More bad news for our scripture believing friends

[_bcspace]

So is it now LDS doctrine that there are human beings alive today who are not descendants of Adam?

Adam is the primal parent of our race. The defintiion of primal doesn't preclude such.

(I think we can discount the idea of a few Adamites swimming for many miles over dangerous seas and managing to inseminate so many women in Australia some time after 4,000 BC that all aborigines today are their descendants. )

Or too few to have much physical effect on the gene pool.

[_bcspace]

1) Adam-God wasn't what BY taught.
2) It doesn't meet the D&C 107 criteria.

Now you're flat-out lying.

No, you're just stuck because you haven't been paying attention when I mention D&C 107 and Adam Sr Adam Jr is a perfectly cromulent explaination that matches the facts far more than Adam God.

[_jon]

Neither must be dumped as I do not propose that all born as spirit children of God must descend directly from Adam and Eve. One cannot also discount other later entries into Australia after the Fall so you have at least two significant problems with your argument.

Except the Church officially states:
Adam is the father and patriarch of the human race on the earth

*coughs politely*

[_Chap]

So is it now LDS doctrine that there are human beings alive today who are not descendants of Adam?

Adam is the primal parent of our race. The defintiion of primal doesn't preclude such.

In an earlier post, you quoted as follows:

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

So when the First Presidency said 'primal parent', what on earth do you maintain they meant by saying that, if they did not mean he was the parent of the whole human race?

Or is that statement going to metamorphose into 'among the primal parents of the human race'?

[_bcspace]

Except the Church officially states:
Adam is the father and patriarch of the human race on the earth

*coughs politely*

Sure. And Jesus is also our Father though not in the direct lineal sense.

So when the First Presidency said 'primal parent', what on earth do you maintain they meant by saying that, if they did not mean he was the parent of the whole human race?

Or is that statement going to metamorphose into 'among the primal parents of the human race'?

Have you read the definition of primal? All of them?

[Guest]

1) Adam-God wasn't what BY taught.

Yes, it is, and it's not a matter of opinion. blog.php?u=7958&b=2865

ETA: It's not a matter of opinion that Brigham Young taught Adam-God.

Brigham Young did NOT teach "Adam, Sr./ Adam, Jr." He taught that Adam is the person that Latter-day Saints pray to as Heavenly Father, and that Elohim is our heavenly grandfather. Nobody needs to take my word for it; click on the links on my blog and look at BYU's digital scans of the Millenial Star.

The [Adam-God] doctrine was never submitted to the councils of the Priesthood nor to the church for approval or ratification, and was never formally or otherwise accepted by the church. It is therefore in no sense binding upon the Church. Brigham Young's ‘bare mention’ was ‘without indubitable evidence and authority being given of its truth.’ Only the scripture, the ‘accepted word of God,’ is the Church's standard.
Joseph F. Smith 1897

First, a disingenuous statement by Joseph F. Smith only proves that Joseph F. Smith was disingenuous. The repeated teachings in the Millenial Star, the longest-running official LDS publication, are substantially more than "bare mention." The fact that Orson Pratt was almost removed from the Quorum of the Twelve for publicly disagreeing with Brigham Young over Adam-God also undercuts Joseph F. Smith's disingenuous claim that there was no "authority" behind the Adam-God doctrine.

Second, Joseph F. Smith is explicitly stating here that the LDS Church is a sola scriptura church. In that case, there is no reason to listen to anything LDS leaders say that has not become part of the canon---including, ironically, Joseph F. Smith's characterization of the Adam-God doctrine.

Third, since this is Joseph F. Smith's personal statement, which was never canonized as the "accepted word of God," why are we to take his opinion as authoritative?

2) It doesn't meet the D&C 107 criteria.

Here, bcspace is equivocating between "doctrine" and "scripture." Doctrine simply means that which is taught. If the Church teaches it, it is doctrine. If bcspace wants to take the position that we only need to pay attention to the official canon, then he is making a self-defeating argument on behalf of the LDS Church. If pronouncements by church leaders only matter if they meet D&C 107 criteria, then there is no reason to listen to LDS leaders until whatever they say is canonized. That being the case, why exactly does the LDS Church hold General Conference, publish the Ensign, etc.?

[_Chap]

[

Have you read the definition of primal? All of them?

Here we go! It'll be 'principal' all over again ...

But bcspace, when the First Presidency has spoken, surely the question for a devout LDS is not whether somewhere in the Oxford English Dictionary one can find some sense that gives a disbeliever wiggle room, but what the First Presidency is most likely to have meant.

What do you think they meant in 1931 by choosing the word 'primal' to qualify 'parent'? Or will you pretend to have no idea?

[_bcspace]

1) Adam-God wasn't what BY taught.

Yes, it is, and it's not a matter of opinion. blog.php?u=7958

Neither is Adam Sr Adam Jr which remains a viable explaination.

Brigham Young did NOT teach "Adam, Sr./ Adam, Jr." He taught that Adam is the person that Latter-day Saints pray to as Heavenly Father, and that Elohim is our heavenly grandfather. Nobody needs to take my word for it; click on the links on my blog and look at BYU's digital scans of the Millenial Star.

Last we left it, I was wondering when someone was going to gainsay their own proof text which showed Adam Sr Adam Jr. I certianly didn't bail on that one.

Second, Joseph F. Smith is explicitly stating here that the LDS Church is a sola scriptura church. In that case, there is no reason to listen to anything LDS leaders say that has not become part of the canon---including, ironically, Joseph F. Smith's characterization of the Adam-God doctrine.

Close, but it's doctrine to be worried about, not canon.

Third, since this is Joseph F. Smith's personal statement, which was never canonized as the "accepted word of God," why are we to take his opinion as authoritative?

Because he illustrates the point that D&C 107 is in effect.

2) It doesn't meet the D&C 107 criteria.

Here, bcspace is equivocating between "doctrine" and "scripture."

Nope. Not even concerned with scripture or canon and doctrine Trump's as I've explained before.

If pronouncements by church leaders only matter if they meet D&C 107 criteria, then there is no reason to listen to LDS leaders until whatever they say is canonized.

Not canonized, published.

That being the case, why exactly does the LDS Church hold General Conference, publish the Ensign, etc.?

They are official doctrine which, being the interpretation of scripture and revelation, is more important and authoritative than canon.

[_jon]

Sure. And Jesus is also our Father though not in the direct lineal sense.

I think perhaps, you should nip along to your Stake President, show him a transcript of this thread and ask him if you'd said anything that might be considered 'apostate'. Let us know how you get on...

[_bcspace]

Have you read the definition of primal? All of them?

Here we go! It'll be 'principal' all over again ...

Precisely! Same goes for meridian of time, etc. Welcome to the English language.

But bcspace, when the First Presidency has spoken, surely the question for a devout LDS is not whether somewhere in the Oxford English Dictionary one can find some sense that gives a disbeliever wiggle room, but what the First Presidency is most likely to have meant.

Perhaps. But perhaps they are not specific for a reason? Such as...there is no doctrine on the subject.......

What do you think they meant in 1931 by choosing the word 'primal' to qualify 'parent'? Or will you pretend to have no idea?

I know that was combined with the possibility of preAdamite races which answers the orginal question brought up by the OP, which is answered by the fact that evolution can swim with LDS doctrine. Thanks for bringing us full circle.

Q.E.D.