Adam and Eve and Evolution

[Guest]

7 minutes ago, zlllch said:

What date is this specifically? I like your explanation.

Yeah that makes a lot of sense!

I am on my phone so I can't give you a link but the Wikipedia article on civilization places civilization (collective living in settlements) beginning at 6500 years ago.  Adam fell 6000 years ago.  Coincidence?  I think not.

Edited December 20, 2017 by DoctorLemon

[Rob Osborn]

15 minutes ago, DoctorLemon said:

Except three eternal kingdoms of glory IS clearly pronounced church doctrine and the official position of the church, embraced by prophets and apostles and widely taught in church curriculum.  Deviating from this church doctrine is not a harmless opinion - it is heresy and spiritually dangerous.

By comparison, the Church has clearly stated it has no official position on evolution and there is no official church doctrine on such, so it is perfectly fine to accept the overwhelming scientific evidence that death existed before the fall and there may be something to evolution after all.

 

 

Well, thats your opinion. I argue that our doctrine on heaven as taught in manuals deviates from its own sources as found in the scriptures. I know I do not have authority to proclaim truth on that matter or speak for the church. Nevertheless, I do feel strongly that our doctrine on heaven and hell will change and it will come from the top one line at a time. As for evolution Im of the opinion thats its dangerous and blasphemous to teach that Adam was the end product of animals procreating, especially considering that our scriptures name Adams dad as God himself.

The church has stated its official position on the origin of man but many refuse to accept it.

[Rob Osborn]

http://emp.byui.edu/OpenshawR/Pearl of Great Price/Creation Of Adam.htm

[Guest]

7 minutes ago, Rob Osborn said:

Well, thats your opinion. I argue that our doctrine on heaven as taught in manuals deviates from its own sources as found in the scriptures. I know I do not have authority to proclaim truth on that matter or speak for the church. Nevertheless, I do feel strongly that our doctrine on heaven and hell will change and it will come from the top one line at a time. As for evolution Im of the opinion thats its dangerous and blasphemous to teach that Adam was the end product of animals procreating, especially considering that our scriptures name Adams dad as God himself.

The church has stated its official position on the origin of man but many refuse to accept it.

https://www.lds.org/new-era/2016/10/to-the-point/what-does-the-church-believe-about-evolution?lang=eng

The Church has stated its official position on evolution - that there is no official position, and quite recently, at the above link, but you apparently refuse to accept it.

I would be careful arguing that manuals are wrong about three eternal degrees of glory, because it isn't just the manuals that teach it.  It is also all of our living apostles and prophets and scriptures (you can go do a search on lds.org if you don't believe me).  Questioning our living prophets and apostles is most unwise indeed.  Saying the Church will change its teachings someday is precisely the sort of thinking that all manner of apostates use to justify their sins, from those who champion polygamy to those who believe women should have the priesthood.

Tell you what - in the spirit of fairness, if you can find an official church proclamation stating that the Church officially has no position on three eternal kingdoms of glory and belief in the same is optional the way the Church has come out and stated it has no position on evolution, then I will eat crow and admit your opinion that there aren't really three kingdoms of glory is as valid as my opinion that evolution may have occurred.  

[Rob Osborn]

6 minutes ago, DoctorLemon said:

https://www.lds.org/new-era/2016/10/to-the-point/what-does-the-church-believe-about-evolution?lang=eng

The Church has stated its official position on evolution - that there is no official position, and quite recently, at the above link, but you apparently refuse to accept it.

I would be careful arguing that manuals are wrong about three eternal degrees of glory, because it isn't just the manuals that teach it.  It is also all of our living apostles and prophets and scriptures (you can go do a search on lds.org if you don't believe me).  Questioning our living prophets and apostles is most unwise indeed.  Saying the Church will change its teachings someday is precisely the sort of thinking that all manner of apostates use to justify their sins, from those who champion polygamy to those who believe women should have the priesthood.

Tell you what - in the spirit of fairness, if you can find an official church proclamation stating that the Church officially has no position on three eternal kingdoms of glory and belief in the same is optional the way the Church has come out and stated it has no position on evolution, then I will eat crow and admit your opinion that there aren't really three kingdoms of glory is as valid as my opinion that evolution may have occurred.  

I find it ironic that whereas it states the church has no official position in regards to evolution or how Adam came about it then references the 2002 Ensign reprinted 1909 article which in fact does state the churches official position on mans physical origins. The 2016 linked article is very poorly written and carries no authoritive weight as does the 2002 article. 

If you want to debate heaven and hell please start another thread. Im not really into the whole ad hominem attacks. You want to discuss evolution then Im game. If you are here to attack my character on another subject to make me look bad start another thread please.

[zlllch]

5 minutes ago, Rob Osborn said:

http://emp.byui.edu/OpenshawR/Pearl of Great Price/Creation Of Adam.htm

Many of these quotes reference Brigham Young's teachings that Adam was actually God the Father, otherwise known as Adam-God theory. These teachings have been formally disavowed by the church. A few of the rest of them contain the official church doctrine, but most are just the opinions of individual church leaders, which does not constitute church doctrine.

"We warn you against the dissemination of doctrines which are not according to the Scriptures and which are alleged to have been taught by some of the General Authorities of past generations. Such, for instance, is the Adam-God theory. We denounce that theory and hope that everyone will be cautioned against this and other kinds of false doctrine."

—Spencer W. Kimball, "Our Own Liahona," Ensign (November 1976)

[Guest]

Just now, Rob Osborn said:

I find it ironic that whereas it states the church has no official position in regards to evolution or how Adam came about it then references the 2002 Ensign reprinted 1909 article which in fact does state the churches official position on mans physical origins. The 2016 linked article is very poorly written and carries no authoritive weight as does the 2002 article. 

If you want to debate heaven and hell please start another thread. Im not really into the whole ad hominem attacks. You want to discuss evolution then Im game. If you are here to attack my character on another subject to make me look bad start another thread please.

res ipsa loquitur

[Rob Osborn]

6 minutes ago, DoctorLemon said:

res ipsa loquitur

Cheetos

[Rob Osborn]

13 minutes ago, zlllch said:

Many of these quotes reference Brigham Young's teachings that Adam was actually God the Father, otherwise known as Adam-God theory. These teachings have been formally disavowed by the church. A few of the rest of them contain the official church doctrine, but most are just the opinions of individual church leaders, which does not constitute church doctrine.

"We warn you against the dissemination of doctrines which are not according to the Scriptures and which are alleged to have been taught by some of the General Authorities of past generations. Such, for instance, is the Adam-God theory. We denounce that theory and hope that everyone will be cautioned against this and other kinds of false doctrine."

—Spencer W. Kimball, "Our Own Liahona," Ensign (November 1976)

I only provided the link to show that prophets have indeed believed God is Adams father. Choose for yourself what to believe.

[zlllch]

1 minute ago, Rob Osborn said:

I only provided the link to show that prophets have indeed believed God is Adams father. Choose for yourself what to believe.

Alright, I'll believe the official doctrine of the church which is that we are spiritual children of God, not physical. I'm impressed you found quotes saying we are physical children though, well done.

[anatess2]

16 hours ago, zil said:

I never said he had a human spirit, just spirit.  Your argument requires one of two things:

1) Animate, but spirit-less, beings existed and evolved into something a sliver shy of "man"

2) Animate beings with non-man spirits evolved into something a sliver shy of "man"

...then, regardless of which of these happened, one of these happened:

A) Adam's spirit entered into the fetus produced by one of the above

B) Adam's spirit entered into the spirit-less being birthed by one of the above (or replaced the non-man spirit in the being birthed by one of the above)

...I find all of them preposterous.

So.  Let me ask you.  Abortion is ALWAYS the death of of a spirit.  True or false?

[anatess2]

16 hours ago, Rob Osborn said:

Adam was created from the dust of the earth. Thats a fact. Heres another fact- Both you and I are made from the dust of the earth. 

"25 And now I ask, can ye say aught of yourselves? I answer you, Nay. Ye cannot say that ye are even as much as the dust of the earth; yet ye were created of the dust of the earth; but behold, it belongeth to him who created you." (Mosiah 2:25)

We do know the process by which we ourselves were created from the dust of the earth. Why should it be different now than with Adam?

So you're saying Adam was a fetus in someone's womb...  well, it's as good an explanation as any.

[anatess2]

17 hours ago, brlenox said:

I think Elder McConkie explains this condition very well and I can't see that it supports any concept of idea of an "evolved body":

 

 

I'm gonna make this all very simple for you.  Elder McConkie's entire talk explains the SPIRITUAL progression of it all and not the physical SCIENCE behind it.  It is always folly to treat religious matters as a Science Textbook.

Edited December 20, 2017 by anatess2

[Rob Osborn]

2 minutes ago, anatess2 said:

So you're saying Adam was a fetus in someone's womb...  well, it's as good an explanation as any.

He was born by blood just as you and I.

[anatess2]

Just now, Rob Osborn said:

He was born by blood just as you and I.

No problem with that statement.

But - you're gonna be arguing with Anddenex on how Adam's parental unit is not his father and mother.

[Guest MormonGator]

10 hours ago, Rob Osborn said:

Dinosaurs walked with man.

Oh. 

You've got an uphill battle convincing anyone other than yourself that this really happened, but I wish you the best of luck. 

Edited December 20, 2017 by MormonGator

[Rob Osborn]

22 minutes ago, MormonGator said:

Oh. 

You've got an uphill battle convincing anyone other than yourself that this really happened, but I wish you the best of luck. 

Its a good thing we werent able to kill off the the crocodiles and gators hundreds of years ago or we would think they went extinct 60 million years ago too.

But, then again there would always be you, as an old fossil.

[Rob Osborn]

Theres just way too much evidence that man walked with dinosaurs. Its funny how because they arent around in our day its an out of sight out of mind thing and so we truly believe the scientists fairytale of them being gone for 60+ million years ago.

[zlarry123]

Good stuff concerning your question on this site

https://creation.com/pre-adamic-man-were-there-human-beings-on-earth-before-adam

[Rob Osborn]

4 minutes ago, zlarry123 said:

Good stuff concerning your question on this site

https://creation.com/pre-adamic-man-were-there-human-beings-on-earth-before-adam

It really nails it on the head by explaining the dangers of believing in pre-adamites. One foot in God and the other in secularism only theres no solid footing in secularism.

[Guest]

1 hour ago, MormonGator said:

Oh. 

You've got an uphill battle convincing anyone other than yourself that this really happened, but I wish you the best of luck. 

Yabba dabba doo!

[MrShorty]

8 minutes ago, DoctorLemon said:

Yabba dabba doo!

I had forgotten about that particular set of historical documents.

[Traveler]

18 hours ago, brlenox said:

For myself the entire concept of "continuation of the seeds" speaks to a possibility that this does not reference only the seeds of direct offspring but indeed may find realization in the ability to manage the creative processes of all existing species and perhaps might enable the formation of new forms of life.  That is pure speculation, which I do not do often but it is the closest thing that I have to a thought that matches, as I read them, your implications.

However, that said, When Brigham Young indicates that Adam's origins were on a different planet and then he was brought to this earth, that seems so much more reasonable to me than to think that every time God populates a planet that he forces an evolutionary process that not only goes to great lengths to recreate mankind but what is already running around freely from other creative effort in the form of any species of life that exist throughout creation.  So, if a new life form was created from the DNA of God...? would all subsequent iterations of that life form require the same initial process or from the point of their creation would they most likely be replicated through normal birth processes and relocated?

 

Just about any non-surface understanding on doctrine involves some level of speculation.  It would seem that the more we understand (line upon line and precept upon precept) the more we discover questions that become part of our seeking, knocking and asking (quest) for truth.  D&C 93:28 suggests that as we “keep the commandments” we will continue down a path that increases our understanding until we come to “know all things”.  It seems that the great secret is to “keep the commandments”.

I believe all revelation that pertains to the everlasting covenant (Plan of Salvation) is and will be revealed through the priesthood and those that hold the priesthood keys as necessary.  But it also seems to me that many things that are true (Science) is revealed directly to those that seek.

I find Brigham Young’s statements of the origins of Adam interesting – along with your speculations.  The latest and most popular scientific theories of the beginnings of life on earth is that life on earth likely had extra-terrestrial origins.   I also find it interesting that definite (although small) amounts of Neanderthal DNA has been found in small percentages of our modern human population.  I, myself, believe that there is more genius in curiosity than there is in conjuring up some answer that has little or nothing to do with the disciplines and rigors of studying things out before asking of the spirit.

 

The Traveler

[brlenox]

10 hours ago, DoctorLemon said:

res ipsa loquitur

res ipsa loquitur - sed quid in infernos dicet

[Traveler]

1 hour ago, Rob Osborn said:

It really nails it on the head by explaining the dangers of believing in pre-adamites. One foot in God and the other in secularism only theres no solid footing in secularism.

I would think that definitive statements should be developed with exhaustive verification.  One of the reasons that there is such a divide between science and religion is because many in religion come to unverified conclusions only to be proven wrong with a preponderance of empirical evidence.   Advances in science, physics, medical care and engineering are mostly products of secularism.  Though I personally prefer devout LDS – I will rely (seek advice and help) on an atheistic doctor proficient in his particular discipline – and not just prayer alone – for my personal needs.

I recently underwent surgical procedures for a macular hole to save my eyesight.  The problem is genetic that caused my grandfather (a wonderful man of great faith – and LDS) to go blind – despite his and many other’s prayers.  And if anyone is wondering – I also sought a priesthood blessing and the result is that I still have 20/20 vision with is quite unusual for someone my age.  Standing with one foot in G-d and one foot in secularism serves me quite well.

 

The Traveler