MG "What the church requires is only belief that Adam was the first man of what we would call the human race. Scientists can speculate on the rest." President Hinckley
Upon one thing we should all be able to agree, namely, that Presidents Joseph F. Smith, John R. Winder, and Anthon H. Lund were right when they said: "Adam is the primal parent of our race." [First Presidency Minutes, Apr. 7, 1931].
Which is precisely what genetic evolution has fundamentally proven to be dead wrong. There never was a first Adam man and a first woman eve together kick starting and spear heading the human race. Coyne's book "Faith Vs. Fact" is essential on this. The church leaders don't have a flippin clue about reality. They work within the realm of mythology, not actual historic reality.
Dr CamNC4Me
"Dr. Peterson and his Callithumpian cabal of BYU idiots have been marginalized by their own inevitable irrelevancy defending a fraud."
The Hinckster wrote:"What the church requires is only belief that Adam was the first man of what we would call the human race. Scientists can speculate on the rest."
I think I follow this reasoning. After eons of developing, two hominid babies were born whose particular set of genetic mutations made them juuust different enough from their parents that they were now fully ‘human.’
These babies, whom we now call “Adam” and “Eve,” grew up and left their slightly more ape-ish parents to find each other in a pretty garden. They reproduced and grew the great human race that we know and love today. Meanwhile, the not-quite-really-human race from whence they sprang died out, leaving them to inhabit the world.
Sure. Makes sense.
"The DNA of fictional populations appears to be the most susceptible to extinction." - Simon Southerton
The Hinckster wrote:"What the church requires is only belief that Adam was the first man of what we would call the human race. Scientists can speculate on the rest."
I think I follow this reasoning. After eons of developing, two hominid babies were born whose particular set of genetic mutations made them juuust different enough from their parents that they were now fully ‘human.’
These babies, whom we now call “Adam” and “Eve,” grew up and left their slightly more ape-ish parents to find each other in a pretty garden. They reproduced and grew the great human race that we know and love today. Meanwhile, the not-quite-really-human race from whence they sprang died out, leaving them to inhabit the world.
Sure. Makes sense.
I think that many LDS folks that are open to the theory of evolution having some basis in fact look at Mother Eve and Father Adam as being the primal parents of the human race. And that we see through a glass darkly when trying to view that 'singularity' within the scope of looking at the depth and breadth of human beginnings.
Just as I doubt we're going to find a city marker showing the location of Zarahemla, I don't think we're going to find grave markers for Adam and Eve and/or a direct genetic line to them.
I accept that there were primal parents of the human race and that God gave them commandments and made covenants with them and their progeny. Some followed and obeyed, and others didn't. Some sort of did, but went their own way. Kind of like what we observe today.
mentalgymnast wrote:Purpose is only what you make it.
That is a "hard truth". If you choose to go that direction.
But if one chooses to believe in a creator/God, then meaningful purpose enters into the picture. And that hard truth of nihilism, which I think you're referring to, becomes less of a threat.
The world is always full of the sound of waves..but who knows the heart of the sea, a hundred feet down? Who knows it's depth? ~ Eiji Yoshikawa
mentalgymnast wrote:I think that many LDS folks that are open to the theory of evolution having some basis in fact look at Mother Eve and Father Adam as being the primal parents of the human race...
I accept that there were primal parents of the human race and that God gave them commandments and made covenants with them and their progeny...
I’m not following. Are you saying Adam and Eve are symbols of humans’ early ancestors, or they were two evolved actual humans plucked out of their tribe to star in the Bible story?
Would the “LDS folks... open to... evolution” say that Eve and Adam evolved from other different life forms, rather than being created as detailed in Genesis?
"The DNA of fictional populations appears to be the most susceptible to extinction." - Simon Southerton
krose wrote:I’m not following. Are you saying Adam and Eve are symbols of humans’ early ancestors, or they were two evolved actual humans plucked out of their tribe to star in the Bible story?
Would the “LDS folks... open to... evolution” say that Eve and Adam evolved from other different life forms, rather than being created as detailed in Genesis?
The Church’s doctrinal stance: There was no death before the fall of Adam. The fall of Adam happened circa 4,000BCE. Adam and Eve are literal people, not symbolic. Adam & Eve were the very first parents on earth.
The Church’s doctrinal position is utterly and demonstrably untenable.
“When we are confronted with evidence that challenges our deeply held beliefs we are more likely to reframe the evidence than we are to alter our beliefs. We simply invent new reasons, new justifications, new explanations. Sometimes we ignore the evidence altogether.” (Mathew Syed 'Black Box Thinking')
I have a question wrote:The Church’s doctrinal stance: There was no death before the fall of Adam. The fall of Adam happened circa 4,000BCE. Adam and Eve are literal people, not symbolic. Adam & Eve were the very first parents on earth.
The Church’s doctrinal position is utterly and demonstrably untenable.
True. And this complete denial of scientific evidence is actually the best way to go about being a believer, in my opinion (as Moksha put it, going full Trump).
I’m somewhat confused as to how people mix in evolution as the mechanism of creation, diminishing their creator to a tinkerer who caused tiny changes over long time periods. That seems like a very inefficient, dumb way to create.
"The DNA of fictional populations appears to be the most susceptible to extinction." - Simon Southerton
mentalgymnast wrote:This is all fine and good...as far as it goes...but the problem I see with this is that it simply excises/cuts out any meaningful "purpose" from in the universe. Purpose is only what you make it.
Doesn't your second sentence contradict your first sentence?[/quote]
No.
Regards, MG[/quote]
I think MG is suggesting there is only one true "purpose", and that is to become like God. Purposes such as "learning to love", or "pursuing truth" could be nice but, but ultimately dissatisfying. But I could be wrong.
I have a question wrote:The Church’s doctrinal stance: There was no death before the fall of Adam. The fall of Adam happened circa 4,000BCE. Adam and Eve are literal people, not symbolic. Adam & Eve were the very first parents on earth.
The Church’s doctrinal position is utterly and demonstrably untenable.
True. And this complete denial of scientific evidence is actually the best way to go about being a believer, in my opinion (as Moksha put it, going full Trump).
I’m somewhat confused as to how people mix in evolution as the mechanism of creation, diminishing their creator to a tinkerer who caused tiny changes over long time periods. That seems like a very inefficient, dumb way to create.
Of course there was lots of death before the FALL. Where does this nonsense come from? Planting a Garden and placing the advanced creatures in it was after the death of everything before it.
God has all power to comprehend sufficient to command DNA to do his will. He can use a host creature to bring forth the new creature. He proved this in the virgin birth of Jesus Christ. Eve's first conception was taken from her as it says in the scripture as that seed of the woman would crush the serpent's head. Jesus was a clone of the DNA of the Father. There is more in my New Mormon Theology linked below.
I hope the day will come when science oriented folks will stop pretending that there is so much EVIDENCE. The jig is up. Just because scholastic discipline requires all thoughts be framed consistent with the prevailing fancy of evolution being a fact does not prove evolution. That is as dumb as it is possible to get. This is absolute control. Satan loves such strictures.
