LDS things that are false if cafeteria Mo's are right

[_Darth J]

--the need for a savior from physical death

Could you please explain how discounting the global flood and accepting evolution means that this is not true?

I'll let Joseph Fielding Smith explain it to you in an LDS Old Testament manual (italics and ellipses in original):

CES Manual: Old Testament, Section 2-18

“Of course, I think those people who hold to the view that man has come up through all these ages from the scum of the sea through billions of years do not believe in Adam. Honestly I do not know how they can, and I am going to show you that they do not. There are some who attempt to do it but they are inconsistent—absolutely inconsistent, because that doctrine is so incompatible, so utterly out of harmony, with the revelations of the Lord that a man just cannot believe in both.

“. . . I say most emphatically, you cannot believe in this theory of the origin of man, and at the same time accept the plan of salvation as set forth by the Lord our God. You must choose the one and reject the other, for they are in direct conflict and there is a gulf separating them which is so great that it cannot be bridged, no matter how much one may try to do so. . . .

“. . . Then Adam, and by that I mean the first man, was not capable of sin. He could not transgress, and by doing so bring death into the world; for, according to this theory, death had always been in the world. If, therefore, there was no fall, there was no need of an atonement, hence the coming into the world of the Son of God as the Savior of the world is a contradiction, a thing impossible. Are you prepared to believe such a thing as that?” (Smith, Doctrines of Salvation, 1:141–42.)

[_Tobin]

Could you please explain how discounting the global flood and accepting evolution means that this is not true?

If evolution is accepted, it means there was no created man - no Adam. And therefore, no Fall. Thus, no need for an atonement.

H.

LDSToronto is correct. However, I don't think any Mormon should think about it like that at all. God creating Adam and casting him into this biosphere (inhabited with other humans) as a result of the fall is still perfectly reasonable. This is how cafeteria Mormons should think about the issue.

[_Darth J]

LDSToronto is correct. However, I don't think any Mormon should think about it like that at all. God creating Adam and casting him into this biosphere (inhabited with other humans) as a result of the fall is still perfectly reasonable. This is how cafeteria Mormons should think about the issue.

Then there was no physical death for Jesus to save us from, and death was not the result of transgression, so there is no sin to save us from, so the entire Mormon concept of the atonement collapses.

This is what happens when self-described Mormons are so desperate to reconcile their fables with reality that they miss the point of the religion they think they are salvaging.

And why doesn't Tobin just start his own church? Oh, that's right: because I can already watch reruns of Star Trek to get my theological truths.

And no, ad hoc meta-mythology attempting to save ancient fables by turning them into space operas is not "perfectly reasonable."

[_huckelberry]

If evolution is accepted, it means there was no created man - no Adam. And therefore, no Fall. Thus, no need for an atonement.

H.

I do not see how a single item in this series follows from the prior statement . All I can see is a collection of unrelated opinions.

no need for an atonement, sure this world is the very kingdom of god every day all day long. (???)

I may regret saying this as the subject has been aired before and to not much point. I am wllling to discuss but it might be just as well to just notice different people see this differently..

I could understand a statement like this. , I think that evolution means there is no God and if there is no God then no God can make atonement for us. I do not agree with the no God part but I can see a logical connection between the parts of the proposal.

[_Darth J]

If evolution is accepted, it means there was no created man - no Adam. And therefore, no Fall. Thus, no need for an atonement.

H.

I do not see how a single item in this series follows from the prior statement . All I can see is a collection of unrelated opinions.

no need for an atonement, sure this world is the very kingdom of god every day all day long. (???)

I may regret saying this as the subject has been aired before and to not much point. I am wllling to discuss but it might be just as well to just notice different people see this differently..

I could understand a statement like this. , I think that evolution means there is no God and if there is no God then no God can make atonement for us. I do not agree with the no God part but I can see a logical connection between the parts of the proposal.

We're talking about specifically about the LDS doctrine about the atonement of Jesus Christ. This thread is not suggesting that evolution precludes belief in a God (Abarahamic or otherwise) or a belief in Jesus Christ (keeping in mind that Christians have many different beliefs about how exactly Jesus saved the world). However, LDS doctrine and the LDS concept of the atonement operate in a very specific framework that assumes the Adam and Eve story is literally true and that there was no death or reproduction at all on the Earth, nor any other human beings on Earth, prior to Adam and Eve being cast out of the Garden of Eden.

ETA: and everything I said goes out the window does so because they purport to be modern revelation confirming the literalness of these events. The entire LDS narrative of human origins and history is based on the alleged reality of these events. Tell me, for example, how D&C 116 (identifying Spring Hill, MO as Adam-ondi-ahman) could be a real revelation from God if Adam never really existed. And how Joseph Smith was a real prophet if he is either delusional or lying in claiming to be receiving revelations about a person who never existed and events that never happened.

[_Bazooka]

Without wishing to put words in bcspace's mouth, I believe he has acknowledged in the past that he is a certain percentage apostate in his views and beliefs. If I'm not mistaken I think he estimated that he was circa 5% apostate - which was, in his eyes, perfectly acceptable for a member in good standing.

That may be accurate given this official explanation by the Church on what constitutes an "apostate".

“Members of the Church vary in their levels of participation or belief. Latter-day Saints who have seriously contravened or ignored cardinal Church teachings (publicly or privately) are considered apostates, whether or not they have officially left the Church or affiliated with another religion” (Encyclopedia of Mormonism [1992], 1:59).

http://www.lds.org/topics/apostate?lang=eng

The question then becomes two questions:
1. What constitutes a 'cardinal Church teaching'?
2. (Once question 1 has been comprehensively answered) What constitutes a 'serious contravention' of those teachings?

One for bcspace; At what percentage of apostasy would a 'member in good standing' become a 'member not in good standing'?

[_ldsfaqs]

If evolution is accepted, it means there was no created man - no Adam. And therefore, no Fall. Thus, no need for an atonement.

H.

Wrong....

Evolution can be accepted while not accepting some "theory's" of evolution.

Further, if there were Pre-Adamites, it further doesn't pose a problem for Adam, etc.

[_Bazooka]

Evolution can be accepted while not accepting some "theory's" of evolution.

Please provide an example for clarification.

Further, if there were Pre-Adamites, it further doesn't pose a problem for Adam, etc.

It kind of does...

Now the earth was ready for the greatest creation of all—mankind. Our spirits would be given bodies of flesh and blood so they could live on earth. “And I, God, said unto mine Only Begotten, which was with me from the beginning: Let us make man in our image, after our likeness; and it was so” (Moses 2:26). And so the first man, Adam, and the first woman, Eve, were formed and given bodies that resembled those of our heavenly parents. “In the image of God created he him; male and female created he them” (Genesis 1:27). When the Lord finished His creations, He was pleased and knew that His work was good, and He rested for a time.

http://www.lds.org/manual/gospel-principles/chapter-5-the-creation?lang=eng

Adam and Eve were chosen to be the first people to live on the earth (see Moses 1:34; 4:26). Their part in our Father’s plan was to bring mortality into the world. They were to be the first parents. (See D&C 107:54–56.)

http://www.lds.org/manual/gospel-princi ... e?lang=eng

[_ldsfaqs]

The "Doctrine" is that there was a Flood.... Period.

Most "interpret" that doctrine as being the Entire earth given the statements said about it.
However, given the way scripture sometimes works, that interpretation could be wrong, thus it still COULD mean that the flood was "local" and not the entire earth.

Entire earth could easily have meant from "their" perspective it was the entire earth, the same way's the Bible and the Book of Mormon explains areas being free of people when they really weren't.

Further, most who believe the flood may have been local are not "beholden" to it.
We don't say "this or nothing"..... Thus, to say we are "apostates" is stupid, because we are OPEN to it being either way. Further, we acknowledge that given the facts of the flood story, such a "temporary" event would in fact have little scientific evidence for it any more than a rain storm, and the polar ice caps could in fact be remnants of that flood water being withdrawn.

In other words, we are not "dogmatic" either way. We simply hold that it's "more likely" that the flood was local, but we are STILL open to either way.

[_Bazooka]

The "Doctrine" is that there was a Flood.... Period.

Most "interpret" that doctrine as being the Entire earth given the statements said about it.
However, given the way scripture sometimes works, that interpretation could be wrong, thus it still COULD mean that the flood was "local" and not the entire earth.

Entire earth could easily have meant from "their" perspective it was the entire earth, the same way's the Bible and the Book of Mormon explains areas being free of people when they really weren't.

Further, most who believe the flood may have been local are not "beholden" to it.
We don't say "this or nothing"..... Thus, to say we are "apostates" is stupid, because we are OPEN to it being either way. Further, we acknowledge that given the facts of the flood story, such a "temporary" event would in fact have little scientific evidence for it any more than a rain storm, and the polar ice caps could in fact be remnants of that flood water being withdrawn.

In other words, we are not "dogmatic" either way. We simply hold that it's "more likely" that the flood was local, but we are STILL open to either way.

Wrong.

The doctrine is global flood. Period.

30 And God said unto Noah: The end of all flesh is come before me, for the earth is filled with violence, and behold I will adestroy all flesh from off the earth.

http://www.lds.org/scriptures/pgp/moses/8?lang=eng

Moses 8; Genesis 6—Why the Lord Flooded the Earth

President John Taylor helped explain why the Lord decided to destroy all people on earth except the family of Noah. President Taylor suggested that the world was so wicked that children grew up with no choice but to be wicked. At that point where there is no chance to choose righteousness, sending innocent spirits from heaven to earth is no longer just. Consequently, the Lord destroyed all the wicked and began again with the family of Noah to raise up righteous men and women.

http://www.lds.org/manual/old-testament ... 8?lang=eng