Adam and Eve: Is there a line apologists won't cross...?

[_alvatra]

Could it be:


Adam and Eve were literal individuals.
They were the first INTELLIGENT humans.
Earth, life, and "manimals" existed in a telestial state on this planet long before Adam. However, those bipeds held no spark of divinity.
Adam and Eve are the parents of modern humanity. They existed in a separate, terrestrial realm established by God Himself, for them specifically. But they chose for themselves and for all the children of man, to take the road of greater risk, greater reward. Thus, they and their long line of children were to be exiled to a telestial state here on earth, distinct from all the other inhabitants for the sole reason that they know the difference between good and evil, and have the ability to act freely on this knowledge. Just because evidence shows that Adam and Eve couldn't have been the first humanoids on this planet, there is no reason to disbelieve that they were the first Human Beings. There are gaps in the theories of evolution and creation that only the hand of God can fill.

Sure, the actual story itself must be infinitely larger and more complex than what we see in Genesis, and it's not off base to assume that there is plenty of room for allegorical interpretation. But I feel it's safe to say that very few, if any, of those alive today can really see the bigger picture, which makes me all the more grateful to know we have a savior.

[_bcspace]

There was death everywhere on Earth except for this enclave that was the Garden of Eden.

I have not said one way or the other on that particular issue.

Or, as sethbag once said of the beautiful simplicity of bcspace's theory:

Your explaination of my hypothesis was simple and concise so by your own logic there is much evidence against any notion that I somehow stretched anything or that it convoluted. Note that sethbag's analysis did not explain why he thought that way in any concrete way and so is non sequitur.

One thing you did forget to mention is that in order for evolution to swim with LDS doctrine, LDS must, at least implicitly, allow for a state of death before the garden state and I have proven both scripturally and doctrinally that this is so.

[_Molok]

Bcspace, the only thing you have ever conclusively proven is that there is no limit to how far you will stretch your imagination in order to conceive the most elaborate bastardized ideas to temporarily placate your cognitive dissonance.

[_bcspace]

by the way, it's not evolution that is suspended in my hypothesis, it's child bearing. 2 Nephi 2:23. And then it seems that it's not even because they couldn't have children for any physical reason, it was because they were innocent.

I'm puzzled. How does "innocence" equate with inability to have children?

Some people would say that being innocent meant that they did not know how sex works and/or had no desire for it. Others have speculated that perhaps they could indeed have sex (no moral problem being married and all) but the state they were in somehow prevented it. I lean towards the former.

Are you suggesting that human sexuality is not "innocent" but has some negative, "innocence lost" quality to it? Please explain.

I don't perceive any negative connotations regarding sex here.

So, to restate, your hypothesis is that, for whatever reason, Adam and Eve were born/created without a sex drive, but then at some point they became sexual and thus no longer "innocent."

Not even part of my hypothesis at all and no explaintion for 2 Nephi 2:23 is required for it to work. Perhaps there is something in the manual...... Nope, just that they were innocent. The fruit being a metaphor for sex by the way is, If I recall correctly, mainly a Catholic idea.

I'll probably kick myself for asking this, but I'm genuinely curious as to how this all works for you.

Nothing to be afraid of.

Bcspace, the only thing you have ever conclusively proven is that there is no limit to how far you will stretch your imagination in order to conceive the most elaborate bastardized ideas to temporarily placate your cognitive dissonance.

So what exactly have I stretched? Until you guys can come up with an actual example, I'll just continue to feel free to think that your denial is rooted in jealousy that you didn't come up with this first and also regret that some of you left the Church giving an excuse that that doesn't work.

[_alvatra]

But what makes you assume an apologist would be apposed to ideas before evidence "forces them to reconcile" ?

Critics have an unfair advantage, being the ones who get to ask all the questions, and then make all the assumptions. If you ask a question, you'll get your answer. Simple as that. Some of you, however, feel the need to turn it into some twisted mind game.

Why don't you tell us YOUR beliefs? Or do you only practice disbelief?

[_Runtu]

Some people would say that being innocent meant that they did not know how sex works and/or had no desire for it. Others have speculated that perhaps they could indeed have sex (no moral problem being married and all) but the state they were in somehow prevented it. I lean towards the former.

I don't perceive any negative connotations regarding sex here.

Hmmm. I guess I don't see how "asexual" can be considered innocent. And calling lack of sexual desire "innocent" carries negative connotations, at least to me.

Not even part of my hypothesis at all and no explaintion for 2 Nephi 2:23 is required for it to work. Perhaps there is something in the manual...... Nope, just that they were innocent. The fruit being a metaphor for sex by the way is, If I recall correctly, mainly a Catholic idea.

What I meant is that, because of the fall, they appear to have lost their innocence, which you would define as either having sexual desire or figuring out how to have sex.

Nothing to be afraid of.

I was just afraid that you might not make any sense.

So what exactly have I stretched? Until you guys can come up with an actual example, I'll just continue to feel free to think that your denial is rooted in jealousy that you didn't come up with this first and also regret that some of you left the Church giving an excuse that that doesn't work.

I'm not denying, just wondering how you arrived at your conclusions. Nor am I jealous. But then, you're quoting someone else here, anyway, not me.

[_Molok]

There's no proof star war's didn't happen a long time ago in a galaxy far away. Anyone who claims it is fiction is obviously just jealous of george lucas, LOL.

[Guest]

But what makes you assume an apologist would be apposed to ideas before evidence "forces them to reconcile" ?

Critics have an unfair advantage, being the ones who get to ask all the questions, and then make all the assumptions. If you ask a question, you'll get your answer. Simple as that. Some of you, however, feel the need to turn it into some twisted mind game.

Why don't you tell us YOUR beliefs? Or do you only practice disbelief?

The LDS church took the Bible passages of Genesis, interpreted them literally, incorporated that into its theology and doctrine, and now science is showing that such literalism was based not on reality, but mythology.

It isn't the "critics" fault that early religious folk were so ignorant of reality, who then ascribed their ignorance into their religious teachings / doctrines, onto the larger world and their anthropormorphic God.

Some critics are happy to point out the obvious however.

[_Runtu]

But what makes you assume an apologist would be apposed to ideas before evidence "forces them to reconcile" ?

Critics have an unfair advantage, being the ones who get to ask all the questions, and then make all the assumptions.

Why can't believers ask questions or make assumptions? Seems to me you guys do that all the time.

If you ask a question, you'll get your answer. Simple as that.

I suppose it depends on whom we ask. I know a lot of people that you can't get a straight answer from.

Some of you, however, feel the need to turn it into some twisted mind game.

I'm pretty twisted. Ask Liz.

Why don't you tell us YOUR beliefs? Or do you only practice disbelief?

What do you want to know about my beliefs? If you ask a question, you'll get your answer.

[_Paul Osborne]

I am trying to remember how long I've known you, Paul. It's got to be around 8 years or so. Honestly, it's great that you can joke about things that have to be as painful for you as they have been for me. That's a good sign. And yes, you are genuine and weird. Does that make you genuinely weird? I'm weird, too, so you're in good company.

Yes, the years have been ticking away . . . .

You're OK in my book, Runtu. You are an understanding man and that's worth a lot. Honestly, I never ever in my most wildest dreams ever thought I'd leave Mormonism. It's just incredible that it actually happened. Oh my God -- I was supposed to be one of those TBM iron rods till the bitter end. I'm relieved it happened after my father passed away. He practically lived in the temple and that's all he ever talked about.

Paul O