Ultimate prejudice?

[_Brackite]

Here we go about this. The Following is from one of the Web Site Pages, from former LDS Apologist, Chris Tolworthy:

The "spirits entered bodies in 4000 BC" theory

A popular explanation among apologists, and one hinted by the 1925 First Presidency statement, is that Adam was simply the first human who had a spirit from God. Any pre-Adamites did not have spirits. Nothing could die before that time because nothing was truly alive - they were just like machines. It is tempting to brush this off with a joke about "Planet of the Zombies," but it is believed by serious people and so deserves a serious response.


The problem with the "spirits entered in 4000 BC" idea is that people were building cities, trading, making tools, painting pictures, making music, worshiping gods (or goddesses in the case of Çatal Hüyük), being born, raising families, dying, being buried in religious ceremonies and so on, long before Adam came along. If people can do this without spirits, then what is a spirit for?

The theory also raises a number of interesting questions. Adam got his spirit at the start of the garden of Eden before he fell. Did the other pre-Adamites have "the breath of life" breathed into them when Adam left the garden? They are never mentioned, but I can imagine all these pre-Adamites and their dogs (who they domesticated long before Adam) going about their business, buying and selling, hunting and playing, and suddenly ZONK! Something hits them and they feel strange. Now they have spirits! Then they carry on with their business as before.

The "no spirits" theory creates a God who does nothing that anyone can see. The only evidence that this God exists is that one group of people (the Adamites) suddenly say that they are superior to everyone else. Maybe they are, maybe they aren't, but this is exactly what we would expect a false religion to say.

Put simply, the "no spirits" theory was only invented after the other theories were proven wrong, and this new one brings God into disrepute.


Other compromise theories

Never underestimate an apologist's skill at finding new explanations. An apologist can make up doctrine as he goes along, so can always find a new and ingenious solution to a problem. For example, a popular explanation for Adam's fall (among apologists) is that hominids functioned some other way before Adam, but Adam was the first to have God's special influence put on him, and then the other hominids around the world were similarly enhanced. If this theory proves false then another one will be invented, A good apologist will never give up.


( http://www.exmormon.org.uk/tol_arch/ato ... m/adam.htm )

[_bcspace]

Funny, I must be a descendant of Adam's brother. I checked, and I don't have a spirit, just a brain.

Two choices for you:

Chaka...



or Sleestak...



ssssssSSSSSSSssssssssssssssss

[_Jason Bourne]

Anticipation of BC: "Oh but she did have a spirit, just not one procreated (a la Ed Decker's film) by Elohim" (and,.. Eloher?)

Here Tarski puffs himself up because he knows I've answered this way before therefore there is nothing to his divination.

Well, then where did these other inhuman but oh so human seeming spirits come from? A different god?

The absurdities multiply like the sorcerers broom.

These spirits would come from the same source as the spirit of any other animal. Methinks Tarski forgot to take into account LDS doctrine.

And where is that??? Ape Father in heaven, Turtle father in heaven?

Why would God not including thinking, feeling, speaking beings in his plan of salvation?
How did Adam feel about his own mother not being included in the plan of salvation.
How did he feel about his mother not being a child of God???
So so so so so so weird BC!

According to BY Adam did not have a mother on this earth. Adam was already an exalted being, a god. He came here with one of his celestial wive's, Eve. They ate of the fruit of this then terrestrial sphere and became mortal once again and their bodies subject to corruption. They were then able to make earhly tabernacles for their spirit children that they had been creating as exalted Gods. And Adam is the father of Jesus Christ and Adam is our God. No evolutoin there.

[_beastie]

Why would the form of a very intelligent animal bother you? In case you have forgotten, it's all speculation on my part. Well, almost all. The part that is not speculative is that evolution is not precluded by LDS doctrine.

Well, let's see. Adam's mother, who was enough like him to pass on the genetic material that made Adam who he was, who loved him like any mother will love her child, was really an intelligent animal without a human spirit.

The question to me is why this doesn't bother YOU?

[_bcspace]

According to BY Adam did not have a mother on this earth. Adam was already an exalted being, a god. He came here with one of his celestial wive's, Eve. They ate of the fruit of this then terrestrial sphere and became mortal once again and their bodies subject to corruption. They were then able to make earhly tabernacles for their spirit children that they had been creating as exalted Gods. And Adam is the father of Jesus Christ and Adam is our God. No evolutoin there.

And no doctrine either. by the way, you got it wrong. According to BY, it was God the Father and Heavenly Mother who partook of the fruit and begat Adam and Eve, thus becomming in a sense an Adam and Eve of themselves. There is no such thing as an Adam-God theory.

[_bcspace]

Why would the form of a very intelligent animal bother you? In case you have forgotten, it's all speculation on my part. Well, almost all. The part that is not speculative is that evolution is not precluded by LDS doctrine.

Well, let's see. Adam's mother, who was enough like him to pass on the genetic material that made Adam who he was, who loved him like any mother will love her child, was really an intelligent animal without a human spirit.

The question to me is why this doesn't bother YOU?

Because the body is just a shell, 'clothing' for the spirit which is the actual being. James 2:26 etc.

[_Jason Bourne]

President Ezra Taft Benson warned that evolution was a false concept that could lead us astray:

Our families may be corrupted by worldly trends and teachings unless we know how to use the book [the Book of Mormon] to expose and combat the falsehoods in socialism, organic evolution, rationalism, humanism, etc. (Ensign, April 1975, pp. 96-97).

Isn't it funny that I am using the Book of Mormon to support the compatibility of evolution? by the way, I seem to recall BRM quoting this in a later Ensign article but adding the qualification "that denies the Fall". I do not deny the Fall.

Conclusion: The theory of organic evolution is clearly Not compatible with LDS Doctrine.

Mostly just a repeat of LDS dcotrine which does not speak against evolution because evolution does not deny the Fall and it does not preclude the existence of God or the creation of man in his own image. Nor does it disallow Adam being the first man or the first in the created world to be subject to death.

You are in clear opposition to apostles and prophets here. Why should we take your word over theirs?

[Guest]

According to BY Adam did not have a mother on this earth. Adam was already an exalted being, a god. He came here with one of his celestial wive's, Eve. They ate of the fruit of this then terrestrial sphere and became mortal once again and their bodies subject to corruption. They were then able to make earhly tabernacles for their spirit children that they had been creating as exalted Gods. And Adam is the father of Jesus Christ and Adam is our God. No evolutoin there.

And no doctrine either. by the way, you got it wrong. According to BY, it was God the Father and Heavenly Mother who partook of the fruit and begat Adam and Eve, thus becomming in a sense an Adam and Eve of themselves. There is no such thing as an Adam-God theory.

Hmm.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adam%E2%80%93God_theory

It does seem to be the kind of issue that cannot sensibly be dealt with by bcspace, weighty as his opinion is, simply telling us there is "no such thing".

[_Jason Bourne]

According to BY Adam did not have a mother on this earth. Adam was already an exalted being, a god. He came here with one of his celestial wive's, Eve. They ate of the fruit of this then terrestrial sphere and became mortal once again and their bodies subject to corruption. They were then able to make earhly tabernacles for their spirit children that they had been creating as exalted Gods. And Adam is the father of Jesus Christ and Adam is our God. No evolutoin there.

And no doctrine either. by the way, you got it wrong. According to BY, it was God the Father and Heavenly Mother who partook of the fruit and begat Adam and Eve, thus becomming in a sense an Adam and Eve of themselves. There is no such thing as an Adam-God theory.

In your dreams dude.

Anyway yes evolution is incompatible with LDS doctrine according to about a dozen or so apostles and prophets. They said it. As far as LDS doctrine goes their words really do mean m ore than yours.

[_bcspace]

Mostly just a repeat of LDS dcotrine which does not speak against evolution because evolution does not deny the Fall and it does not preclude the existence of God or the creation of man in his own image. Nor does it disallow Adam being the first man or the first in the created world to be subject to death.

You are in clear opposition to apostles and prophets here. Why should we take your word over theirs?

Since you are not able to point out how I am in violation of LDS doctrine, perhaps you should take my word.