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.
I see you've never taken into account all of BY's opinion on the subject.
Anyway yes evolution is incompatible with LDS doctrine according to about a dozen or so apostles and prophets. They said it.
CFR
As far as LDS doctrine goes their words really do mean m ore than yours.
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.
I definitely agree that the theory of organic evolution, does Not deny the existence of God. However, The theory of organic evolution is clearly Not compatible with LDS Doctrine. Here is more from that Article:
Elder Bruce R. McConkie, one of the most respected and prolific apostles in the history of the church, was equally clear in his rejection of the theory of evolution:
Of the several theories postulated in one age or another to explain (without the aid of revelation) the origin of man and the various forms of life, none has taken such hold or found such widespread acceptance as the relatively modern so-called theory of organic evolution. Stated generally, this theory assumes that over long periods of time, and through a series of changes, all present living organisms or groups of organisms have acquired the morphological and physiological characteristics which distinguish them. The theory assumes that all present animals and plants have their origin in other pre-existing types, the distinguishable differences being due to modifications in successive generations. One or more common origins for all forms of life are assumed.
From the day of their first announcement, these theories or organic evolution found themselves in conflict with the principles of revealed religion as such are found recorded in the scriptures and expounded by inspired teachers. (Mormon Doctrine, Second Edition, 1979, p. 257)
We can't really get too much more LDS Doctrine than the Book Titled, 'Mormon Doctrine,' from the former LDS Apostle Brue R. McConkie. The theory of organic evolution is clearly and truly Not compatible with LDS Doctrine.
"And I've said it before, you want to know what Joseph Smith looked like in Nauvoo, just look at Trump." - Fence Sitter
Because the body is just a shell, 'clothing' for the spirit which is the actual being. James 2:26 etc.
So how was Adam's mother different from Adam? In other words, how does the lack of a "spirit" in that body manifest itself? Was Adam's mother capable of loving Adam? Was she as intelligent as Adam? Did she "feel" like we feel? Was she able to think? Could she verbalize those thoughts to Adam? Just how was she different?
We hate to seem like we don’t trust every nut with a story, but there’s evidence we can point to, and dance while shouting taunting phrases.
I definitely agree that the theory of organic evolution, does Not deny the existence of God. However, The theory of organic evolution is clearly Not compatible with LDS Doctrine. Here is more from that Article:
Quote: Elder Bruce R. McConkie, one of the most respected and prolific apostles in the history of the church, was equally clear in his rejection of the theory of evolution:
Of the several theories postulated in one age or another to explain (without the aid of revelation) the origin of man and the various forms of life, none has taken such hold or found such widespread acceptance as the relatively modern so-called theory of organic evolution. Stated generally, this theory assumes that over long periods of time, and through a series of changes, all present living organisms or groups of organisms have acquired the morphological and physiological characteristics which distinguish them. The theory assumes that all present animals and plants have their origin in other pre-existing types, the distinguishable differences being due to modifications in successive generations. One or more common origins for all forms of life are assumed.
From the day of their first announcement, these theories or organic evolution found themselves in conflict with the principles of revealed religion as such are found recorded in the scriptures and expounded by inspired teachers. (Mormon Doctrine, Second Edition, 1979, p. 257)
We can't really get too much more LDS Doctrine than the Book Titled, 'Mormon Doctrine,' from the former LDS Apostle Brue R. McConkie. The theory of organic evolution is clearly and truly Not compatible with LDS Doctrine.
Yet the title of a book is not even a factor in what the Church considers doctrine. If all 15 apostles agree (the D&C 107 principle), then it will be published as doctrine in an official publication of the Church. Otherwise, it's just opinion. The Church had a news release on this just last year called 'Approaching Mormon Doctrine".
by the way, BRM later admitted (in another nondoctrinal speech called "The Seven Deadly Heresies") that as long as one could square it, evolution is not a problem. One of his caveats is as long as you don't deny the Fall. I don't deny the Fall.
Because the body is just a shell, 'clothing' for the spirit which is the actual being. James 2:26 etc.
So how was Adam's mother different from Adam? In other words, how does the lack of a "spirit" in that body manifest itself?
I am not saying that Adam's mother lacked a spirit. that would be contrary to LDS doctrine which says that all living things have spirits. I am saying she would have lacked a spirit that was a spirit child of God.
Was Adam's mother capable of loving Adam? Was she as intelligent as Adam? Did she "feel" like we feel? Was she able to think? Could she verbalize those thoughts to Adam? Just how was she different?
Do you think a dolphin's spirit is incapable of loving it's offspring? What forces Adam's mother to have raised Adam from birth? These are details that don't matter, and therefore don't have to be answered when considering whether or not evolution conflicts with LDS doctrine.
These are details that don't matter, and therefore don't have to be answered when considering whether or not evolution conflicts with LDS doctrine.
What a complete and utter cop-out. If you are suggesting that human beings existed that were like us in every way except they weren't "spirit children" of Heavenly Father, then you certainly have to explain how they were different than us. The details DO matter, in terms of whether or not your theory makes even a minimal amount of sense, which it doesn't.
I mean, really, bc. Are you seriously suggesting that the idea that human beings existed, but they were NOT spirit children of HF - is NOT pertinent to LDS doctrine????!?!?!?!??!?! Why it cuts to the very CORE of LDS doctrine.
We hate to seem like we don’t trust every nut with a story, but there’s evidence we can point to, and dance while shouting taunting phrases.
These are details that don't matter, and therefore don't have to be answered when considering whether or not evolution conflicts with LDS doctrine.
What a complete and utter cop-out. If you are suggesting that human beings existed that were like us in every way except they weren't "spirit children" of Heavenly Father, then you certainly have to explain how they were different than us. The details DO matter, in terms of whether or not your theory makes even a minimal amount of sense, which it doesn't.
I really don't see how answering the question "Was Adam's mother capable of loving him?" speaks to the issue.
I mean, really, bc. Are you seriously suggesting that the idea that human beings existed, but they were NOT spirit children of HF
I am indeed theorizing that homo sapiens or something genetically indistinguishable to us at this time existed before Adam. Their bodies are not inhabited by literal spirit children of HF.
- is NOT pertinent to LDS doctrine????!?!?!?!??!?! Why it cuts to the very CORE of LDS doctrine.
But such was not your question in the first place or it was already answered and you digressed. However, now you see that by the type of spirit inhabiting the body, one can be completely within the realm of LDS doctrine and not conflict. Remember that 2 Nephi 2:22 establishes a created world whose properties are defined (such as no death in the garden) and a prior creative state in whcih there are no definite properties so we may fill in the gaps as we like until there is further light and knowledge, scientific, spiritual, or otherwise.
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.
Go back and read the thread man. Don;t play coy. Their words are right there.
We know from a modern prophet of God that Adam was a resurrected man who came into the garden from another planet and brought Eve, who was one of his many wives with him. And that Adam is God, and the only God we anything to do.
This is a great example of how a modern prophet's words can clear up so much misunderstanding.
You try to refute what you call a silly argument with one that really is silly?
Mmmmmm kay.
I think you may be missing sunstoned's irony here ...