Hence I am neither in conflict with the scriptures or science.
There is no reason at all to believe your ad hoc stories.
Never said you had to. However, since they are not in conflict, it is not possible to show that LDS doctrine conflicts with evolution which was their purpose in the first place.
There's no reason to believe in Joseph Smith's biblical literalism that the LDS Church is stuck with. You are not solving the problem. You are compounding it. You are doing Occam's Razor in reverse, with no factual basis whatsoever to support any of it.
Not at all. My hypothesis is the ultimate in lex parsimoniae. I did not have to change any doctrine or science and instead of making assumptions, I simply followed the trail bounded by keeping science and doctrine intact. I freely admit there could be more than one trail, but the mere existence of at least one, which I have shown, proves evolution in harmony with LDS doctrine.
Which is exactly the same process I took in the lack of children of Joseph Smith by his polygamous wives MOA hypothesis. Which is why my theory explains it so well, while being in harmony with science and LDS doctrine.
It is better to be a warrior in a garden, than a gardener at war.
Some of us, on the other hand, actually prefer a religion that includes some type of correlation with reality. ~Bill Hamblin
Which is exactly the same process I took in the lack of children of Joseph Smith by his polygamous wives MOA hypothesis
I don't think so. You obviously went against the doctrine and I think perhaps the science of "have you checked the children" combined with a typical 18th century horndog to produce a Joseph Smith which probably does not exist. But you're welcome to harbor any hypothesis you like......
bcspace wrote:I have merely said they were homo sapiens. They aren't spirit children of God because their spirits are different and they don't qualify as men scriptural for that reason. But as far as science can tell, there is no change (none such is implied by the scriptures). Hence I am neither in conflict with the scriptures or science.
How were pre-Adamite spirits created?
How do you know this?
On what day of creation were their earthly bodies created?
How do you know this?
Do you believe in the merely 6000 year old earth?
Do you agree with ldsfaqs that the Pre-adamite children of men reproduced with the Adamite children of God?
"And the human knew the source of life, the woman of him, and she conceived and bore Cain, and said, 'I have procreated a man with Yahweh.'" Gen. 4:1, interior quote translated by D. Bokovoy.
bcspace wrote:......since they are not in conflict, it is not possible to show that LDS doctrine conflicts with evolution which was their purpose in the first place.
.........My hypothesis is the ultimate in lex parsimoniae. I did not have to change any doctrine or science and instead of making assumptions, I simply followed the trail bounded by keeping science and doctrine intact. I freely admit there could be more than one trail, but the mere existence of at least one, which I have shown, proves evolution in harmony with LDS doctrine.
Not interested in your dissembling. You may as well be saying that the LDS Church has no official position on whether Joseph Smith was a prophet. I can see for myself, as can anyone else, what the LDS Church teaches about evolution.
In the world another theory of how things began is popularly held and widely taught. This theory, that of organic evolution, was generally developed from the writings of Charles Darwin. It puts forth different ideas concerning how life began and where man came from. In relation to this theory, the following statements should help you understand what the Church teaches about the Creation and the origin of man.
“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. The word of the Lord declares 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; and 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.” (First Presidency [Joseph F. Smith, John R. Winder, Anthon H. Lund], in Clark, Messages of the First Presidency, 4:205.)
“Any theory that leaves out God as a personal, purposeful Being, and accepts chance as a first cause, cannot be accepted by Latter-day Saints. . . . That man and the whole of creation came by chance is unthinkable. It is equally unthinkable that if man came into being by the will and power of God, the divine creative power is limited to one process dimly sensed by mortal man.” (Widtsoe, Evidences and Reconciliations, 1:155.)
“I am grateful that in the midst of the confusion of our Father’s children there has been given to the members of this great organization a sure knowledge of the origin of man, that we came from the spirit world where our spirits were begotten by our Father in heaven, that he formed our first parents from the dust of the earth, and that their spirits were placed in their bodies, and that man came, not as some have believed, not as some have preferred to believe, from some of the lower walks of life, but our ancestors were those beings who lived in the courts of heaven. We came not from some menial order of life, but our ancestor is God our heavenly Father.” (George Albert Smith, in Conference Report, Oct. 1925, p. 33.)
“Of course, I think those people who hold to the view that man has come up through all these ages from the scum of the sea through billions of years do not believe in Adam. Honestly I do not know how they can, and I am going to show you that they do not. There are some who attempt to do it but they are inconsistent—absolutely inconsistent, because that doctrine is so incompatible, so utterly out of harmony, with the revelations of the Lord that a man just cannot believe in both.
“. . . I say most emphatically, you cannot believe in this theory of the origin of man, and at the same time accept the plan of salvation as set forth by the Lord our God. You must choose the one and reject the other, for they are in direct conflict and there is a gulf separating them which is so great that it cannot be bridged, no matter how much one may try to do so. . . .
“. . . Then Adam, and by that I mean the first man, was not capable of sin. He could not transgress, and by doing so bring death into the world; for, according to this theory, death had always been in the world. If, therefore, there was no fall, there was no need of an atonement, hence the coming into the world of the Son of God as the Savior of the world is a contradiction, a thing impossible. Are you prepared to believe such a thing as that?” (Smith, Doctrines of Salvation, 1:141–42.)
This section is followed by standard young-Earth creationist canards alleging that the theory of evolution is wrong.
Which is exactly the same process I took in the lack of children of Joseph Smith by his polygamous wives MOA hypothesis
I don't think so. You obviously went against the doctrine and I think perhaps the science of "have you checked the children" combined with a typical 18th century horndog to produce a Joseph Smith which probably does not exist. But you're welcome to harbor any hypothesis you like......
Which doctrine did I violate? The letter on sexual behavior did not come out till 1978.....
Oh, the multiply and replenish thing..... That didn't apply, just like the fact that Emma's will didn't apply, and the virgins thing didn't apply, and the marrying of other's people wives wasn't an issue, and he entered his first polygamous relationship before the sealing power was restored shows Joseph a special case.
My hypothesis no more produces a Joseph Smith that did not exist then yours produces a class of humans with a different kind of spirit which probably did not exist.
Your theory violates Occam's Razor (lex parsimoniae), mine embraces it.
It is better to be a warrior in a garden, than a gardener at war.
Some of us, on the other hand, actually prefer a religion that includes some type of correlation with reality. ~Bill Hamblin
ldsfaqs wrote:Darth J, Buffalo and who-ever is quoting LDS manuals and thinking that's the actual doctrine need to read these articles. They debunk your claims.
There have been many LDS including those like James Talmage, Hugh Nibley, etc. who have believed in Pre-Adamites.
The question is, how were the spirits of the pre-Adamites created?
"And the human knew the source of life, the woman of him, and she conceived and bore Cain, and said, 'I have procreated a man with Yahweh.'" Gen. 4:1, interior quote translated by D. Bokovoy.
ldsfaqs wrote:1. Pre-Adamites are a "theory", not an absolute.
2. Don't recall anyone saying pre-adamites were "soulless". Certainly has never been my argument, nor any other LDS that I know of.
Shows how much the anti-mormon mind perverts facts for their unrighteous judgments.
Jesus Hoover Christ! Refuting pre-adamites now makes one an anti-mormon who perverts facts?
H.
"Others cannot endure their own littleness unless they can translate it into meaningfulness on the largest possible level." ~ Ernest Becker "Whether you think of it as heavenly or as earthly, if you love life immortality is no consolation for death." ~ Simone de Beauvoir