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?
I am sorry that reality isn't small safe and comforting like the little pool.
"In the beginning there were Holy People, supernatural and sacred, who lived below ground in 12 lower worlds. A great flood underground forced the Holy People to crawl to the surface of the earth through a hollow reed, where they created the world. Changing Woman gave birth to the Hero Twins, called "Monster Slayer" and "Child of the Waters" who had many adventures. Earth Surface People, mortals, were created, and First Man and First Woman were formed from ears of white and yellow corn."--http://www.skepticreport.com/creationism/originmyths.htm
Aren't myths fun?
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 think St. Augustine's saying that "all truths are God's truths", is a good one. The difficulty though is in separating truth from superstition
I don't think we Mormons are so boxed into a corner regarding human evolution, that there is no way out. It is conceivable at some future date when the evidence regarding human evolution is so overwhelmingly undeniable, that an ongoing revelation will confirm it. Till then, perhaps God wishes his Apostles to take the Missouri "show me" approach.
I think it great that believers from both the 21st and the 12th Centuries can share the same pews on Sunday.
In exactly what sense was Adam the first human being? In exactly what sense was his poor mother not a human being?
In the sense that one's spirit is a literal spirit child of God and the other's spirit is not.
Oh now there are spirits that don't have to be procreated? They just pop into existence? Is there a heavenly father and mother ape, elephant, zebra, cockroach etc?
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
Hey Tal - would you kindly point out where my theory states or implies that Adam is NOT the primal parent of the human (physical body with a spirit child of God) race?
Good luck!
---Oops (arg), it was Moksha's comment I was referring to. Let me direct that question to Moksha then, who seems to think that later official statements have "superceded" the one I quoted.
But let's take a look at a couple of your comments, BC. You wrote:
BCSpace said:
There are several ways one could go here.
1. Homo Sapiens prior to Adam did not have spirits that were the literal children of God. Therefore, they don't qualify as 'mankind'.
2. Homo Sapiens not not macro-evolve but everything else does.
I happen to prefer the first one.
In addition, you wrote:
In the case of evolution, there is no conflict with LDS doctrine whatsoever.
What FP message and/or scripture do you think precludes a TBM from accepting evolution?
Your "out" appears to be that LDS doctrine allows that human beings could have evolved from lower orders, but that they weren't "officially" "human beings" until a man named Adam appeared, who was the first human being that had one of God's spirits inside of him. Is that correct?
If so, there are a number of things to be said about this. One is this: Would you be entertaining this "out" if this was 1833? And if not...what should that suggest to you?
I want to submit for your consideration that the creation story is now being "allegorized" or magically transformed into "metaphor" by you and other Mormons, for the same reason that the Book of Abraham translation, and the Book of Mormon itself, and the flood story, and the Tower of Babel story, and so many others are being so transformed: because scientific discovery has literally made these stories unbelievable to the modern mind. As you yourself have made so clear, the creation story is unbelievable even to you, for example.
And therefore, it doesn't matter what an official First Presidency statement said about official LDS doctrine one hundred years ago, does it? It just doesn't matter - because you can't believe it. The evidence is too overwhelming that it's not true.
You simply must - like I used to, and presumably all of us - spontaneously search for any sort of way to make it alright...and we end up building bizarre edifices in our heads, projecting all sorts of things, doing ad hoc reconfigurations, just to keep believing that in some way which we can't even articulate anymore, a story is true, while also being false. We all did it.
Your idea that Adam's body was the result of evolution, and just counted as "the first human being" by virtue of being the first one with a spirit, is flatly contradicted by every single LDS scripture on the topic, as well as an official First Presidency statement. Read the piece in its entirety, BCSpace, and tell us if there is really no conflict between your idea, and what a man who "cannot lead us astray" states when speaking as the prophet. Here are a few things you will notice about that official FP statement:
It claims that the question of the origin of man is "closely connected with the fundamental principles of salvation".
It claims to present information revealed by God: "To tell the truth as God has revealed it, and commend it to the acceptance of those who need to conform their opinions thereto, is the sole purpose of this presentation."
It claims to present "eternal truth".
It states: "These two points being established, namely, the creation of man in the image of God, and the twofold character of the Creation, let us now inquire: What was the form of man, in the spirit and in the body, as originally created? In a general way the answer is given in the words chosen as the text of this treatise. “God created man in his own image.” It is more explicitly rendered in the Book of Mormon thus: “All men were created in the beginning after mine own image” (Ether 3:15). … If, therefore, we can ascertain the form of the “Father of spirits,” “The God of the spirits of all flesh,” we shall be able to discover the form of the original man.
As though in reference to your preferred "out", it states: “'God created man in His own image.' This is just as true of the spirit as it is of the body".
Again, it states: "It is held by some that Adam was not the first man upon this earth and that the original human being was a development from lower orders of the animal creation. These, however, are the theories of men "
In your telling, BCSpace, Adam was "the original human being". Therefore, this explicitly, directly contradicts your "out". Do you care?
"The word of the Lord declared that Adam was 'the first man of all men' (Moses 1:34), and we are therefore in duty bound to regard him as the primal parent of our race. It was shown to the brother of Jared that all men were created in the beginning after the image of God; whether we take this to mean the spirit or the body, or both, it commits us to the same conclusion: Man began life as a human being, in the likeness of our Heavenly Father.
Even if your "out" wasn't contradicted by a FP statement and all LDS scriptures (which of course were written long before it became impossible to believe the stories they contained), your position still logically requires you to believe that every single human being on this planet - black, white, Asian, everyone - descended from one guy who lived in Missouri a mere 5700 years ago (according to every single authoritative LDS source there is). Are you still sticking with that one, or have you come up with an "out" for that claim as well?
Sadly, official doctrinal pronouncements by the First Presidency, and the entire canon of LDS scriptures, aren't the only sources weighing against your preferred outs and a desire to reconcile the theory of evolution with (increasingly unbelievable, even to believers) LDS doctrine. There is also the official LDS Bible Dictionary on the matter of the Fall. It reads:
"Before the fall, Adam and Eve had physical bodies but no blood. There was no sin, no death, and no children among any of the earthly creations.[/b] With the eating of the “forbidden fruit,” Adam and Eve became mortal, sin entered, blood formed in their bodies, and death became a part of life.
"Adam became the 'first flesh' upon the earth (Moses 3: 7), meaning that he and Eve were the first to become mortal.
(This also explicitly contradicts your out, BC. Do you care?)
"Adam’s fall brought both physical and spiritual death into the world upon all mankind (Hel. 14: 16-17).
"Latter-day revelation supports the biblical account of the fall, showing that it was a historical event that literally occurred in the history of man.
Just in case you'll be reaching for the "that ain't official doctrine" out on this one, note that the LDS church has had this in its official, canonized version of the scriptures for almost THREE DECADES. Note also that every single assertion is supported by references to canonized LDS scripture. Do you care?
Note also - and this is a killer - that LDS doctrine is committed to the claim that prior to the fall of Adam, there was no death. You may invent some "earlier" period which somehow exists "prior to the fall of Adam", but which doesn't COUNT as being "prior to the fall of Adam", in which death is just fine...but every authoritative LDS statement on this contradicts you. Do you care?
By the way, this matters because "evolution without death" is an oxymoron. That is, if you subscribe to evolutionary theory, then you MUST believe in death prior to 5700 years ago. But this is just what official LDS scriptures, reference aids, and First Presidency statements, say did not occur.
Honestly - do you care?
Last edited by NorthboundZax on Mon Mar 17, 2008 5:24 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Tal Bachman wrote:If so, there are a number of things to be said about this. One is this: Would you be entertaining this "out" if this was 1833? And if not...what should that suggest to you?
That prophets can be taught greater light and knowledge than what Joseph had?
Tal Bachman wrote: ---Oops (arg), it was Moksha's comment I was referring to. Let me direct that question to Moksha then, who seems to think that later official statements have "superceded" the one I quoted.
I think it was Preident David McKay that enlarged on the scope of acceptable belief in regards to science and religion.
bcspace wrote:I'm going to have to leave off for now. I'm going to a soccer camp. I'll rejoin you as soon as I can.
I Luv you soccer coach BCspace!
Bond...Soccer Fanatic Bond
"Whatever appears to be against the Book of Mormon is going to be overturned at some time in the future. So we can be pretty open minded."-charity 3/7/07