Adam and Eve and Evolution


zlllch
 Share

Recommended Posts

2 minutes ago, Rob Osborn said:

Attack the character of others eh? Go back and start reading a few pages back where you jump in and attack my character out of the blue. I was kind and you kept hammering me.

Im open to a civil conversation but Im not going to discuss this amongst a pack of wolves.

I attacked your false doctrine not you... big difference...   But you do not want to see the difference.  Apparently your idea of "civil discussion" is "everyone agrees with my ideas"  And if they disagree with me they are attacking my character.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

54 minutes ago, Rob Osborn said:

Thats awesome. Perfectly depicts whats happening in here.

Are you the wolves or the vulture? Because I'm okay with either. The wolves are very cool, but the vulture can fly, which offsets the fact that you have to look like a feathered nightmare of your dinosaur forebears.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 hours ago, brlenox said:

I'm not sure really how to approach this without coming off as an apologist.  I guess I can only just say that what I am about to say is exactly how I understand these things personally with some insight as to what occurred when Mormon Doctrine was  revised.

This particular quote was the hot button of the first edition.  That alone gives us a point from which to start our consideration.  Elder McConkie is a man after my own heart, looking for precision and being bold enough to think he had the right and ability to interpret scripture. The quote however took a firestorm of abuse from those in the church who reacted to it's incendiary content. 

If you look at the above quotation from the first edition and compare it to the 1 Nephi 13 verse  though, how does it stack up?

The verse is discussing "A" church amongst "all other churches".  This particular church, while one of many is nonetheless the worst and biggest of them all and at least one reason is addressed in verse 26 for why this one is considered abominable.  That being they were in a position to alter scripture, either in teachings and perhaps later as they decided on what was to be considered scripture.  The issue is they altered the message some how and manipulated the scriptures for the gain of this abominable church.

In Elder McConkies first draft, I only see him naming "A" church among many that qualifies to meet the exact definition of the great and abominable church as defined in the scripture.  He is not trying to be insulting - his priority is to be bold and specific where he can do so and he has nailed it on the head - of all the churches that are not the church of God the Roman Catholic church has to shoulder the burden of being the one who persecuted the saints and who desperately wanted to withhold scripture from the people because they knew that the wealth they were making by the sales of indulgences and a dozen other things where not scripturally supported.

So from my perspective Elder McConkie and his definition are perfectly correct and accurate - a 5 foot level definition.

Next enter the revisionists...as stated earlier this is a hot button which only encourages complete and utter alarm in response from members of the Great and Abominable Church. Missionaries won't even have a chance to spread the Gospel with some nations for how disparaging and blunt is Elder McConkies commentary.  Elder Spencer W. Kimball was assigned by the first presidency to help Elder McConkie soften his tone and rewrite any identified definitions that were lacking in tact.  The goal was to put a better face on it.

They come up with the second quote which, removes the finger pointing to a particular institution and then lumps the ideology which is supported by 1 Nephi 13, into a less alarming and more generic, less accusatory effort.  This reduced most of the potential for friction and perhaps helped the LDS church in it's work of great importance of proselyting catholic and other churches.

So From my perspective the revisionists definition is perfectly correct and accurate. It is what the final product should have been for different reasons other than Elder McConkies requirement of precision in definition which now had to defer to the new 10,000 foot level understanding, which was far more appropriate for public dissemination. Both quotes are sustained in the verses in question but the different perspectives on tactful presentation were appropriate and correct and also match the contents of the verses in question.

I'll try to finish tomorrow..this holiday planning and increased activity of the season is messing with my free time... 

 

I think you're basing your argument more on the assumption that Bruce R. McConkie was right, and less on the scriptures themselves. If we analyze all the scriptures where the terms "great and abominable church" and "the church of the devil" are used, his definition cannot logically be accurate. I will attempt to refute his statement using only the scriptures themselves.

I want to preface my argument by asserting that the terms "great and abominable church" and "church of the devil" are interchangeable, and that their definitions are static throughout their usage in the scriptures. The "great and abominable church" in one verse or chapter, has the same definition as the "great and abominable church" or the "church of the devil" in another. From here on out I will only use the term "church of the devil," just because it's shorter. Although more specific definitions for the "church of the devil" (such as the Catholic Church, or any non-LDS religion) may appear to make sense for certain specific instances of "the church of the devil's" usage, I believe that there is only one definition that makes sense for every instance of it's usage.

You're right that the quote from the second edition of "Mormon Doctrine" is a bit imprecise. But the more precise definition is not the Catholic Church, or non-LDS religions, because neither of them make sense with every instance of the "church of the devil" in the scriptures. The most specific we can get without distorting the meaning of the scriptures, is by defining the "church of the devil" as a symbol for the wicked. Because it is a symbolic title, and not a literal church, when the scriptures understand the "church of the devil" as an organization, one founded by the devil himself, this must be understood symbolically. There is no literal "church of the devil" that all the wicked have membership in, but there is a symbolic one.

Bruce R. McConkie's statement that the Catholic Church is the "church of the devil" at first seems pretty reasonable when we read only the verses you cited from 1 Nephi 13, but as I mentioned earlier, we must take into account all the other instances that this term has been used. What about this verse in the next chapter:

Quote

"Behold there are save two churches only; the one is the church of the Lamb of God, and the other is the church of the devil; wherefore, whoso belongeth not to the church of the Lamb of God belongeth to that great church, which is the mother of abominations; and she is the whore of all the earth." (1 Nephi 14:10)

If there are "two churches only," the "church of the devil" cannot be specifically referring to the Catholic Church. This verse necessitates membership in one church or the other; there is no neutral ground. If we understand the two churches as being the LDS church and the Catholic Church, that would mean that if a person isn't a member of the LDS church, they must be a member of the Catholic Church, and vice versa. This is obviously not the case, so the "church of the devil" cannot be specifically referring to the Catholic Church, or any one church at all.

Quote

"And the angel said unto me: Behold the formation of a church which is most abominable above all other churches, which slayeth the saints of God, yea, and tortureth them and bindeth them down, and yoketh them with a yoke of iron, and bringeth them down into captivity." (1 Nephi 13:5)

The above verse does lend itself to the argument that the "church of the devil" refers to a specific church, because it says that it "is most abominable above all other churches." But, I don't think the fact that the "church of the devil" was worse than other churches necessarily means that it was a specific church among other churches. It just means that when compared to other churches, the "church of the devil" was "most abominable." This verse is still compatible with the "church of the devil" being a symbol for the wicked, because this symbol is singular. It is "a" church, just as the "church of the Lamb of God" is "a" church.

A more likely explanation is that the two churches are the LDS church and all other non-LDS churches, but this is also false. Let's look at this verse in D&C 18, a chapter giving instruction specifically to members of the LDS church:

Quote

"Contend against no church, save it be the church of the devil." (D&C 18:20)

This verse refers to two groups: churches that we're not supposed to contend against, and the "church of the devil" which we are supposed to contend against. If the "church of the devil" is defined as all other religions, then how can there be any churches that we are commanded not to contend against? Defining the "church of the devil" as one specific church would make more sense, but I've already refuted that idea, because there are "save two churches only." So if the "church of the devil" cannot mean all other churches, and it cannot mean the Catholic Church, then what can it mean? Perhaps this:

Quote

"Contend against no church, save it be [the symbolic church of the devil, or in other words, the wicked]." (D&C 18:20)

I want to add one more interchangeable term that means the same thing as the "great and abominable church," and the "church of the devil." This term is the "whore of all the earth." The verse from 1 Nephi 14 I cited earlier unifies their meanings: "which is the mother of abominations; and she is the whore of all the earth." The "whore of all the earth" is used throughout the scriptures to represent the wicked who will be destroyed by fire in the last days, or just the wicked in general if it's referring to a time before their great and last destruction. This is the one definition that makes sense with every usage of "great and abominable church," "church of the devil," and "whore of all the earth." These terms are all symbols for the wicked. 

Quote


"And the blood of that great and abominable church, which is the whore of all the earth, shall turn upon their own heads; for they shall war among themselves, and the sword of their own hands shall fall upon their own heads, and they shall be drunken with their own blood." (1 Nephi 22:13)

"And the great and abominable church, which is the whore of all the earth, shall be cast down by devouring fire, according as it is spoken by the mouth of Ezekiel the prophet, who spoke of these things, which have not come to pass but surely must, as I live, for abominations shall not reign." (D&C 29:21)

"And another angel shall sound his trump, saying: That great church, the mother of abominations, that made all nations drink of the wine of the wrath of her fornication, that persecuteth the saints of God, that shed their blood—she who sitteth upon many waters, and upon the islands of the sea—behold, she is the tares of the earth; she is bound in bundles; her bands are made strong, no man can loose them; therefore, she is ready to be burned. And he shall sound his trump both long and loud, and all nations shall hear it." (D&C 88:94)

"And there came one of the seven angels which had the seven vials, and talked with me, saying unto me, Come hither; I will shew unto thee the judgment of the great whore that sitteth upon many waters:" (Revelation 17:1)

So now let's read one of the verses you cited from 1 Nephi 13 that seems to specifically single out the Catholic Church, and replace "the great and abominable church" with "the wicked."

Quote

"Wherefore, thou seest that after the book hath gone forth through the hands of [the wicked], that there are many plain and precious things taken away from the book, which is the book of the Lamb of God." (1 Nephi 13:28)

The wicked people who took away many plain and precious things may have been members of the Catholic Church, but this verse cannot be understood to mean the entire Catholic Church.

I think the dichotomy of the "church of God" and the "church of the devil" can be understood more literally or more figuratively, and both understandings are correct. In a figurative sense, they refer to all that is good, and all that is evil. In a more literal sense, they refer to the righteous and the wicked in the last days. We know that God's destruction of the wicked and salvation of the righteous will not be split evenly on religious lines. He will save those who are good, and destroy those who are wicked, regardless of their religion. All the wicked, or the "church of the devil" will be destroyed. All the righteous, or "the church of the Lamb of God" will be saved. Neither of these terms refers to any one religion, otherwise their members would perish or be saved regardless of their own personal righteousness.

Quote

"Wherefore, he that fighteth against Zion, both Jew and Gentile, both bond and free, both male and female, shall perish; for they are they who are the whore of all the earth; for they who are not for me are against me, saith our God." (2 Nephi 10:16)

From this verse we learn that the qualifier for those who will perish is that they "fighteth against Zion." This is regardless of their religion (whether they are "Jew or Gentile"). We can infer that the opposite must be true as well, and any "Jew or Gentile" who doesn't fight against Zion will not perish. So in other words, those who fight against Zion (the wicked) will perish, and those who don't (the righteous) won't. Membership in either the "church of the devil," or the "church of the Lamb of God" must then be symbolic, as there is no earthly organization entirely comprised of only the wicked, or only the righteous. The two churches are symbols for the literal people of the devil, and the literal people of God. Thus the entire "church of the devil" (the wicked) will be destroyed, and the entire "church of the Lamb of God" (the righteous) will be saved. So when scriptures say things like "are you a member of God's church or the devil's church?" they really mean "are you wicked or righteous?"

In summary, I believe Bruce R. McConkie's statement was replaced not because of the public backlash against it, and not so we could proselytize Catholics (although that was a nice bonus), but because it didn't accurately reflect what is contained in the scriptures.

Edited by zlllch
minor grammatical and citational errors
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 12/19/2017 at 10:24 AM, Rob Osborn said:

Before the fall Adam and Eve were immortal beings. Adam and Eve are the literal physical children of God. They were begat by the Gods the same way we are begat by our parents.

I actually like this Idea.  I have a question about it though.  How does God switch between when a child will be born with only a spirit body and when it will be born with a physical body?  I have always theorized that all celestial offspring is of spirit beings, except I suppose Christ was a physical offspring.  So if Christ could be the physical offspring of Heavenly Father, why not Adam also.  What about the 'Only Begotten in the Flesh' title ascribed to Christ?  Does Adam somehow not count for this?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, person0 said:

I actually like this Idea.  I have a question about it though.  How does God switch between when a child will be born with only a spirit body and when it will be born with a physical body?  I have always theorized that all celestial offspring is of spirit beings, except I suppose Christ was a physical offspring.  So if Christ could be the physical offspring of Heavenly Father, why not Adam also.  What about the 'Only Begotten in the Flesh' title ascribed to Christ?  Does Adam somehow not count for this?

The title of "Only Begotten" is specific to Christ in his "mission". Abraham was commanded to offer up his "only begotten" son Isaac. But, Isaac wasnt the only begotten son of Abraham. Its a title carrying specific blessings and mission

Personally I have a problem with God fathering our spirits in the same manner he fathered Adam physically. That would require our Heavenly Mother to be giving birth to billions and billions and it doesnt really add up . 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, estradling75 said:

Typical... knowing you can not show that your doctrine is in harmony with the Revealed word of God on the matter... you instead evade questions and attack the character of others.  Let also your own actions stand as a testament against your teachings as a fourth witness.

This is why I stay completely out of some threads.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On ‎12‎/‎22‎/‎2017 at 10:29 AM, Rob Osborn said:

And ?

 

Since you asked - It seems to me that those that think they know something but but don't because they are confused (not well studied or thought out) - think they must convince everyone else to validate their thinking.  Those that know things without confusion because of study and validation; will believe that everybody (if they take time or have taken time to study and think it through) already agrees with them (no other validation needed) - and if alternate arguments are brought up - they will think someone is just playing with them; either validating their research or are arguing just to be arguing.

 

The Traveler

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Traveler said:

 

If I were a deer - I would not play with wolves.  Just saying

 

The Traveler

Thats why Im not discussing it anymore publicly, too many wolves.

1 hour ago, Traveler said:

 

Since you asked - It seems to me that those that think they know something but but don't because they are confused (not well studied or thought out) - think they must convince everyone else to validate their thinking.  Those that know things without confusion because of study and validation; will believe that everybody (if they take time or have taken time to study and think it through) already agrees with them (no other validation needed) - and if alternate arguments are brought up - they will think someone is just playing with them; either validating their research or are arguing just to be arguing.

 

The Traveler

I dont need validation. I believe what I believe and I may be on an island somewhat by myself but at least I have joy in knowledge of the truth.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 hours ago, wenglund said:

I am the blue-ish sky. 

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

In case anyone is wondering why I consider myself the blue-ish sky, it is not because I consider myself high above the fray. I don't. Nor is it because I am sad (blue) to see good members in the throes of contention instead of unity of the faith, because I am mostly pleased. Here is why:

I count myself with the blue sky because it is oft the symbol of freedom and open speech. I love that people can freely express their beliefs. I love it that people can freely challenge those beliefs. I love it that people can express feelings of being attacked. And, I love that others can dismiss such charges as overwrought and misdirected.

Most of all, I love how free speech is inherently an impediment to damnable and abominable dogma--not by preventing the barks of the dogmatists, since that is allowed, but rather by providing room for correction and change.

Now, I may be arrogant enough to have strong convictions in my beliefs, but I am not so arrogant as to be completely certain of my beliefs. The blue skies of free speech provide a means for yet changing my mind. 

That way, for example, while I have firm faith that cannibalism is deeply wrong, when my Savior declares that: "Except ye eat of the flesh of the Son of Man, and drink of his blood, ye have no life in you" (John 6:53--see also vs 51-58), I will continue to follow him rather than finding this saying hard and offensive and walk no more with him as did some disciples of old (vs 59-66)

cf00512c7d8040a10c3994c6929580f3.jpg

Thanks,  -Wade Englund-

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 12/23/2017 at 1:42 PM, zlllch said:

I think you're basing your argument more on the assumption that Bruce R. McConkie was right, and less on the scriptures themselves. If we analyze all the scriptures where the terms "great and abominable church" and "the church of the devil" are used, his definition cannot logically be accurate. I will attempt to refute his statement using only the scriptures themselves.

I want to preface my argument by asserting that the terms "great and abominable church" and "church of the devil" are interchangeable, and that their definitions are static throughout their usage in the scriptures. The "great and abominable church" in one verse or chapter, has the same definition as the "great and abominable church" or the "church of the devil" in another. From here on out I will only use the term "church of the devil," just because it's shorter. Although more specific definitions for the "church of the devil" (such as the Catholic Church, or any non-LDS religion) may appear to make sense for certain specific instances of "the church of the devil's" usage, I believe that there is only one definition that makes sense for every instance of it's usage.

You're right that the quote from the second edition of "Mormon Doctrine" is a bit imprecise. But the more precise definition is not the Catholic Church, or non-LDS religions, because neither of them make sense with every instance of the "church of the devil" in the scriptures. The most specific we can get without distorting the meaning of the scriptures, is by defining the "church of the devil" as a symbol for the wicked. Because it is a symbolic title, and not a literal church, when the scriptures understand the "church of the devil" as an organization, one founded by the devil himself, this must be understood symbolically. There is no literal "church of the devil" that all the wicked have membership in, but there is a symbolic one.

Bruce R. McConkie's statement that the Catholic Church is the "church of the devil" at first seems pretty reasonable when we read only the verses you cited from 1 Nephi 13, but as I mentioned earlier, we must take into account all the other instances that this term has been used. What about this verse in the next chapter:

If there are "two churches only," the "church of the devil" cannot be specifically referring to the Catholic Church. This verse necessitates membership in one church or the other; there is no neutral ground. If we understand the two churches as being the LDS church and the Catholic Church, that would mean that if a person isn't a member of the LDS church, they must be a member of the Catholic Church, and vice versa. This is obviously not the case, so the "church of the devil" cannot be specifically referring to the Catholic Church, or any one church at all.

The above verse does lend itself to the argument that the "church of the devil" refers to a specific church, because it says that it "is most abominable above all other churches." But, I don't think the fact that the "church of the devil" was worse than other churches necessarily means that it was a specific church among other churches. It just means that when compared to other churches, the "church of the devil" was "most abominable." This verse is still compatible with the "church of the devil" being a symbol for the wicked, because this symbol is singular. It is "a" church, just as the "church of the Lamb of God" is "a" church.

A more likely explanation is that the two churches are the LDS church and all other non-LDS churches, but this is also false. Let's look at this verse in D&C 18, a chapter giving instruction specifically to members of the LDS church:

This verse refers to two groups: churches that we're not supposed to contend against, and the "church of the devil" which we are supposed to contend against. If the "church of the devil" is defined as all other religions, then how can there be any churches that we are commanded not to contend against? Defining the "church of the devil" as one specific church would make more sense, but I've already refuted that idea, because there are "save two churches only." So if the "church of the devil" cannot mean all other churches, and it cannot mean the Catholic Church, then what can it mean? Perhaps this:

I want to add one more interchangeable term that means the same thing as the "great and abominable church," and the "church of the devil." This term is the "whore of all the earth." The verse from 1 Nephi 14 I cited earlier unifies their meanings: "which is the mother of abominations; and she is the whore of all the earth." The "whore of all the earth" is used throughout the scriptures to represent the wicked who will be destroyed by fire in the last days, or just the wicked in general if it's referring to a time before their great and last destruction. This is the one definition that makes sense with every usage of "great and abominable church," "church of the devil," and "whore of all the earth." These terms are all symbols for the wicked. 

So now let's read one of the verses you cited from 1 Nephi 13 that seems to specifically single out the Catholic Church, and replace "the great and abominable church" with "the wicked."

The wicked people who took away many plain and precious things may have been members of the Catholic Church, but this verse cannot be understood to mean the entire Catholic Church.

I think the dichotomy of the "church of God" and the "church of the devil" can be understood more literally or more figuratively, and both understandings are correct. In a figurative sense, they refer to all that is good, and all that is evil. In a more literal sense, they refer to the righteous and the wicked in the last days. We know that God's destruction of the wicked and salvation of the righteous will not be split evenly on religious lines. He will save those who are good, and destroy those who are wicked, regardless of their religion. All the wicked, or the "church of the devil" will be destroyed. All the righteous, or "the church of the Lamb of God" will be saved. Neither of these terms refers to any one religion, otherwise their members would perish or be saved regardless of their own personal righteousness.

From this verse we learn that the qualifier for those who will perish is that they "fighteth against Zion." This is regardless of their religion (whether they are "Jew or Gentile"). We can infer that the opposite must be true as well, and any "Jew or Gentile" who doesn't fight against Zion will not perish. So in other words, those who fight against Zion (the wicked) will perish, and those who don't (the righteous) won't. Membership in either the "church of the devil," or the "church of the Lamb of God" must then be symbolic, as there is no earthly organization entirely comprised of only the wicked, or only the righteous. The two churches are symbols for the literal people of the devil, and the literal people of God. Thus the entire "church of the devil" (the wicked) will be destroyed, and the entire "church of the Lamb of God" (the righteous) will be saved. So when scriptures say things like "are you a member of God's church or the devil's church?" they really mean "are you wicked or righteous?"

In summary, I believe Bruce R. McConkie's statement was replaced not because of the public backlash against it, and not so we could proselytize Catholics (although that was a nice bonus), but because it didn't accurately reflect what is contained in the scriptures.

zlllch, I have decided to embrace the holidays with a rousing case of the flu. A truly spiritual event, it has brought me to my knees several times and I find my thoughts are, for the moment, more readily found in the spiritual realms of thrones and worship of a fully engaging type.  Please allow me a day or so to consider upon these things....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

49 minutes ago, brlenox said:

zlllch, I have decided to embrace the holidays with a rousing case of the flu. A truly spiritual event, it has brought me to my knees several times and I find my thoughts are, for the moment, more readily found in the spiritual realms of thrones and worship of a fully engaging type.  Please allow me a day or so to consider upon these things....

Take all the time you need, hope you get better soon, and Merry Christmas!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have a lot of respect for all that has been shared here. It's a topic I've been intensely interested in studying. I'm currently studying biology at BYU. I could go on for months about all of the actual church teachings behind the doctrines that LDS evolutionists claim aren't doctrines. But it definitely depends in large part on what counts as doctrine to you. To make a long story short, I believe what revelation teaches over what man teaches. Learning what man has hypothesized does not equate to "learning the means and methods of God's creation" or "learning the unrevealed details of Genesis" as LDS evolutionists claim. Yes, there are wonderful, beautiful truths that Science has given us that do help us to understand life. But where man's "wisdom" begins to conflict with what has been revealed, I would hope that we would all be willing to depart from what the world tells us to believe. From what has been shared by others on this page, there should be no doubt that Adam was the first human on earth. His mortal life began ~6000 years ago. Lehi teaches that before the Fall, all life on Earth was in an unchanging state. No death, no reproduction, therefore definitely no evolution. Clearly there has been a mindblowing amount of evolution, extinction, etc. since that time. As for Pre-Adamites, y'all seriously need to be made aware that PRESIDENT Lee told the church that it is definitely a false theory. I'm barely touching the tip of the iceberg with this topic. It's such a big can of worms that it's hard to address in a meaningful way. But I just wanted to chip in as another voice on the side that is brave enough to go against the grain of the world.

One more thing. There is a certain argument that really bugs me. LDS evolutionists often say, in a sad attempt to reconcile religion and science, "the human bodies could have been formed for Adam and Eve through evolution, and then God could have breathed souls into them, making them children of God." Please just think about this. All animals already have spirits. Read the book of Moses. Please don't think that we humans have animal bodies that sprouted up spontaneously through natural processes and that the thing that sets us apart from animals is that we have souls. This is just such an inconsistent idea. We all have souls, or spirits, and the spirit is in the image of the body, and the body in the image of the spirit. Pardon the rant, but this particular thing just really gets me going.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 12/23/2017 at 2:42 PM, zlllch said:

In summary, I believe Bruce R. McConkie's statement was replaced not because of the public backlash against it, and not so we could proselytize Catholics (although that was a nice bonus), but because it didn't accurately reflect what is contained in the scriptures.

I think it's mostly to cut down on the confusion that will no doubt ensue when the Two Witnesses lead off their Jerusalem ministry with the line, "Dang!  Seven billion people in the world and ain't more than a few thousand of 'em figured it out even half right.  We might as well keep some suspense going and not tell you who they are, so we're just gonna start from the beginning and see how fast everybody with any sense can join up with 'em."

Edited by NightSG
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, Chrisberockin said:

I have a lot of respect for all that has been shared here. It's a topic I've been intensely interested in studying. I'm currently studying biology at BYU. I could go on for months about all of the actual church teachings behind the doctrines that LDS evolutionists claim aren't doctrines. But it definitely depends in large part on what counts as doctrine to you. To make a long story short, I believe what revelation teaches over what man teaches. Learning what man has hypothesized does not equate to "learning the means and methods of God's creation" or "learning the unrevealed details of Genesis" as LDS evolutionists claim. Yes, there are wonderful, beautiful truths that Science has given us that do help us to understand life. But where man's "wisdom" begins to conflict with what has been revealed, I would hope that we would all be willing to depart from what the world tells us to believe. From what has been shared by others on this page, there should be no doubt that Adam was the first human on earth. His mortal life began ~6000 years ago. Lehi teaches that before the Fall, all life on Earth was in an unchanging state. No death, no reproduction, therefore definitely no evolution. Clearly there has been a mindblowing amount of evolution, extinction, etc. since that time. As for Pre-Adamites, y'all seriously need to be made aware that PRESIDENT Lee told the church that it is definitely a false theory. I'm barely touching the tip of the iceberg with this topic. It's such a big can of worms that it's hard to address in a meaningful way. But I just wanted to chip in as another voice on the side that is brave enough to go against the grain of the world.

One more thing. There is a certain argument that really bugs me. LDS evolutionists often say, in a sad attempt to reconcile religion and science, "the human bodies could have been formed for Adam and Eve through evolution, and then God could have breathed souls into them, making them children of God." Please just think about this. All animals already have spirits. Read the book of Moses. Please don't think that we humans have animal bodies that sprouted up spontaneously through natural processes and that the thing that sets us apart from animals is that we have souls. This is just such an inconsistent idea. We all have souls, or spirits, and the spirit is in the image of the body, and the body in the image of the spirit. Pardon the rant, but this particular thing just really gets me going.

"The existence of these animals is indisputable, for their remains have been found in rocks all over the earth. What eternal purpose they played in the creation and early history of the earth is unknown. The scriptures do not address the question, and it is not the realm of science to explore the issue of why they were here. We can only conclude, as Elder Talmage did, that 'the whole series of chalk deposits and many of our deep-sea limestones contain the skeletal remains of animals. These lived and died, age after age, while the earth was yet unfit for human habitation.' ('The Earth and Man.')"

--Morris S. Petersen, professor of geology, Brigham Young University, "I Have a Question," Ensign (September 1987)

“Do not begrudge existence to creatures that looked like men long, long ago, nor deny them a place in God's affection or even a right to exaltation — for our scriptures allow them such. Nor am I overly concerned as to just when they might have lived, for their world is not our world. They have all gone away long before our people ever appeared. God assigned them their proper times and functions, as he has given me mine — a full-time job that admonishes me to remember his words to the overly eager Moses: "For mine own purpose have I made these things. Here is wisdom and it remaineth in me." (Moses 1:31.) It is Adam as my own parent who concerns me. When he walks onto the stage, then and only then the play begins.”

 -- Hugh Nibley

"[T]here was an actual Adam and Eve who fell from an actual Eden, with all the consequences that fall carried with it.

I do not know the details of what happened on this planet before that, but I do know these two were created under the divine hand of God, that for a time they lived alone in a paradisiacal setting where there was neither human death nor future family, and that through a sequence of choices they transgressed a commandment of God which required that they leave their garden setting but which allowed them to have children before facing physical death." 

-- Jeffery R. Holland 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share