Sign in to follow this  
Lakumi

The World and its Creation

Recommended Posts

It is understood, at least from what I remember reading, the horse and zebra, as we see them today, resulted from a common ancestor a horselike animal.  Alright, as mentioned, I an accept this.  They still resemble each other, within the same kind.

 

What resemblance do I have of a fish?  We have bones, we have blood, we have DNA.  When asked about these questions and someone gives an example the new species is always in likeness of the previous example.  A mosquito, new species of mosquito.  Fine, I accept.  We have observation and replication.  A new species of plants, which is still in the likeness of its parent. 

 

I am not against evolution, just think its interesting when people call it a scientific fact without any evidence to back up a change in kind.  All species produce after their kind, this is scripture.  Now, what is their kind?  This is still an unknown as to what was actually meant.  However, when it comes to accepting the First Presidencies message regarding the human specifies not evolving from any lower life-form -- well, not a question for me.

 

What you're describing is microevolution, small adaptations that make subtle changes in the DNA of a species. Macroevolution is the process by which a long series of genetic modifications results in a new species. It's a process that takes tens of thousands of years at minimum, making it impossible to observe directly. However, fossils and modern dating methods allow us to hypothesize in regard to how different species came about.

 

Additionally, the anatomy of modern day animals can give us clues as to their origins. For example, whales have useless pelvic bones that suggest that their ancestors may have had hind legs. And I believe I've already brought up the striking skeletal similarities between birds and dinosaurs. Many of these connections are still very theoretical and there's a lot that we don't fully know, but there's more than enough evidence to suggest that macroevolution takes place.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree, too many people scream "It's a fact!!" and if you notice I was arguing earlier that it wasn't proven. I do however think the argument that evolution occurs "within kind" but doesn't lead to speciation doesn't hold. Where do you draw this arbitrary line when each step resembles the step before it?

edit: I make a lot of mistakes when I'm distracted haha, oh boy.

 

Yes, I noticed. :D

 

For me, I don't personally draw a line regarding when each step resembles each other.  I guess for me Lucy doesn't resemble any human species, except the similar resemblance of monkeys, apes, etc...  When I look at the fossil records, I think it interesting how they say humans evolved from a common ancestor as other bi-pedals.  Somehow humans forked so differently than any other bi-pedal.  Yet, all other bi-pedals in existence today, all seemed to take ape-like figure except humans.  We forked in intelligence, in endurance, adaptation, skeletal movement, facial structure, etc...  We control now our surroundings, excluding weather and earthquakes.  

 

As with Godless, the specification of evolution that it must take tens of thousands of years, yet this is hypothetical.  I have read  other scientist who would disagree with this type of theory, and present other theories in regard to catastrophic evolution, don't think catastrophic is the best word, but a change that happens much sooner -- in accordance with the fossil record we have now.  In other words, they don't believe evolution needs to take tens of thousands of years.  It can happen much sooner, with one simple mutation, or the combination of another species, symbiotic, which mutated the allele enough for a major change.  

 

I am open, with evidence, but I surely don't see all the evidence supporting macroevolution as other would like to profess.  Microevolution, yes.  For reasons, there isn't one example they can provide that is common that this change does occur.   What mammal do we have in fossil record that would have been able to produce a Blue Whale?  If theory holds, that some mammal on land (I am being really brief) liked the water more because there was more food, and over thousands of years this mammal is now the whale?  

 

What other theories are we able to provide, and the current theory being the best one we have, doesn't suit well within my mind.  The way science is now with evolution is detours from looking for other reasons, which I don't think is good.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, I noticed. :D

For me, I don't personally draw a line regarding when each step resembles each other. I guess for me Lucy doesn't resemble any human species, except the similar resemblance of monkeys, apes, etc... When I look at the fossil records, I think it interesting how they say humans evolved from a common ancestor as other bi-pedals. Somehow humans forked so differently than any other bi-pedal. Yet, all other bi-pedals in existence today, all seemed to take ape-like figure except humans. We forked in intelligence, in endurance, adaptation, skeletal movement, facial structure, etc... We control now our surroundings, excluding weather and earthquakes.

If you think about it, our intellect is our survival mechanism. Without it, we're poorly camouflaged primates that can't run fast, can't climb well, can't easily kill prey (or potential predators) with our teeth or hands, and can barely see at night. Without our intelligence and ability to form and use tools, we'd go extinct pretty quick. But since we have that intellect, we eventually lost the other traits that our primate relatives rely on to survive. Kinda like how whales and dolphins eventually lost their legs.

I am open, with evidence, but I surely don't see all the evidence supporting macroevolution as other would like to profess. Microevolution, yes. For reasons, there isn't one example they can provide that is common that this change does occur. What mammal do we have in fossil record that would have been able to produce a Blue Whale? If theory holds, that some mammal on land (I am being really brief) liked the water more because there was more food, and over thousands of years this mammal is now the whale?

In researching my response, I found this. Theories, of course, but well-informed ones.

What other theories are we able to provide, and the current theory being the best one we have, doesn't suit well within my mind. The way science is now with evolution is detours from looking for other reasons, which I don't think is good.

You'd probably have just as much success getting astronomers to reconsider the theory of heliocentrism (the idea that the earth revolves around the sun). Evolution is to biology what gravity is to physics. There is no alternative theory to consider. It is the lifeblood of biology as we know it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think the theory of relativity might be a more apt comparison. The sun being the center of our solar system is proven. It's a fact. Relativity just seems to be a dang good explanation for how mass warps space and time, and like evolution, there are alternate idea's out there, or at least modifications to the idea out there.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

As with Godless, the specification of evolution that it must take tens of thousands of years, yet this is hypothetical.  I have read  other scientist who would disagree with this type of theory, and present other theories in regard to catastrophic evolution, don't think catastrophic is the best word, but a change that happens much sooner -- in accordance with the fossil record we have now. 

 

I think the phrase you are looking for is "punctuated equilibrium". At least if I'm reading you right.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Isn't this example technically adaptation, not evolution.  Evolution requires the change of alleles from parent to offspring, not an adaption or immunity to anitibiotics.

 

Now, this immunity for this small percent will be passed down, but this doesn't mean their will be a change in the alleles specifying a new species to occur.

 

Yet, will adaptation correlate with evolution, sure I couldn't argue this.  A species must adapt to survive.

Would you describe a plants alleles from the paradisiacal state to the mortal one where it now grows "thorns" a change or the same ones?

 

I like how F. Kent Nielson puts it; "The third clarification the gospel gives us is a reminder that time will change the order of nature—even in our present, mortal world. When the earth was “new,” before the Fall, it was in a paradisiacal state, and “if Adam had not transgressed … all things which were created must have … remained forever, and had no end” (2 Ne. 2:22). Both man and animals ate only plants (see Gen. 1:29–30). Adam and Eve would have had no children (see 2 Ne. 2:23). Apparently, the earth did not then bring forth “thorns … and thistles” to vex man (Gen. 3:18). These are just three differences between that state of the earth and our current one. Because of the Fall, “the whole creation groaneth and travaileth in pain together until now,” waiting with “earnest expectation” to “be delivered from the bondage of corruption,” when the redemption shall bring its present condition to an end (Rom. 8:22, 19, 21).

The present condition of the earth will end when Christ comes to reign personally upon the earth, giving it again its “paradisiacal glory” (A of F 1:10). For, “as God made the world in six days, and on the seventh day he finished his work, and sanctified it … even so, in the beginning of the seventh thousand years will the Lord God sanctify the earth” (D&C 77:12). This coming sanctification of our sphere will not result from the present natural order uniformly continuing its course. Instead, that order will change drastically because of the direct intervention of its Creator and Maintainer. All living things and even the elements of the earth “shall become new, that my knowledge and glory may dwell upon all the earth” (D&C 101:24–25)."

 

We already believe that the body of man was created one way, the paradisiacal state and then it received a new nature, one in which it could not sanctify itself, it could never naturally revert to the paradisiacal state as it is cursed and corrupted.  The only way it could be turned back to how it was created is a "direct intervention of its Creator".  So, when talking about the creation and the possibility of evolution, we are talking about two different "natures" already, one without "thorns" and one with, one without corruption (stays the same), one with corruption (changes). 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

...

 

We, unfortunately, have no ability to see what God created, "each different kind of creature" because what He created was in the Garden of Eden.  Then there was a Fall from that creation to something else.  What we currently see around us and likely even in the fosil record is the result of the Fall, not what God created in the Garden of Eden.  By definition, the paradisiacal creations don't die and therefore there would be no fosil record of God's creations.  The fosil record is a tracing of the things that die, those are things created by the Fall.

 

.....

 

Hmmmmmmm - So what color eyes, hair, skin and other such things was the pure creation?  Are you suggesting that those with more physical limitations or that are more distant from Eden's pure creations - fell farther than those with less differences?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Evolution simply is change.  Any change that occurs is a form of evolution.  For those that are concerned that humans could have evolved from lesser ape like creatures - just are not thinking and ignoring some very obvious biological processes - for example, every human that we know of to have ever lived was once a single cell organism.  We all evolved from something much less elegant than ape like things.  Were we created differently than Adam and Eve?  If someone believes such a thing to be possible - I would really like to follow such logic from scripture or science or wherever such an idea was hatched.  Pun intended :rolleyes:

 

Any change that does happen; proves evolution.   My example of donkeys and horses evolving a mule stands and proves evolution of life (change) beyond species.  And I would point out in rhetorical logic that one counter example (regardless of how small or seeming insignificant) disproves a definite conclusion to be false.  What I do not understand is why someone would believe that G-d could not evolve man from fish given enough time.  Or why they believe G-d to deceive man with misleading clues.  We may misread clues and be deceived but I have yet to hear a reasonable argument from someone that has difficulty with evolution, explain why 99% of all species that were ever created are now extinct.  Does that not go contrary to scripture that says all living things reproduce themselves?

Edited by Traveler

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

From a gospel doctrine stand point, what is missed if our temporary body (mortal body) was pre-formed through some kind of a controlled evolutionary process?  After all this mortal body is not the same as the body of God that is eternal and is not the same as the one created in the Garden of Eden, this is not a heavenly body or a paradisiacal body.  Nor does this body by itself, naturally, have the potential to be heavenly or eternal.  So long as it returns to dust from where it came, why does it matter if the physical body came from whatever source or method, we are still spiritual children of God. 

 

How would it change your gospel understanding if the mortal body (by itself is not "man") did come from a fish?

 

I actually think that it does change gospel understanding quite a bit.  I personally find it very interesting that many LDS individuals on a LDS forum are so apt to believe that man coming from fish can fit into the Gospel perspective.

 

If man came from fish then when the Bible says "And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness:", it is false.  For if man evolved and continues to evolve then man came from a living organism that was not man and will continue to evolve into some other living organism that is not man in the future-therefore this verse is false.

 

Furthermore, Gospel Doctrine clearly states that in the Garden of Eden man could not die nor could they have seed.  If man came from evolution that is also false.  If man came from something else, at what point did man become man?  Previous versions of man, were obviously not man.  So it evolved until God made it look like Him and then stopped it -now man- from evolving, put him in the Garden and made him so he couldn't have children.  Did He also stop all other versions of man from evolving?

 

Christ came to redeem man from the Fall, if the Garden of Eden is allegorical, then what else is allegorical?  Is Christ allegorical?  We really don't need a Savior, we just need to follow the steps, redemption is more a process?

 

I make allowances that it is possible that God used evolution, the scriptures do say "let the earth bring forth" or STTE in reference to all other creatures.  When it comes to man, however it states "let us make man".

 

We don't really know have the earth was formed or how man was made, evolution is a theory that cannot be proven or dis-proven, just like faith cannot be proven or dis-proven.  We still can't produce the spark of life.  Without something already living, we are powerless to do so.

 

I just find it interesting that in today's technological world with iPad's, cell phones, instant this and instant that, etc that man creates in extremely short time, we lack faith necessary to say God could create man without using evolution; that man, His greatest creation was created by a process that supposedly takes eons to play out.

 

IMO, evolution is used by the godless to explain how we came to be.  Did God use it? Maybe . . . .I guess we'll just have to ask Him on the otherside.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Evolution simply is change.  Any change that occurs is a form of evolution.  For those that are concerned that humans could have evolved from lesser ape like creatures - just are not thinking and ignoring some very obvious biological processes - for example, every human that we know of to have ever lived was once a single cell organism.  We all evolved from something much less elegant than ape like things.  Were we created differently than Adam and Eve?  If someone believes such a thing to be possible - I would really like to follow such logic from scripture or science or wherever such an idea was hatched.  Pun intended :rolleyes:

 

Any change that does happen; proves evolution.   My example of donkeys and horses evolving a mule stands and proves evolution of life (change) beyond species.  And I would point out in rhetorical logic that one counter example (regardless of how small or seeming insignificant) disproves a definite conclusion to be false.  What I do not understand is why someone would believe that G-d could not evolve man from fish given enough time.  Or why they believe G-d to deceive man with misleading clues.  We may misread clues and be deceived but I have yet to hear a reasonable argument from someone that has difficulty with evolution, explain why 99% of all species that were ever created are now extinct.  Does that not go contrary to scripture that says all living things reproduce themselves?

No, adaptation is change.  Evolution is going from one type to another type.  Butterflies adapt to have different color patterns, that is adaptation not evolution.  Evolution is a butterfly that becomes a moth that become a dragon.

 

The cells at birth will grow to become a single separate entity on one timeline without death.  Unless you are claiming that I will never die b/c my DNA is transmitted onto the next generation and therefore I and the next generation are one entity then I don't see how a human growing from a single cell and the theory that humans evolved from fish are even remotely related.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 Or why they believe G-d to deceive man with misleading clues.  We may misread clues and be deceived but I have yet to hear a reasonable argument from someone that has difficulty with evolution, explain why 99% of all species that were ever created are now extinct. 

 

Because all we really have for proof is skeletons, carbon-dating, and now non-existent species and not really even full skeletons at that.  Even if we had every skeleton of every organism that has ever lived on the planet it still could not prove or disprove evolution.  We have mathematical probabilities, but even then, we don't know at what point a human being would evolve into something else.  At what point, does a gene flip that causes a human to be different.  How does that human who's gene is not flipped into something else reproduce?  As other's have said, the time-scale of the theory of evolution is massive.  

 

Evolution is simply an explanation for an observable.  Just like 1000 years ago, based on observable at that time, people thought the Sun revolved around the Earth.  I guess people could have said at the time "Why do people believe God would mislead people with the clues that the Sun clearly revolves around the Earth?"

 

Maybe in the future we will have other observables that will prove or disprove evolution.

 

IMO, the only way to actually prove it is to observe it and no one is actually going to be around long enough to do so.

Edited by yjacket

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Evolution simply is change. 

 

Any change that does happen; proves evolution. 

Malarkey.

You know. We know. Everybody knows that we aren't talking about the word evolution. We are talking about the Theory of Modern Evolutionary Synthesis. Any demonstrated change does not a proof make.

 

Edited by jerome1232

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think that God created the earth and its inhabitants through a process of evolution. The idea of evolution seems to fit in very nicely with the idea of how we learn and progress - line upon line, here a little and there a little. Quite possibly, when the evolutionary process proceeded down a dead end path, or failed to proceed along the desired path, God gave it a little nudge to change its direction or speed it along. I don't say that I hold the following belief, but I just put it out as a possibility that may be worth considering - perhaps the difference between Adam and Eve, and all those almost human like creatures that may have proceeded them is that Adam and Eve may have been the first to have been given the light of Christ, thus making them fully human and children of a heavenly father, and susceptible to resurrection and eternal life whilst all those who proceeded them did not have the light of Christ and might not have such an opportunity.Just an idea. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hmmmmmmm - So what color eyes, hair, skin and other such things was the pure creation?  Are you suggesting that those with more physical limitations or that are more distant from Eden's pure creations - fell farther than those with less differences?

Why is the term "express image" important?  What meaning does that have?  Does Christ have to be in the "express image" of His Father?   I think that is what is meant by being the Only Begotten, the apple didn't fall far from the tree.

 

I have no idea what the pure creation looked like other than imagining that it was probably pretty similar to how Christ is described after resurrection (as in D&C 110:3).  We all have different challenges in this life, so we all fell with different results based in our needs for specific tests and stewardships.  Some might be put in a body with a genetic propensity for alcoholism, others with same sex attraction, others with anger issues and others with a gift of listening to the spirit, others might have been given great beauty for the challenges that come with that, etc.  Yes, we all have different challenges given.  Where much is given much is required - to me that implies that we were all given different challenges otherwise there would not be a comparison word such as "much".  "Much" compared to what?  Compared to those who weren't given "much".

 

It is interesting that one of our Hymns goes like this; "When Jesus, the Anointed,

Descended from above
And gave himself a ransom
To win our souls with love--
With no apparent beauty,

That man should him desire"

 

So, I don't think, necessarily that "express image" is an appearance thing alone, it probably is more of a description of lack of genetic corruption but that is my speculation.  It is what we expect to gain when we have His image in our countenance - which is the reversal of the effects of the Fall.

Edited by Seminarysnoozer

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think that God created the earth and its inhabitants through a process of evolution. The idea of evolution seems to fit in very nicely with the idea of how we learn and progress - line upon line, here a little and there a little. Quite possibly, when the evolutionary process proceeded down a dead end path, or failed to proceed along the desired path, God gave it a little nudge to change its direction or speed it along. I don't say that I hold the following belief, but I just put it out as a possibility that may be worth considering - perhaps the difference between Adam and Eve, and all those almost human like creatures that may have proceeded them is that Adam and Eve may have been the first to have been given the light of Christ, thus making them fully human and children of a heavenly father, and susceptible to resurrection and eternal life whilst all those who proceeded them did not have the light of Christ and might not have such an opportunity.Just an idea. 

One of those "nudges" was the flood. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No, adaptation is change.  Evolution is going from one type to another type.  Butterflies adapt to have different color patterns, that is adaptation not evolution.  Evolution is a butterfly that becomes a moth that become a dragon.

 

The gauntlet has been thrown down! To convince skeptics, biologist simply need to evolve a dragon.

 

MAKE THIS HAPPEN SCIENCE!!!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The gauntlet has been thrown down! To convince skeptics, biologist simply need to evolve a dragon.

 

MAKE THIS HAPPEN SCIENCE!!!

 

I am still looking for this gauntlet you speak of? :P

Edited by Anddenex

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We may misread clues and be deceived but I have yet to hear a reasonable argument from someone that has difficulty with evolution, explain why 99% of all species that were ever created are now extinct.  Does that not go contrary to scripture that says all living things reproduce themselves?

 

No.  Scriptures do not profess an animal species is unable to go extinct, only that they reproduce after their kind. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Would you describe a plants alleles from the paradisiacal state to the mortal one where it now grows "thorns" a change or the same ones?

 

I could easily be oversimplifying this Seminary, but I easily see it as the same one.  As to my perspective, and the analogy, is there a difference between a human with freckles or without?  A human with pimples or without? 

 

I am assuming the thorns were already there in the Eden state.  They just now surely bug us.  I have understood that statement more as symbolic that life will not be Roses -- haha, and roses have thorns.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No.  Scriptures do not profess an animal species is unable to go extinct, only that they reproduce after their kind. 

 

There are a number of things I believe we ought to consider.  One is that what ever life happens would not occur without G-d somewhere behind the scenes making it happen.  So if man breeds a donkey with a horse - it is really G-d that creates the mule.  With that in mind - whatever man is able to do: G-d is behind it making it actually happen.  And whatever man is able to initiate, how much more is G-d able to do or has already done?  BTW not all mules are sterile and many individual creatures (including human) are sterile.

 

Another thing to consider:  Many humans with European ancestry have Neanderthal DNA markers.  Very few Asian (like no pure Asians) humans have these markers.  Why is this?  The simple answer is that some humans with European ancestry have Neanderthal ancestors.  Hmmmmmm - this is a conundrum for many religious thinkers that insist that Adam was the first man and there were no other men or men like creatures before Adam - or that Adam was uniquely created without any genetic ancestry.   Why would G-d create diversity among men with such DNA markers?  Maybe we could argue this point if the real G-d was the Norse g-d Loki or Loki like that loves to trick humans??  We know from European research that modern man and Neanderthals existed side by side - and there was inbreeding for many years and that eventually the Neanderthal died off - why or how we do not know.  But the Neanderthal died off - it would appear long before Adam.  So why do some of us have Neanderthal DNA markers and other do not?  So a question for Seminary S. -- are those with Neanderthal DNA more Eden like (superior race - or less superior race) - I personally do not like the doctrine that G-d created a superior race in Eden and the rest of humanity are genetically inferior fallen mud peoples.

 

Another consideration for the pure evolutionists that believe creation can all be explained without any actual intelligence involved.  The bat is a very interesting statistical conundrum for random evolution.  There are 4 separate and distinct genetic evolutionary processes or paths that must take place simultaneously.  They are as follows:  Develop the body proportions (size and weight) to fly.  Develop the ability to create high pitch sounds.  Develop the ability to hear and differentiate unique high pitch sounds from other high pitch sounds.  Develop a brain able to use sound echos to create 3 dimensional images.  That all four evolutionary path come together in a single organism at exactly the same time is a statistical impossibility.  Without all 4 the the bat would not survive.  We have a different statistical problem with the evolution of sharks that in essence over evolved what was needed to fill a statistical niche - demonstrating that evolution is not completely based in random possibilities.  Something else has to be involved.  I am not saying that the only possible solution is a G-d but using Occam's razor - it is the simplest possibility that makes the most sense.

 

My main point is that G-d has left to us empirical evidence that will testify of divine truth as well as scriptural evidence - that all truth from G-d will have multiple witnesses and that to understand truth one must be willing to accept all of the divine witnesses that G-d gives.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I could easily be oversimplifying this Seminary, but I easily see it as the same one.  As to my perspective, and the analogy, is there a difference between a human with freckles or without?  A human with pimples or without? 

 

I am assuming the thorns were already there in the Eden state.  They just now surely bug us.  I have understood that statement more as symbolic that life will not be Roses -- haha, and roses have thorns.

Russel M. Nelson; "Before we can comprehend the Atonement of Christ, however, we must first understand the Fall of Adam. And before we can understand the Fall of Adam, we must first understand the Creation. These three crucial components of the plan of salvation relate to each other.2

The Creation

The Creation culminated with Adam and Eve in the Garden of Eden. They were created in the image of God, with bodies of flesh and bone.3 Created in the image of God and not yet mortal, they could not grow old and die.4 “And they would have had no children”5 nor experienced the trials of life. (Please forgive me for mentioning children and the trials of life in the same breath.) The creation of Adam and Eve was a paradisiacal creation, one that required a significant change before they could fulfill the commandment to have children6 and thus provide earthly bodies for premortal spirit sons and daughters of God.

The Fall

That brings us to the Fall. Scripture teaches that “Adam fell that men might be; and men are, that they might have joy.”7 The Fall of Adam (and Eve) constituted the mortal creation and brought about the required changes in their bodies, including the circulation of blood and other modifications as well. 8"

 

 

According to Nelson there are two creations, the paradisiacal version and then the mortal one that was the result of the Fall.  He describes it as a "significant change" ... so, good try.

 

They are no more the same one then the ressurected body is like the one we have now.  You may not see that as a "significant change" but Russel M. Nelson does.  The magnitude of the atonement is dependent on how far we fell from the paradisiacal state.  If it was no big change then the atonement is no big thing.  These are all tied into each other.  The atonement reverses the effects of the Fall to bring it back to the original creation, the paridisiacal creation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

But the Neanderthal died off - it would appear long before Adam.  So why do some of us have Neanderthal DNA markers and other do not?  So a question for Seminary S. -- are those with Neanderthal DNA more Eden like (superior race - or less superior race) - I personally do not like the doctrine that G-d created a superior race in Eden and the rest of humanity are genetically inferior fallen mud peoples.

 

 

You are comparing apples to oranges.  God created Adam and Eve in the Garden of Eden.  The Fall created men in the world.  The Fall changed the bodies that were created in the Garden to something else, mortal bodies.  The worldly men are of varied varieties. How He made the varieties is through corruption, the curse of the Earth after the Fall.

 

An even bigger idea to ponder is why it is important to be sealed to our Earthly parents. It might have to do with the justice of receiving an inheritance, to inherit the genes of our first father and mother as it was in the Garden of Eden - but that topic may be too big for this thread.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You are comparing apples to oranges.  God created Adam and Eve in the Garden of Eden.  The Fall created men in the world.  The Fall changed the bodies that were created in the Garden to something else, mortal bodies.  The worldly men are of varied varieties. How He made the varieties is through corruption, the curse of the Earth after the Fall.

 

An even bigger idea to ponder is why it is important to be sealed to our Earthly parents. It might have to do with the justice of receiving an i0nheritance, to inherit the genes of our first father and mother as it was in the Garden of Eden - but that topic may be too big for this thread.

.

So you believe that in the resurrection we will all be genetic clones of the same individuals of Adam and Eve????  :huh:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

According to Nelson there are two creations, the paradisiacal version and then the mortal one that was the result of the Fall.  He describes it as a "significant change" ... so, good try.

 

They are no more the same one then the ressurected body is like the one we have now.  You may not see that as a "significant change" but Russel M. Nelson does.  The magnitude of the atonement is dependent on how far we fell from the paradisiacal state.  If it was no big change then the atonement is no big thing.  These are all tied into each other.  The atonement reverses the effects of the Fall to bring it back to the original creation, the paridisiacal creation.

 

You asked a question; I answered the question.  Wasn't trying to convince you of anything -- so not sure what I was trying for.  I am not so sure this "significant change" is what I perceive you to be describing.  I agree the change was significant.  The body Adam and Eve had was not a body of "flesh and blood" and the change from not having blood, incorruption, to having blood, corruption, is a significant change in and of itself.  Life forever, changed to death -- that is a significant change, thus the ending comment, "You may not see that as a "significant change" but Russel M. Nelson does, " is unfounded.  I merely do not agree with what I understand you to be describing.

 

In Ether 3, the brother of Jared sees the spirit body of our Savior, which appears to be flesh and blood.  This signifies our spirit bodies were not much different in appearance as to our bodies of flesh and blood.  We know from this quote, and from the scriptures a significant change took place, as to what you describe, not so sure.  Our resurrected bodies will be glorified, flesh and bone, indeed a significant change, and yet Joseph Smith described God in such a manner,

 

“God Himself was once as we are now, and is an exalted man, and sits enthroned in yonder heavens! That is the great secret. If the veil were rent today, and the great God who holds this world in its orbit, and who upholds all worlds and all things by His power, was to make Himself visible,—I say, if you were to see Him today, you would see Him like a man in form—like yourselves in all the person, image, and very form as a man; for Adam was created in the very fashion, image and likeness of God, and received instruction from, and walked, talked and conversed with Him, as one man talks and communes with another." (emphasis added)

 

Mark E. Petersen, "He spoke of the Savior and declared him to be in the express image of his Father’s person."

 

Our Savior was born long after the creation of Adam's perfect body, yet through an Apostle we are informed that Christ was in the "express image" of his Father.    The Lord was created in the very likeness and image of his Father.  A body of corruption, which could die, in the express image of his Father's glorified immortal body.  The paradisiacal creation, is not the perfection of our resurrected bodies.  Our resurrected bodies, will be glorified, if Celestial like our Heavenly Father.  Adam and Eve's body were not glorified bodies of a resurrected state.  The atonement is to bring us, if faithful, to the likeness of our Father in heaven to all extents, Adam and Eve were not like unto the Father, but were his likeness and image, and even a corrupted body as we are informed was in the express image of the Father.

Edited by Anddenex

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