More bad news for our scripture believing friends

[_Chap]

Are we descended from our Heavenly Father,

Yes.

How so?

How can you be sure that he is any more the Father of us all in a literal sense than Adam and Eve are literally the Father and Mother of us all, which you have denied?

Interestingly, Gospel Fundamentals (doctrinal, no?) seems to take a different view:

The lives of Adam and Eve changed after they ate the fruit our Father in Heaven had told them not to eat. Our Father in Heaven sent them out of the Garden of Eden. They could not walk and talk with Him anymore. From then on mankind was separated from the presence of our Father in Heaven. Not being able to be with our Father in Heaven is called spiritual death.* Adam and Eve had to live in the world outside the beautiful garden. They had to work to obtain the things they needed.

Their bodies changed. Now they could have children. They could become sick and feel pain and sorrow, and someday they would die. The changes that came upon Adam and Eve are called the Fall of Adam.

These changes affect all of the descendants of Adam and Eve. Like them, we too have the power to have children; and sickness, pain, sorrow, and death also come to us.

It is clear from the final sentence that 'we ... have children; and sickness, pain, sorrow, and death also come to us' because that is what happens to 'all of the descendants of Adam and Eve'.

Can you wriggle out of that too?

Go on, have a go!

Hey, there's this too:

"Lesson 3: The Fall of Adam and Eve," Preparing for Exaltation: Teacher’s Manual, (1998)

What would have happened to us if Adam and Eve had not eaten the fruit? (Because they would not have had children, we would not have had the opportunity to be born on this earth.)

Yup. No kids from Adam and Eve, then no us. We are descended from them all right! Doctrine.

[_Chap]

And in any case ... what am I doing trying to argue with bcspace that it is LDS doctrine that we are all descended from Adam and Eve when in this thread he said:

I believe that we all who are alive today are descendants of Adam and Eve is almost (perhaps absolutely) mandated by doctrine. Perhaps you might have some intermarriage in there (a nod to some strange ideas about Genesis 6). But I prefer a cleaner explaination than that in the absence of details.

What has changed since then? Has he moved just that little bit further towards apostasy?

[_Nightlion]

Life never originated upon this planet. Anyone who believes in God and fails to understand that God has created worlds without number with inhabitants thereof is unschooled in the literature.

Many people who do not believe in God can see no reason why life should not have appeared in other places in this vast universe as well as on Earth (though of course as yet we do not know on scientific grounds that it has appeared). So the second statement, appropriately rephrased, is not a great problem for secularists.

But why does that imply that life did not originate on this planet independently? In theological terms, what reason is there to think that if God created life he could only do it once?

Mr Gut says science interprets data according to what they BELIEVE has to be considered and included in their findings. They are simply wrong in stretching time and adding space between markers. I have no more interest in the minutia of their fairy tales than to go see The Book of Mormon musical.

Hey! Those fairy tales are pretty good when it comes to the solid-state physics that make your computer work, the chemistry that makes antibiotics to stop you dying of infections, the geology that helps find new sources of oil and gas without having to resort to drilling a lot of holes at random, or the genetics that make it possible to tell whose descendant you really are.

But the minute they conflict with your religion, you treat them like a belief in Santa or the Easter Bunny. How can you be so hard-hearted?

The overinflatedness of the modern world is allowed so the greater the 'POP' when the weasels lose all. Are you really all that taken with the lying wonders of Satan? Okay electricity allows me to do this. Dirt allows me to stand. So I can hold forth on either medium. But I do not worship the solid ground. Why should I worship the electrons?

How do you figure that life NEEDS to evolve? Once made it only needs to be trucked around the universe. TEMPLE dialogue. "Place beasts of all kinds upon the earth, fowls in the air, fishes in the sea.........."

heck, if there is any truth to pre-adamites they might have been dinoboys tending the stock breeding andtransporting them in and out for God and continued in their generations mortal and not immortal as was the kingdom of what men call, the Jurassic, mortal in those days. I rather imagine all that was going on upon the planet below us while the 20 billions of us spirit children were being born was quite the show. That world died out. Even science admits an extinction event. A new world was begun when those plants and animals created in heaven were placed upon the earth after its was turned back on, so to say, as it had not rained yet upon the new world. With all the fossil fuels abundantly prepared, deep buried, according to the plan of God from the beginning. That's why we all love the dinosaurs. We were watching them for a long long time and bonded to them dearly. Don't you think? Or are you only now beginning to?

I guess because some of the new animals were like some of the old ones science is stymied. And perhaps the space truckin' dinoboys were some sort of primate, if they really existed, science has just got to organize a linear composition. Oh well. Is that any reason to deny God? Pete's sake. Could you not resist but to jump through that hoop and prove yourself lacking in faith and the love of God?

[Guest]

BUMP FOR BCSPACE

And in any case ... what am I doing trying to argue with bcspace that it is LDS doctrine that we are all descended from Adam and Eve when in this thread he said:

I believe that we all who are alive today are descendants of Adam and Eve is almost (perhaps absolutely) mandated by doctrine. Perhaps you might have some intermarriage in there (a nod to some strange ideas about Genesis 6). But I prefer a cleaner explaination than that in the absence of details.

What has changed since then? Has he moved just that little bit further towards apostasy?

ALSO BUMP THE PREVIOUS POST:

Are we descended from our Heavenly Father,

Yes.

How so?

How can you be sure that he is any more the Father of us all in a literal sense than Adam and Eve are literally the Father and Mother of us all, which you have denied?

Interestingly, Gospel Fundamentals (doctrinal, no?) seems to take a different view:

The lives of Adam and Eve changed after they ate the fruit our Father in Heaven had told them not to eat. Our Father in Heaven sent them out of the Garden of Eden. They could not walk and talk with Him anymore. From then on mankind was separated from the presence of our Father in Heaven. Not being able to be with our Father in Heaven is called spiritual death.* Adam and Eve had to live in the world outside the beautiful garden. They had to work to obtain the things they needed.

Their bodies changed. Now they could have children. They could become sick and feel pain and sorrow, and someday they would die. The changes that came upon Adam and Eve are called the Fall of Adam.

These changes affect all of the descendants of Adam and Eve. Like them, we too have the power to have children; and sickness, pain, sorrow, and death also come to us.

It is clear from the final sentence that 'we ... have children; and sickness, pain, sorrow, and death also come to us' because that is what happens to 'all of the descendants of Adam and Eve'.

Can you wriggle out of that too?

Go on, have a go!

Hey, there's this too:

"Lesson 3: The Fall of Adam and Eve," Preparing for Exaltation: Teacher’s Manual, (1998)

What would have happened to us if Adam and Eve had not eaten the fruit? (Because they would not have had children, we would not have had the opportunity to be born on this earth.)

Yup. No kids from Adam and Eve, then no us. We are descended from them all right! Doctrine.

[_Darth J]

"True believers know that this earth and man and all forms of life were created in an Edenic, or paradisiacal, state in which there was no mortality, no procreation, no death."

---Bruce R. McConkie

[_Jason Bourne]

I'm wondering why all of you are tossing around 6,000 years as if that's the lone theory out there. I had always understood it to be 11,000-15,000 years. No, I don't have a reference, that's just been my understanding.

Could be. But does it make a difference? Could 7 Billion persons spring from one couple 15,000 years ago? Can we tie back to one couple genetically? I think not. Then if you believe in the flood well what are we at then? All of us tied to 8 persons 4500 years ago?

[_Jason Bourne]

The [Adam-God] doctrine was never submitted to the councils of the Priesthood nor to the church for approval or ratification, and was never formally or otherwise accepted by the church. It is therefore in no sense binding upon the Church. Brigham Young's ‘bare mention’ was ‘without indubitable evidence and authority being given of its truth.’ Only the scripture, the ‘accepted word of God,’ is the Church's standard.
Joseph F. Smith 1897

It may have never been ratified by the priesthood councils but it was certainly taught often by BY and it was more than a Bare mention. JFS knew this so he was being less than honest. How does something that was a bare mention make it into the endowment? In addition there was plenty in the early days of the Church that did not go through any ratification and still was practiced and taught as doctrine. Find me the priesthood council ratification and presentation to the Church of the priesthood ban.

[_Jason Bourne]

Assuming the BCs theory might be correct, that all the other humans that preceded Adam and Eve dd not have spirits that were the children of God, I would then have to ask:

Assuming all humans on the earth now do have spirits that are children of God, could the 7 Billion that exist today all be tied to one man and one woman 6000 or so years ago? I think based on what Dr. W pointed out the answer is no.

Why would they have to be?

Because Adam and Eve are allegedly the first parents of all the human race. Based on your wacko theory they are the first to produce humans that have spirits that are children of God. Since all humans now are children of God then we should tie back to Adam and Eve,

If you are proposing that there are other humans that produced people who were spirit children of God then it seems to me you are further off base from LDS doctrine than I thought.

One wonders who the true apostates are.

[_Jason Bourne]

Neither must be dumped as I do not propose that all born as spirit children of God must descend directly from Adam and Eve. One cannot also discount other later entries into Australia after the Fall so you have at least two significant problems with your argument.

you know as well as I that the Church teaches we ALL descended from Adam and Eve.

You really have to do some mental gymnastics to make this all work for you don't you.

[_Jason Bourne]

I'll just tell them to shut up and obey if they know what is good for them and just go back to teaching them the Adam-God theory...

Which is also non doctrinal.

Sure it was. BY taught it often, members believed it, it was published by the Church in the Millennial Star. But for Orson Pratt you would be praying to Adam today.