Sign in to follow this  
Lakumi

The World and its Creation

Recommended Posts

The scripture I am referring to is Moses 3:7, "And I, the Lord God, formed man from the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul, the first flesh upon the earth, the first man also; nevertheless, all things were before created; but spiritually were they created and made according to my word." (emphasis added)

 

The opening statement in italics below the picture of the First Presidency declares this, "the First Presidency issued the following in 1909, which expresses the Church’s doctrinal position on these matters."  This article expresses the Church's doctrinal position regarding the matter of evolution.  

 

The Origin of Man, "It is held by some that Adam was not the first man upon this earth and that the original human being was a development from lower orders of the animal creation. These, however, are the theories of men. The word of the Lord declared that Adam was “the first man of all men” (Moses 1:34), and we are therefore in duty bound to regard him as the primal parent of our race. It was shown to the brother of Jared that all men were created in the beginning after the image of God; whether we take this to mean the spirit or the body, or both, it commits us to the same conclusion: Man began life as a human being, in the likeness of our Heavenly Father."

 

"True it is that the body of man enters upon its career as a tiny germ embryo, which becomes an infant, quickened at a certain stage by the spirit whose tabernacle it is, and the child, after being born, develops into a man. There is nothing in this, however, to indicate that the original man, the first of our race, began life as anything less than a man, or less than the human germ or embryo that becomes a man."

 

It is clear from our doctrinal position as given by our First Presidency in 1909 that Adam was first man, first flesh, and that Adam and Eve existed and are literal offspring of God/deity.  Adam will again return to claim his right as the patriarch of the human race, the offspring of God.

 

Regarding the term "flesh", "Flesh has several meanings: (1) the soft tissue that makes up the bodies of mankind, animals, fowls, or fish; (2) mortality; or (3) the physical or carnal nature of man."

 

In reference to these scriptural understandings of definition of it appears we can safely remove definition #3 because at this time they were not devilish nor were they carnal.  

 

Yet, the understanding you provide gives further cogitation regarding "flesh" meaning "living soul."  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Does it say that?

well yeah pretty much;

 

19 And the waters prevailed exceedingly upon the earth; and all the high hills, that were under the whole heaven, were covered.

20 Fifteen cubits upward did the waters prevail; and the mountains were covered.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And where do you get all this? Where do you get the whole there "isn't any empirical evidence of a fish becoming anything else but a fish"

do you have any like sources for that? I am on my desk top so give me a few moments to go on my laptop to gather some of my retorts.

Here's a site to read

http://evolutionfaq.com/articles/five-proofs-evolution

 

I have heard all that language and words before from Creationism believers and... I mean there's a reason the scientific community doesn't consider what they believe science.

I am no scientist but I do trust them about things like age of the world and evolution over clergymen and creationists.

 

There isn't any empirical evidence of a fish becoming anything but a fish.  The genetic code doesn't prove nor disprove evolution either.  

 

Fossil records do not give any evidence to evolution.  Fossil records only prove an animal existed, but does not give evidence to it progenitor.

 

If you can provide evidence for an ape becoming anything but an ape, human becoming anything but a human, a fish becoming anything but a fish, a bacteria becoming anything but another bacteria would love to hear it/read it.

Edited by Anddenex

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

well yeah pretty much;

 

19 And the waters prevailed exceedingly upon the earth; and all the high hills, that were under the whole heaven, were covered.

20 Fifteen cubits upward did the waters prevail; and the mountains were covered

The hebrew word that was translated to earth there, is interchangeably translated to mean land in other area's where it could not possibly mean the entire world we we call earth. In other places, when it's clear it's meant the entire world, a different hebrew word is used.

I can't recall where I got that info else I would link it.

What I am saying is, you really can't get nitpicky about words in a work that has been translated, not just between languages, but between cultures, languages, and a lot of time. Perspective is important as well.

Edited by jerome1232

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There isn't any empirical evidence of a fish becoming anything but a fish.  The genetic code doesn't prove nor disprove evolution either.  

 

Fossil records do not give any evidence to evolution.  Fossil records only prove an animal existed, but does not give evidence to it progenitor.

 

If you can provide evidence for an ape becoming anything but an ape, human becoming anything but a human, a fish becoming anything but a human, a bacteria becoming anything but another bacteria would love to hear it/read it.

 

What do you want me to give you the origin of species or something?

the evidence is everywhere, do a google search and its all there...I don't see why you need me to go gather it for you.

Edited by Lakumi

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The hebrew word that was translated to earth there, is interchangeably translated to mean land in other area's where it could not possibly mean the entire world we we call earth. In other places, when it's clear it's meant the entire world, a different hebrew word is used.

I can't recall where I got that info else I would link it.

What I am saying is, you really can't get nitpicky about words in a work that has been translated, not just between languages, but between cultures, languages, and a lot of time. Perspective is important as well.

 

Okay well I don't have any of those versions nor can I read those languages, I mean that does put the problem that how can the modern bible we have be trusted at all being translated and tampered with so much.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What do you want me to give you the origin of species or something?

the evidence is everywhere, do a google search and its all there...I don't see why you need me to go gather it for you.

 

I have plenty of times, and this website provides an excellent read regarding those who support evolution, talkorigins.org.  Very interesting reads, and they present their suppositions very well.  Good reading.  The contrast they provide in comparison to Creationist arguments and Evolutionist are very good reads as well.

 

What evidence do you speak of that is everywhere, and if so common, why is there any doubt?  Because the evidence isn't common.  If the evidence is common, and everywhere, a simple Google search would have been able to provide what I request but it doesn't.  So the declaration it is everywhere falls vastly short.

 

Adaptation isn't evidence of evolution, but that species do adapt. 

Edited by Anddenex

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Because people are real deadset in their beliefs, especially when it comes to religion.

An athiest says the same about someone who believes in God "how can that person believe in God"

or with politics or with sports teams, people's ideas get real wrapped up with things and there are people who, even if you laid everything out infront of them, they'd still not buy it.

 

To give you another example, the LDS feel there is evidence for the BoM and non LDS do not, to them it is most certainly real and the restored gospel, and yet to others it is just a book belonging to a religion they consider strange.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Okay well I don't have any of those versions nor can I read those languages, I mean that does put the problem that how can the modern bible we have be trusted at all being translated and tampered with so much.

So why close your mind? "I can't 100% be sure ever word in our english bible is perfect so let's throw the whole thing out?" Come on.

"I believe in evolution, so all of those creationists are hacks"

Come on. That's the definition of close mindedness, you won't even consider the other side.

 

I haven't meet many LDS members who believe there is undeniable evidence for the BofM. I don't know many that base their faith on any perceived evidence either.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't take things on faith, the idea for God to me is probably quite different then it is to you.

I believe scripture can be uplifting to ones mood, but I don't pray or think that when I die I will go live in a paradise.

To me the fact I am alive right now is a paradise.

 

And to your other question, the "other side" isn't science. It may be close minded, but I just don't consider them, at all, credible ideas and theories.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't take things on faith, the idea for God to me is probably quite different then it is to you.

I believe scripture can be uplifting to ones mood, but I don't pray or think that when I die I will go live in a paradise.

To me the fact I am alive right now is a paradise.

 

And to your other question, the "other side" isn't science. It may be close minded, but I just don't consider them, at all, credible ideas and theories.

 

If you believe in evolution then yes you do take things on faith.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I was aiming at something a tad more substantial...

 

even if evolution is a thing on faith, it has far more going for it then creationism, to me and a lot of others.

 

Can you point to a single proof that's as sure as the statement "fire is hot" that shows speciation occurs via the evolutionary process. (acknowledging species can evolve is not the same as acknowledging entire new species can be created by this process)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Can you point to a single proof that's as sure as the statement "fire is hot" that shows speciation occurs via the evolutionary process. (acknowledging species can evolve is not the same as acknowledging entire new species can be created by this process)

well if course a new one can, I am not the same species as homo erectus (I believe the one "before us" is called), which I, as a homo sapian, am evolved from.

And if I am of the same as that, then if it was alive today it could mate with modern homo sapian.

 

And yes new species can be made as evolution goes, I mean go back far enough and mammals all came from the water, and from little fish and such. Those were most certainly different species then what we are now.

Edited by Lakumi

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

well if course a new one can, I am not the same species as homo erectus (I believe the one "before us" is called), which I, as a homo sapian, am evolved from.

How has it been proven that we Homo Sapiens evolved from Homo Erectus?

To my knowledge all that's proven is that we know these two species exist/existed and that we know about what time period our oldest finds of them are. How is it proven that Homo Erectus speciated and Homo Sapiens was the result.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How has it been proven that we Homo Sapiens evolved from Homo Erectus?

To my knowledge all that's proven is that we know these two species exist/existed and that we know about what time period our oldest finds of them are. How is it proven that Homo Erectus speciated and Homo Sapiens was the result.

Well we had to evolve from something, we weren't around, peoples like them were...

Edited by Lakumi

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

to the OP;

I think evolution occurs (and is a very sensible), I think there's a lot of evidencial support for it... altho it has the small problem black holes do; we can't observe it directly to the extent to absolutely show that's how all the different organisms came into existence. (IE we haven't had enough observation time to that extent)

That said there's nothing stopping some entity that has the know-how and capability to mess around with it or introduce other forms of change or pressures (much like a programmer can adapt and change a program).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Please elaborate

What beliefs can I have that aren't taken on faith then?

 

Simple, faith is not to have a "perfect knowledge" of things.  If we do not have a perfect knowledge of something then we exercise faith in correlation with the knowledge we do have.

 

That which we have a perfect knowledge of we do not exercise faith.  If you have a perfect knowledge of evolution then yes you do not exercise faith.  

 

We accept what we know and exercise faith in acceptance of what is not yet perfect.  A good example is your statement, "Well we had to evolve from something, we weren't around, peoples like them were.."  This is an assumption you accept, but the statement isn't factual.  It assumes we evolved, yet you do not know.

Edited by Anddenex

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well we had to evolve from something, we weren't around, peoples like them were...

So no. You simply assume because you can't come up with another explanation for speciation. That's a far cry from the it's been proven position.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well we had to evolve from something, we weren't around, peoples like them were...

 

 

You just did the equivalent of a creationist saying... "I can prove the existence of a creator...  Because well someone had to create us..."

 

That is simply not going to work in this kind of discussion

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this