. :)

[Traveler]

Traveler: My objection is that the scriptures teach man was created in the image of God. Since we know God didn't create our "intelligences" (again, as per D&C 93), then it must refer to our spiritual and physical bodies. And if God created our bodies through a process of evolution from chimpanzee to man, how is that in the image of God? Since chimpanzees have "intelligences" (type of consciousness/being) different from man's, then the only way it would make sense is for God to use evolution to "shape" the physical body of man from a chimpanzee's image into "His image," and then once the physiology/appearance of man was "right," God would start combining mankind-type intelligences with the physical bodies at birth, instead of chimpanzee intelligences. It just seems silly to me. Far more likely, in my view, is that Adam was indeed born from a woman or had his spirit combined with an alread-created mature physical body.

After an egg is furtilized and becomes a zygote when does the fetus take on the "image" of G-d? Did you know that there times that a human fetus has gills? Is that part of the image of G-d? The fetus does evolve from something that is very much less than the image of an ape to that of human and/or G-d. I am still trying to understand why you do not like truth from science and the discovery of how things are and occur.

The Traveler

[CrimsonKairos]

We just disagree Traveler. Neither will convince the other. There's a huge...and I emphasize huge...difference between the nine-month development (call it evolution if you wish) of a human infant, and a million or billion year evolution from one order of being to another (I'm not speaking zoologically, I'm speaking of intelligences again).

You don't address the aspect of intelligences in the equation of evolution. While an embryo undergoes physiological and anatomical changes during its gestation (yeah I know all about that), the type of intelligence that gets inserted into it at birth doesn't change. For a monkey to be the ancestor of man, either mankind's class or order of intelligences was once inserted into chimpanzee bodies, or God stopped putting chimp intelligences into sufficiently "evolved" bodies and started putting mankind intelligences into them. That just seems silly to me.

As for science and the way things are...I was unaware that man's evolving from a chimp had left the realm of theory and been enshrined in the halls of eternal truth with absolute certainty. Did I miss something scriptural or scientific?

[Traveler]

We just disagree Traveler. Neither will convince the other. There's a huge...and I emphasize huge...difference between the nine-month development (call it evolution if you wish) of a human infant, and a million or billion year evolution from one order of being to another (I'm not speaking zoologically, I'm speaking of intelligences again).

You don't address the aspect of intelligences in the equation of evolution. While an embryo undergoes physiological and anatomical changes during its gestation (yeah I know all about that), the type of intelligence that gets inserted into it at birth doesn't change. For a monkey to be the ancestor of man, either mankind's class or order of intelligences was once inserted into chimpanzee bodies, or God stopped putting chimp intelligences into sufficiently "evolved" bodies and started putting mankind intelligences into them. That just seems silly to me.

As for science and the way things are...I was unaware that man's evolving from a chimp had left the realm of theory and been enshrined in the halls of eternal truth with absolute certainty. Did I miss something scriptural or scientific?

I do not know that there is a huge difference in our thinking. So far I have not been able to get the just of your thinking. When I ask questions to verify what I think you are saying - you seem to give answers that are not consistent. I thought we came to an agreement that human intelligence is an eternal thing that was established based on man's (human) spirit and has nothing to do with anything physical; in that our intelligence (light) was well established before any human physical form or body was created. In fact I thought we established that human intelligence was established even before the creation of anything physical in our universe. I agree that there would never be a spirit of any man placed in a physical tabernacle (temple) that was not according to G-d's design for man. I have not demanded that man must evolve from something similar to apes - What I am asking is why you have completely eliminated that possibility. What is it that you have considered that I have missed? I am trying to get a handel on how you came to that conclusion.

From all the data I have studied it appears to me that evolution is the best solution we have going. I realize there are problems with the theory of evolution that center in the evolution of such creatures as the shark and the bat. I understand there are problems in the evolution and size of dinosaurs - but these are tangents to the direct question of how human bodies may have been prepared for the very first man (Adam) to receive the "breath of life". That G-d may have utilized existing life may be unreasonable to you - so I would like to understand how and where you came to that conclusion and what you used to establish your opinion.

The Traveler

[Snow]

If one is a creator He cannot hold a temporal office.

Again with the making up stuff. God couldn't hold a temporal office because... er, uh... you say so? Funny but I doubt God is limited to that which you agree to.

If one is the same yesterday, today, and forever that would mean if He is holding an office He has always held the same and will continue to eternally do so.

blazius

This crack me up. People don't like something another believes about God so they spin and twist that passage to mean anything they want. I wouldn't have any idea if God holds an office but your explanation 1. is quite obiviously wrong and 2. doesn't even make sense.

God changes is all sorts of ways all the time. If one interprets that passage to mean that God can never change at all in any way it is obviously wrong. God used to be the God of Israel, now the gospel is available to all. Jesus - God used to be not on the earth, born to a virgin, then was on earth and born to a woman. Then he was a child, then an adult, then baptised, then crucified, etc. Changes all. The God of the OT changed his mind, instructed his followers to steal, murder, rape and kidnap. The God of the NT doesn't do any of that.

Why do you make so much stuff up?

[CrimsonKairos]

I have no problem with evolution as a theory. In fact I believe some form of evolution operated on this earth during its six "days" of creation (millions or billions of years), and then death was eliminated when God sanctified the earth on the seventh "day" and the stage was set for Adam and Eve on a celestial world without death.

Here's what I'm getting at. Let's say that God's intelligence or uncreated consciousness belongs to--say--"class A" in the catalogue of different intelligences. God also possesses an exalted body of flesh and bone...one that looks just like our mortal body. Our intelligences belong to "class A." God clothed our consciousnesses in a spirit body, and then those worthy received a physical body in the same image of God. Let's say chimpanzee consciousnesses or intelligences belong to "class C" in the catalogue of intelligences. Their bodies, while similar in many respects to our bodies, are nevertheless different in several significant respects in my opinion. I don't view chimp bodies as being in the image of God.

So it seems silly to me for God to insert "class C" intelligences into chimp bodies while they're evolving into a physical form that perfectly reflects His image, and THEN start inserting "class A" intelligences into that body, instead of "class C" intelligences. Is it possible? Sure. Do I, personally, think it's more likely than Adam being born from a woman or having his body made "from scratch" and waiting for his spirit to be inserted into it? No. It just seems like a huge waste of time for God to use evolution over millions of years to form a body suitable for "class A" intelligences when there are plenty of other people on other worlds with bodies already in His image...wouldn't it be simpler to have one of those people give birth to Adam prior to his being inserted into Eden? I guess this may be where we differ. I think this is a case where the simplest explanation is the correct one. But, I may be totally wrong. Hence, I reserve to myself the right to contradict myself in this life or the next.

[blazius]

<div class='quotemain'>

If one is a creator He cannot hold a temporal office.

Again with the making up stuff. God couldn't hold a temporal office because... er, uh... you say so? Funny but I doubt God is limited to that which you agree to.

If one is the same yesterday, today, and forever that would mean if He is holding an office He has always held the same and will continue to eternally do so.

blazius

This crack me up. People don't like something another believes about God so they spin and twist that passage to mean anything they want. I wouldn't have any idea if God holds an office but your explanation 1. is quite obiviously wrong and 2. doesn't even make sense.

God changes is all sorts of ways all the time. If one interprets that passage to mean that God can never change at all in any way it is obviously wrong. God used to be the God of Israel, now the gospel is available to all. Jesus - God used to be not on the earth, born to a virgin, then was on earth and born to a woman. Then he was a child, then an adult, then baptised, then crucified, etc. Changes all. The God of the OT changed his mind, instructed his followers to steal, murder, rape and kidnap. The God of the NT doesn't do any of that.

Why do you make so much stuff up?

Snow, I can entirely retort everything you said, however, the tone you use when addressing me leaves much to be desired. Until you can change your smug, sanctimonious, judgmental tenor, I decline to discourse with you.

blazius

[Traveler]

So it seems silly to me for God to insert "class C" intelligences into chimp bodies while they're evolving into a physical form that perfectly reflects His image, and THEN start inserting "class A" intelligences into that body, instead of "class C" intelligences. Is it possible? Sure. Do I, personally, think it's more likely than Adam being born from a woman or having his body made "from scratch" and waiting for his spirit to be inserted into it? No. It just seems like a huge waste of time for God to use evolution over millions of years to form a body suitable for "class A" intelligences when there are plenty of other people on other worlds with bodies already in His image...wouldn't it be simpler to have one of those people give birth to Adam prior to his being inserted into Eden? I guess this may be where we differ. I think this is a case where the simplest explanation is the correct one. But, I may be totally wrong. Hence, I reserve to myself the right to contradict myself in this life or the next.

Interesting concept and idea about Adam - I am under the impression that Adam was the first man. If there were other "first" then I can understand your concept. I am suggesting a concept for what the scriptures call the first man and the possible process for forming the first man. (see 1Cor 15: 45 to the end of chapter 15)

The Traveler

[Maureen]

Snow, I can entirely retort everything you said, however, the tone you use when addressing me leaves much to be desired. Until you can change your smug, sanctimonious, judgmental tenor, I decline to discourse with you.

Excuses, excuses!!

M.

[Snow]

<div class='quotemain'>

<div class='quotemain'>

If one is a creator He cannot hold a temporal office.

Again with the making up stuff. God couldn't hold a temporal office because... er, uh... you say so? Funny but I doubt God is limited to that which you agree to.

If one is the same yesterday, today, and forever that would mean if He is holding an office He has always held the same and will continue to eternally do so.

blazius

This crack me up. People don't like something another believes about God so they spin and twist that passage to mean anything they want. I wouldn't have any idea if God holds an office but your explanation 1. is quite obiviously wrong and 2. doesn't even make sense.

God changes is all sorts of ways all the time. If one interprets that passage to mean that God can never change at all in any way it is obviously wrong. God used to be the God of Israel, now the gospel is available to all. Jesus - God used to be not on the earth, born to a virgin, then was on earth and born to a woman. Then he was a child, then an adult, then baptised, then crucified, etc. Changes all. The God of the OT changed his mind, instructed his followers to steal, murder, rape and kidnap. The God of the NT doesn't do any of that.

Why do you make so much stuff up?

Snow, I can entirely retort everything you said, however, the tone you use when addressing me leaves much to be desired. Until you can change your smug, sanctimonious, judgmental tenor, I decline to discourse with you.

blazius

More like can't.

You make allegations that you can't support, fabricate strange attributions and spin scripture to suit you point.

Beside that, you calling me smug and judgemental, in light of your judgementality is just a little hypocritical... okay alot hypocritical. In fact your every post is is judgemental of The Church of Jesus Christ, so excuse me if I don't buy your little "I'm offended" act. The deal is that you can't address my questions and can't support your own accusations. Typical.

[Palerider]

it really is a troll

[CrimsonKairos]

Interesting concept and idea about Adam - I am under the impression that Adam was the first man. If there were other "first" then I can understand your concept.

I personally believe that every planet has its own "Adam," or first man to live upon it. In that sense, Adam could have been born from a woman in another place, and then placed on our planet and still be "the first man." I'm not even saying I believe Adam was born, versus being created "from scratch," but either theory makes more sense to me than God using evolution to create man in His image.

[Traveler]

<div class='quotemain'>

Interesting concept and idea about Adam - I am under the impression that Adam was the first man. If there were other "first" then I can understand your concept.

I personally believe that every planet has its own "Adam," or first man to live upon it. In that sense, Adam could have been born from a woman in another place, and then placed on our planet and still be "the first man." I'm not even saying I believe Adam was born, versus being created "from scratch," but either theory makes more sense to me than God using evolution to create man in His image.

One last question and I will leave you with the joy of your opinion. Concerning you - and if you are created in G-d's image - Were you born with that image or did you have to go through a process (evolution if you will) to receive his image in your countenance?

The Traveler

[CrimsonKairos]

When my physical body was conceived, it contained a blueprint (DNA/RNA, human genome etc...) that dictated what my body would look like at maturity (i.e. after gestation, birth, maturity). Regardless of whether I temporarily grew gills and a tail in the womb, the blueprint of my body demanded that I look "human" after roughly nine months. I don't see that as equivalent to evolution in the sense you're using it. In the case of man evolving from some other life form, there is a fundamental difference in the DNA blueprint dictating what our physical bodies look like and perform like.

It's one thing for a being's body to change during the process of developing (gestation) into the image encoded in its DNA blueprint; it's another for a being's blueprint to change over time. That's how I look at it.