Re: Holland doubles down on Adam and Eve... Hey BC!?
Posted: Sun Apr 26, 2015 8:24 am
dup
Internet Mormons, Chapel Mormons, Critics, Apologists, and Never-Mo's all welcome!
https://discussmormonism.com/
bcspace wrote:SteelHead wrote:Did he not say he didn't know what happened on Earth before the fall, except there was no human death?
Your pre-adamite theory just took an ecclesiastical hit.
How so? I've always said there was no death before the Fall.
Wait a minute...Polygamy-Porter wrote:But is Holland wrong as a man or an Apostle of the Lord® ?DarkHelmet wrote:BC Space is the authority on official doctrine. If Holland contradicted BC Space, then Holland is wrong.
cinepro wrote:I think the explanation is that the humanoid pre-adamites weren't "human". They had animal spirits that looked "human", but they weren't spirit children of God. So Adam was the first "human" with a real human spirit.
It's simply wonderful and wonderfully simple.
grindael wrote:I love Mormonism. One can simply throw out all of the ridiculous crap that former "prophets" taught as absolute truth and make up whatever you want to justify doing so. The built on sand analogy comes to mind here with full force.
grindael wrote:I love Mormonism. One can simply throw out all of the ridiculous crap that former "prophets" taught as absolute truth and make up whatever you want to justify doing so. The built on sand analogy comes to mind here with full force.
Chap wrote:Me too. It's why I keep reading this board.
Ultimately, any religion has to do something like this if it wants to survive in a post-Enlightenment world without the power to scare people into silence.
Mormonism is just the most extreme example I know: truly weird foundational claims, ramshackle doctrines put together on the fly by someone who may be politely called a religious entrepreneur, and all done in early modern America in the presence of many non-committed witnesses and a free press (well, as free as it could be when Joseph Smith could not have the press physically smashed). And now the internet ... with a nice cohesive core community in Utah, plus a church with lots of investments, to make sure that the train wreck is slow enough for every fascinating detail to be savored to the full.
I couldn't have asked for anything better.
Tator wrote:grindael wrote:I love Mormonism. One can simply throw out all of the ridiculous crap that former "prophets" taught as absolute truth and make up whatever you want to justify doing so. The built on sand analogy comes to mind here with full force.Chap wrote:Me too. It's why I keep reading this board.
Ultimately, any religion has to do something like this if it wants to survive in a post-Enlightenment world without the power to scare people into silence.
Mormonism is just the most extreme example I know: truly weird foundational claims, ramshackle doctrines put together on the fly by someone who may be politely called a religious entrepreneur, and all done in early modern America in the presence of many non-committed witnesses and a free press (well, as free as it could be when Joseph Smith could not have the press physically smashed). And now the internet ... with a nice cohesive core community in Utah, plus a church with lots of investments, to make sure that the train wreck is slow enough for every fascinating detail to be savored to the full.
I couldn't have asked for anything better.
It is purely entertainment for me, too!!
KevinSim wrote:cinepro wrote:I think the explanation is that the humanoid pre-adamites weren't "human". They had animal spirits that looked "human", but they weren't spirit children of God. So Adam was the first "human" with a real human spirit.
It's simply wonderful and wonderfully simple.
There's so much emphasis in Genesis 2-3 about the knowledge of good and evil, that my personal opinion is that Adam and Eve were the first two humans who really understood the difference between good and evil; before them all humans (or near-humans) were innocent, in the same way that children younger than eight are innocent. So, yes, the humans before Adam and Eve would look human; in many ways they were human, but they hadn't advanced to the point of understanding the difference between good and evil.
So God finds two people who have the potential of understanding the difference between good and evil, and puts them in a garden, and gives them immortality until they partake of the fruit of the tree, at which point God takes their immortality away from them? That's a possibility, I guess. Although, unlike Holland, I don't really see the need for there to have been the immortality in the first place. I respect Holland, so if he tells me there was immortality I'll try to believe that, but like I said, I don't really see the need.
There's nothing fundamentally wrong with people. Given a story to enact that puts them in accord with the world, they will live in accord with the world. But given a story to enact that puts them at odds with the world, as yours does, they will live at odds with the world. Given a story to enact in which they are the lords of the world, they will act as the lords of the world. And, given a story to enact in which the world is a foe to be conquered, they will conquer it like a foe, and one day, inevitably, their foe will lie bleeding to death at their feet, as the world is now.
So we have a new pair of names for you: The Takers are 'those who know good and evil' and the Leavers are 'those who live in the hands of the gods'.
The premise of the Takers' story is 'The world belongs to man.' ...The premise of the Leavers' story is 'Man belongs to the world.'
For three million years, man belonged to the world and because he belonged to the world, he grew and developed and became brighter and more dexterous until one day, he was so bright and so dexterous that we had to call him Homo sapiens sapiens-- which means he was us.
The Leavers' story is 'the gods made man for the world, the same way they made salmon and sparrows for the world. This seems to have worked well so far so we can take it easy and leave the running of the world to the gods'.
sock puppet wrote:As long as people keep believing the Mormon absurdities, it will continue to be entertaining. (Glad your back, Tator. We need to do lunch again and you can tell me if you had that beer rendezvous.)
canpakes wrote:But you don't really buy it, by your own admission.
http://mormondiscussions.com/phpBB3/vie ... 82#p859982
Official publication in what? An anonymously authored student manual 'replaces' D&C 77 as spoken by Joseph Smith?
Regardless, the unfortunate problem remains that Whitney wrote a bit more than the muddy and meaningless mishmash that you are selectively including above. Please go to the source (Saturday Night Thoughts) and read the full passages.
Whitney's claims do not match what modern science accepts as accurate regarding a 7 thousand year 'temporal existence' window for the Earth and the state of humanity on it from that time, nor does much of anything else penned by the author.
End result: Science - 1, LDS Church, -0-
True enough about those bugs and plants, which would be the least of points to make. That's why the claim, 'No Death Before The Fall' is pretty nonsensical, given that we seem to have much evidence of all sorts of things dying for millions of years before 'The Fall', whenever that was supposed to be. You now seem to be coming around to this realization.
And about that Global Flood... heck, even you cannot abide by that one.