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

[_ldsfaqs]

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

Please provide an example for clarification.

Man evolved from Apes.... A false theory.

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

It kind of does...

Actually it doesn't.....

Adam and Eve were put into the Garden of Eden.
When they ate of the fruit they were cast into the Lone and Dreary world, and the way to the Garden the Tree of Life was blocked. Then very quickly out of no where Cain etc. has this big family.

In other words, there easily could have been a world separate from Adam's line that had already existed, that had men in it.

I know the "traditional" interpretations..... But, if you know the Apostles historical battles of this issue, you'll know that they've both acknowledged "neither" interpretation is actually official doctrine. They are interpretations.

The only actual doctrine is that Adam/Eve were God's chosen lineage people made in his image, spiritually begotten of him.
In fact, the Bible even seems to indicate these "other" men, in statements like, daughters of men, etc.

[Guest]

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

Nope.... Global is an interpretation. It's not necessarily an absolute.

But again, we are not "beholden" to either idea, because there is evidences for both.
Some of us simply "leaning" one way intellectually speaking doesn't we don't know and don't accept the doctrine.

The "earth" could easily have meant their area..... It should be noted that ancients didn't actually know we were an "earth". Thus, to interpret their words simply the same way we would, would be inaccurate.

"Earth" to them meant the AREAS in which they lived and knew.....

[_Bazooka]

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

Please provide an example for clarification.

Man evolved from Apes.... A false theory.

You seem to be demonstrating otherwise...

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

It kind of does...

Actually it doesn't.....

Adam and Eve were put into the Garden of Eden.
When they ate of the fruit they were cast into the Lone and Dreary world, and the way to the Garden the Tree of Life was blocked. Then very quickly out of no where Cain etc. has this big family.

In other words, there easily could have been a world separate from Adam's line that had already existed, that had men in it.

In order to demonstrate that you aren't talking out of your trousers you will now provide an official Church reference that gives you this wriggle room.

I know the "traditional" interpretations..... But, if you know the Apostles historical battles of this issue, you'll know that they've both acknowledged "neither" interpretation is actually official doctrine. They are interpretations.

CFR that Apostles acknowledge that Adam being the first man is merely an interpretation rather than doctrine.

The only actual doctrine is that Adam/Eve were God's chosen lineage people made in his image, spiritually begotten of him.
In fact, the Bible even seems to indicate these "other" men, in statements like, daughters of men, etc.

Wrong. The doctrine is that Adam and Eve are the first parents and the sole source for the entire human race. As has been shown by the quotes posted.
You have yet to post a quote to back up your gaseous emissions.

[_Bazooka]

Nope.... Global is an interpretation. It's not necessarily an absolute.

But again, we are not "beholden" to either idea, because there is evidences for both.
Some of us simply "leaning" one way intellectually speaking doesn't we don't know and don't accept the doctrine.

The "earth" could easily have meant their area..... It should be noted that ancients didn't actually know we were an "earth". Thus, to interpret their words simply the same way we would, would be inaccurate.

FLOOD AT NOAH’S TIME
See also Ark; Noah, Bible Patriarch; Rainbow
During Noah’s time the earth was completely covered with water. This was the baptism of the earth and symbolized a cleansing (1 Pet. 3:20–21).

http://www.lds.org/scriptures/gs/flood- ... e?lang=eng

[_Bazooka]

"Earth" to them meant the AREAS in which they lived and knew.....

CFR

[_ldsfaqs]

Bazooka.... I'm not going to give you a historical lesson on Pre-Adamites.

Yes, the doctrine is that they were the "first man". But where the "interpretation" comes in is what that actually means. Neither interpretation is official doctrine.

Read the historical debate yourself, and you will see that both sides acknowledge it.

[_ldsfaqs]

"Earth" to them meant the AREAS in which they lived and knew.....

CFR

Bazooka..... I can't CFR common knowledge.
They didn't know of the "earth", the rest of it, the peoples, the roundness, etc.
All they knew was what they knew. "Earth" historically has been used as a common statement to describe the "land" in which people lived. If you don't know that, then you clearly don't read history, and I can't teach you it here.

[Guest]

faqs,

By now, you should realize it isn't even worthwhile talking to Bazooka. You can state the sky is blue or the sun shines and he'll ask for a CFR. Is it reasonable to think that from Noah's perspective that seemed like the whole world was flooding? Yes. He most certainly didn't have a satellite to look down and see if the entire world was indeed flooding. And clearly many here would like to impose the interpretation that the whole world flooded on the scriptures, which I think is absurd.

The same is true for the creation story and Adam and Eve. Evolution is perfectly valid and reasonable. However, that does not preclude God from creating Adam and Eve in the Garden of Eden (it wasn't this world) and when they transgressed, they were cast out into our world. This has no impact on the validity of Christ's atonement either since it is for all the descendants of Adam, who by this point includes all of mankind. Mormons can accept evolution and the gospel with no distress at all.

[_Darth J]

ldsfaqs:

1. If there was already death in the world before Adam and Eve were put here, why do we need Jesus to save us from physical death?

2. If there were Homo sapiens who evolved from lower life forms and were reproducing and dying for thousands of years, what reason would your deity have to put Adam and Eve here at all?

3. If the flood was only local, then why did God covenant with Noah not to flood the Earth again, and give a rainbow as a sign of this covenant?

4. If the flood was only local, did Joseph F. Smith just make up the revelation that is canonized as D&C 138?

[_Darth J]

faqs,

By now, you should realize it isn't even worthwhile talking to Bazooka. You can state the sky is blue or the sun shines and he'll ask for a CFR. Is it reasonable to think that from Noah's perspective that seemed like the whole world was flooding? Yes. He most certainly didn't have a satellite to look down and see if the entire world was indeed flooding. And clearly many here would like to impose the interpretation that the whole world flooded on the scriptures, which I think is absurd.

Yes, because Joseph Smith never taught that, like, prophets can learn things from God beyond their natural powers of observation and stuff.

The same is true for the creation story and Adam and Eve. Evolution is perfectly valid and reasonable. However, that does not preclude God from creating Adam and Even in the Garden of Eden (it wasn't this world) and when they transgressed, they were cast out into our world. This has no impact on the validity of Christ's atonement either since it is for all the descendants of Adam, who by this point includes all of mankind. Mormons can accept evolution and the gospel with no distress at all.

Now you just need to find a reason why your space alien deity would grow Adam and Eve in test tube in another planet (or whatever) and send them to Earth when there were already humans here.

Is this story going to involve Xenu and thetans at some point?