DiscussMormonism.com

I thought this was awesome, and thought I'd share it with yall.

(charity @ Nov 19 2007, 07:35 AM) *

Adam transgressed, but he knowingly made a choice to disobey a commandment. The fact that he had been given two conflicting commandments is taken into consideration. But he knowingly broke one, even so.

You're right. Adam knew that if he didn't "transgress", then the world outside the Garden would have been absolutely overrun with pre-Adamites, populating the Earth with no knowledge of God, continuing to evolve on the course set by the God who developed them through evolution. They would have continued to live without spirits but still able to write, plant and grow crops, and form tribes and societies, all the while oblivious to the immortal man and woman living inside an especially well landscaped portion of what is now modern day Missouri.

ROFL. Cinepro is awesome. Which thread is it?

Pure gold. Cinepro stikes again.

If Adam had not transgressed, would humanity be any different than it is today? Heh, maybe not.

It was this thread:

http://www.mormonapologetics.org/index. ... =29916&hl=

And the Dude hit the nail on the head. Mopologetics (take BCSpace's, for example) have so fiddled and monkeyed and toyed around with the whole Adam and Eve Fall from the Garden story that, if we take it to the logical conclusion, if they hadn't actually "fallen" indeed the Earth might well look today exactly the same as it actually does. In other words, their concessions to reality have eviscerated the whole substance of the story and made it absurd.

Sethbag wrote:It was this thread:

http://www.mormonapologetics.org/index. ... =29916&hl=

And the Dude hit the nail on the head. Mopologetics (take BCSpace's, for example) have so fiddled and monkeyed and toyed around with the whole Adam and Eve Fall from the Garden story that, if we take it to the logical conclusion, if they hadn't actually "fallen" indeed the Earth might well look today exactly the same as it actually does. In other words, their concessions to reality have eviscerated the whole substance of the story and made it absurd.

They've done the same with the Book of Mormon. Despite the apologetic parallelomania, if Lehi never "existed" the Native American landscape would look exactly the same as it actually does.

Is this the endpoint of all Mopologetics?

Sethbag wrote:It was this thread:

http://www.mormonapologetics.org/index. ... =29916&hl=

And the Dude hit the nail on the head. Mopologetics (take BCSpace's, for example) have so fiddled and monkeyed and toyed around with the whole Adam and Eve Fall from the Garden story that, if we take it to the logical conclusion, if they hadn't actually "fallen" indeed the Earth might well look today exactly the same as it actually does. In other words, their concessions to reality have eviscerated the whole substance of the story and made it absurd.

The real story of the world is that Adam and Eve didn't sin, and they're still living happily somewhere, and we pre-Adamite-descendants made up the Fall story as a result of our Garden-envy.

They've done the same with the Book of Mormon. Despite the apologetic parallelomania, if Lehi never "existed" the Native American landscape would look exactly the same as it actually does.

Is this the endpoint of all Mopologetics?

Amazing, isn't it?

Yes, I think it is the endpoint of all LDS apologetics, because the point is to render their claims unfalsifiable.

LDS claims were not always designed to be unfalsifiable. In the early days of the church, before science and advancing knowledge about ancient America so cruelly forced the church into a corner, the apologists actually expected their claims to be able to be falsified, and challenged anyone to do so. I'll try to find a salient quote later (think it was Pratt) who stated that if the Book of Mormon could be proven false, it ought to be. Now-a-days apologists would instead craft statements that say the Book of Mormon can't be proven false anyway.

Hey, I have to call you to repentance for leaving out the original post:

President Brigham Young taught: “ No person ever apostatized without actual transgression. Omission of duty leads to commission. We want to live so as to have the Spirit every day, every hour of the day, every minute of the day, and every Latter-day Saint is entitled to the Spirit of God, to the power of the Holy Ghost, to lead him in his individual duties."

But, of course, as the twisting proceeds, it really just refers to the fact that ALL transgress. So why didn't BY say "no person ever stayed in the church without actual transgression"?

I relate to seth's later post:

Your post just demonstrates that after all this time, interacting with all these exmos and people like myself who have stopped believing in the church, you still haven't the faintest clue what makes us tick. As for myself, and at least a few others I know of on these boards, the one and only reason I gave up belief in this church was my realization and conviction that it's not actually true. Period. No hookers. No kegs. No hidden porn stash. No smoking habit. No adulterous liaisons keeping me up at night racked with guilt.

This is why I stopped trying to communicate with believers, save the few who wander here. It became obvious that it was completely, utterly, pointless. Sure, maybe it helped lurkers, but not for the believers who post, all save the most genuinely liberal. (whom other believers don't consider real believers anyway)

It doesn't matter how many exmormons affirm this. I stayed "temple worthy" for two years after leaving the church (except for the fact that yes, after I stopped believing, I also stopped going and paying tithing), and then big "sin" was drinking spiked punch at a baby shower. It took years more before I would feel comfortable just going ahead and drinking wine, and many more years, complete loss of belief in God and a divorce, before I felt comfortable having sex outside of marriage. When I lost faith, I was worthy of a temple recommend. So were many, many others.

But, for all but the most liberal believers, this goes in one ear and out the other. It's the same old whack a mole game, just like with any other endeavor regarding dealing with Mormon belief. How many times could I stand to see the same bad horse references pop up once again??? Just how many times could I stand to see believers assert that Book of Mormon warfare was a perfect match for Mesoamerican warfare? How many times could I stand to see educated believers assert that there is "linguistic evidence" for metals in the Book of Mormon????

After seeing it pop up over and over, sometimes by the same author who had witnessed its total debunking already, I just gave up and decided it wasn't worth my effort.

This speaks to why I do not believe in the LDS church.

It is not about church history, or the Book of Mormon story, or Joseph Smith's horrific behavior, or the rules, or polygamy, or the racism, or anything like this... it is that the whole story just doesn't fit into reality.

I often would describe my feelings as a strugging member by saying I felt like I was living in an alternative universe... It was making me crazy!

:-)

~dancer~

Why would Pre-Adamites have no spirits?