I know that in my past experience, the more people in the pool, the less likely I am to want to join them.
If you know what I mean.
The LDS church is a little pool. The water I am talking about the is ocean of reality.
when believers want to give their claims more weight, they dress these claims up in scientific terms. When believers want to belittle atheism or secular humanism, they call it a "religion". -Beastie
yesterday's Mormon doctrine is today's Mormon folklore.-Buffalo
bcspace claims a bare majority of disbelievers in organic evolution in his Sunday School class. Well, I don't know where he lives, or the specific demographics of his ward, but I can say that his experience is notably atypical to my own. I would venture to say that fewer than 20% even appreciate the controversy, and of those, fewer than half (< 10% of the whole) would claim a belief in organic evolution. It just isn't that important to them. Their lives are lived on a different plane; a different stage. They aren't dumb. They just aren't interested.
I live in an area that's 95% LDS though not in Utah. It was during the recent 2 Nephi 2 lesson where this topic came up. The GD teacher (for whom I am a regular substitute) bashed evolution and I spoke up. Seeing me speak up, several others spoke up too. The GD teacher asked for a show of hands. The Bishop did not raise his hand, but the first counselor to the Stake President did. Both those two stated that LDS doctrine did not address the issue of creationism vs evolution and that as long as one believed the doctrine, one was fine. The class went over by 20 minutes.
I think people who were strongly creationist calmed down when they found out that creationism was not doctrine and that I was not teaching my opinion for doctrine.
I can only state -- quite sincerely, and without doubting your account -- that your experience could not be replicated in my current stake, nor in any of the several stakes in which I have resided since my marriage (25+ years). My wife is teaching GD tomorrow, so I might look for an opportunity to do a survey. If not tomorrow, I'll sub for her in a couple weeks and do it then, just for curiosity's sake.
... every man walketh in his own way, and after the image of his own god, whose image is in the likeness of the world, and whose substance is that of an idol ...
I gotta repeat this because I really want a reply.
You think Adam and Eve were real but that Adam's mother was a spiritless nonhuman.
Nope. Try again. I've well answered this in very simple terms already.
The spirit is where the self resides according to the usual doctrine. Our identity and self consciousness goes with the spirit not the body right? So Adam's loving mother wasn't even a "conscious self".
I believe Adam's homo sapiens mother had a spirit like all living things. As for consciencious or self awareness, I think it likely given what we know about early homo sapiens. I think the Fall of Adam could conceivably be pushed back double or triple from the standard 4004 B.C. thinking, but that still does not cover early homo sapiens by a long shot.
Adam was created in the garden was he not?
No. See the verses I referenced.
What does that mean? The souless ape mommy went into the deathless garden and had a super baby? Did she stay in the deathless garden and raise him or did he just stand up and change his own diapers? What about Eve? Different nonconscious zombie mother or the same one?
I don't believe there ever was a 'souless ape mommy'.
Well, I was quite sure you said....sigh...oh never mind.
Look, in exactly what sense was Adam the first human being? In exactly what sense was his poor mother not a human being?
when believers want to give their claims more weight, they dress these claims up in scientific terms. When believers want to belittle atheism or secular humanism, they call it a "religion". -Beastie
yesterday's Mormon doctrine is today's Mormon folklore.-Buffalo
LDS and Christianity demand a paradisaical man who fell from grace and perfection and required a redeemer. You cannot accept the evolution of man and not run into some major modifications for the literal need for a Christ to save mankind.
How so?
read the relevant McConkie comments I posted above. read the Bible, Paul, 1 Cor 15, 2 Nephi, etc, etc,
s.
THe closest we come to anything differing from the Genesis account from LDS leaders is Birigham's ideas that Adam was a god that came to the earth with one of his wive's, ate food of this earth and became mortal, sinned, died aand eas resurrected and went back to being a god.
Not quite. BY never taught any such thing as "Adam-God" BY taught that God the Father and Heavenly Mother were an 'Adam' and 'Eve' who came to an earth and by partaking of the food, were able to beget the Adam and Eve who subsequently fell.
You are spinning here. He never ever said what you say he did. I challenge you to provide a quote by him that says Adam and Eve senior came to earth and had Adam and Eve Jr or anything like that. I have read this spin on AG and it hardly holds water.
I know that in my past experience, the more people in the pool, the less likely I am to want to join them.
If you know what I mean.
The LDS church is a little pool. The water I am talking about the is ocean of reality.
The "ocean of reality" ... wow! Sounds so awe-inspiring when you put it like that.
This is the same ocean where the Titanic is buried ... right?
... every man walketh in his own way, and after the image of his own god, whose image is in the likeness of the world, and whose substance is that of an idol ...
bcspace claims a bare majority of disbelievers in organic evolution in his Sunday School class. Well, I don't know where he lives, or the specific demographics of his ward, but I can say that his experience is notably atypical to my own. I would venture to say that fewer than 20% even appreciate the controversy, and of those, fewer than half (< 10% of the whole) would claim a belief in organic evolution. It just isn't that important to them. Their lives are lived on a different plane; a different stage. They aren't dumb. They just aren't interested.
I live in an area that's 95% LDS though not in Utah. It was during the recent 2 Nephi 2 lesson where this topic came up. The GD teacher (for whom I am a regular substitute) bashed evolution and I spoke up. Seeing me speak up, several others spoke up too. The GD teacher asked for a show of hands. The Bishop did not raise his hand, but the first counselor to the Stake President did. Both those two stated that LDS doctrine did not address the issue of creationism vs evolution and that as long as one believed the doctrine, one was fine. The class went over by 20 minutes.
I think people who were strongly creationist calmed down when they found out that creationism was not doctrine and that I was not teaching my opinion for doctrine.
I can only state -- quite sincerely, and without doubting your account -- that your experience could not be replicated in my current stake, nor in any of the several stakes in which I have resided since my marriage (25+ years). My wife is teaching GD tomorrow, so I might look for an opportunity to do a survey. If not tomorrow, I'll sub for her in a couple weeks and do it then, just for curiosity's sake.
Heh heh :)
Mormons are confused among themselves. Confused about human origins no less. How ironic and what a mess.
BC-
In exactly what sense was Adam the first human being? In exactly what sense was his poor mother not a human being?
when believers want to give their claims more weight, they dress these claims up in scientific terms. When believers want to belittle atheism or secular humanism, they call it a "religion". -Beastie
yesterday's Mormon doctrine is today's Mormon folklore.-Buffalo
I can only state -- quite sincerely, and without doubting your account -- that your experience could not be replicated in my current stake, nor in any of the several stakes in which I have resided since my marriage (25+ years). My wife is teaching GD tomorrow, so I might look for an opportunity to do a survey. If not tomorrow, I'll sub for her in a couple weeks and do it then, just for curiosity's sake.
I can assure you that no matter the result of your survey, it cannot change my experience from my mission ownward wherein I've always answered the evolution question the same way I've been answering now for 2+ decades.
I will grant you that as a 14 year old teacher in the 1970's, I expressed this in class and the bishop had a special class the next week to undo what I had said. My father and I went to the Stake Prez and he corrected the Bishop. That was back in the 70's mind you.
And sure, I agree that much of the older generation is steeped in creationism. But after rational discussion, many come to agree that evolution is not contradictory to LDS doctrine though it may not change their minds on creationism.