If evolution is accepted, it means there was no created man - no Adam. And therefore, no Fall. Thus, no need for an atonement.
H.
Catholics are very willing to accept evolution. Catholics still believe that all humans descended from Adam and Eve and that the fall is a literal event. Adam and Eve were the first to be created in God's image with a human spirit and free will. That doesn't mean they didn't descend from pre-Adamites and their physical body was created through an evolutionary process.
Bazooka wrote:Forgive the language, but if the Church has members like nc47, ldsfaqs and Tobin teaching classes or going on reach outs or supporting the missionaries in teaching investigators, then the Church is f*****. Proper f*****.
I think you meant to say "consigliari" here, didn't you?
Thanks for the clarification.
Actually, consiglieri (note the use of an e where you used an incorrect a) is one of the great hopes of the Church. He is trying to teach doctrinal lessons and principles within the context of accurate and truthful discussion about problematic topics that the Church up to now has shun. That shunning has caused a lot of people to leave activity (Jensen called it an exodus) so consiglieri (there's that e again) is doing the Church in his area a MASSIVE service and his local leaders seem to realise it.
That said, with the Book of Mormon, we are not dealing with a civilization with no written record. What we are dealing with is a written record with no civilization. (Runtu, Feb 2015)
Darth J wrote:Also, if you or ldsfaqs could articulate why Elohim would indulge in a special creation of Adam and Eve and stick them in the enclave of the Garden of Eden, when there already were humans living, reproducing, and dying on the Earth, that would be great.
If any newcomer or guest is thinking of holding their breath in anticipation of a coherent response to Darth's question from either Droopy or ldsfaqs, please don't.
That said, with the Book of Mormon, we are not dealing with a civilization with no written record. What we are dealing with is a written record with no civilization. (Runtu, Feb 2015)
Tobin wrote:...Quoting from the Book of Mormon doesn't prove anything. None of these people knew Noah and they could simply be repeating and/or embellishing stories they heard.
Hi Tobin,
It stretches things a bit to think that all this stuff/myth regarding Noah/Flood could have made it through the editing/translation processes involved with the Book of Mormon without somebody, say God...or Moroni... or a heretofore Unnamed Angel stepping in and making a very important correction. As a faithful Mormon about the only choice available when it comes to issues connected with Noah's global flood, à la Parry, and the Fall, à la Nibley and the pre-adamites, is to put it all up on the shelf and let it gather dust. Even if you take the Noah/flood/Fall issue down and dust it off now and then, it's not going to be resolved. Might as well just let the dust collect.
The more you try to explain it so that it actually makes sense, with what we THINK we know about how the world works, the more convoluted and weird the whole thing gets.
Tobin wrote: No. And that's my point. You are citing the Book of Mormon, a book that may be a work of fiction, as proof that Noah existed. It's completely unreasonable.
OK, let me get this straight...you're a believer in the restoration, right?
Maybe I'm skimming through this thread too fast and you're simply being facetious?
This is the second time now that I think I'm hearing you say that the Book of Mormon is untrustworthy when it comes to naming real people who existed in ancient times?
Tobin wrote:...Quoting from the Book of Mormon doesn't prove anything. None of these people knew Noah and they could simply be repeating and/or embellishing stories they heard.
Hi Tobin,
It stretches things a bit to think that all this stuff/myth regarding Noah/Flood could have made it through the editing/translation processes involved with the Book of Mormon without somebody, say God...or Moroni... or a heretofore Unnamed Angel stepping in and making a very important correction. As a faithful Mormon about the only choice available when it comes to issues connected with Noah's global flood, à la Parry, and the Fall, à la Nibley and the pre-adamites, is to put it all up on the shelf and let it gather dust. Even if you take the Noah/flood/Fall issue down and dust it off now and then, it's not going to be resolved. Might as well just let the dust collect.
The more you try to explain it so that it actually makes sense, with what we THINK we know about how the world works, the more convoluted and weird the whole thing gets.
Regards, MG
MG,
What you are hearing right now is the sound of your stock value going up on my credibility exchange.
David Hume: "---Mistakes in philosophy are merely ridiculous, those in religion are dangerous."
DrW: "Mistakes in science are learning opportunities and are eventually corrected."
DrW wrote: What you are hearing right now is the sound of your stock value going up on my credibility exchange.
The simple truth is, I haven't come across anything that resolves the Fall/Flood issues to my satisfaction. It's a major "shelf" issue for me. No way around it. When folks like Tobin try to find some way of skirting around these critical issues by coming up with some pretty weird stuff to explain weird stuff, I have to open my mouth.
Tobin wrote:...Quoting from the Book of Mormon doesn't prove anything. None of these people knew Noah and they could simply be repeating and/or embellishing stories they heard.
It stretches things a bit to think that all this stuff/myth regarding Noah/Flood could have made it through the editing/translation processes involved with the Book of Mormon without somebody, say God...or Moroni... or a heretofore Unnamed Angel stepping in and making a very important correction. As a faithful Mormon about the only choice available when it comes to issues connected with Noah's global flood, à la Parry, and the Fall, à la Nibley and the pre-adamites, is to put it all up on the shelf and let it gather dust. Even if you take the Noah/flood/Fall issue down and dust it off now and then, it's not going to be resolved. Might as well just let the dust collect.
I think you are having trouble separating facts from Mormonism. The Book of Mormon itself is proof of nothing. There are a number of more likely ways the Book of Mormon could come into existence that does not involve God, Angels, the U&T, Moroni, or Gold Plates. It could be reasonably stated that it is purely a work of fiction. I don't believe it is a work of fiction, but since it could be I'm stating its credibility on any topic is suspect and shouldn't be relied on. Do you understand that?
mentalgymnast wrote:The more you try to explain it so that it actually makes sense, with what we THINK we know about how the world works, the more convoluted and weird the whole thing gets.
I'm not trying to explain any Mormon doctrine or defend it. I can explain my views if you'd like. But stating that the Book of Mormon proves such and such is completely meaningless to me simply because of its dubious origins. Does that make sense?
"You lack vision, but I see a place where people get on and off the freeway. On and off, off and on all day, all night.... Tire salons, automobile dealerships and wonderful, wonderful billboards reaching as far as the eye can see. My God, it'll be beautiful." -- Judge Doom
Tobin wrote:No. And that's my point. You are citing the Book of Mormon, a book that may be a work of fiction, as proof that Noah existed. It's completely unreasonable.
OK, let me get this straight...you're a believer in the restoration, right?
I believe Joseph Smith's claims about having an encounter with God (or something he mistook for God) is plausible.
mentalgymnast wrote:Maybe I'm skimming through this thread too fast and you're simply being facetious?
I'm not. I'm simply explaining my own views of Mormonism. I believe Mormonism and the claims around Mormonism may have a basis in fact. I have attempted to reasonably explain those views and why I discount quotes from people that were not witness and can not personally confirm certain things that supposedly happened in the past. And my statement around the Book of Mormon isn't meant to be an attack on it. I am simply pointing out that since it is not an established fact that is of ancient origins, the claims in it are suspect and can not be relied on.
mentalgymnast wrote:This is the second time now that I think I'm hearing you say that the Book of Mormon is untrustworthy when it comes to naming real people who existed in ancient times?
I'm just stating something I think should already be reasonably obvious.
"You lack vision, but I see a place where people get on and off the freeway. On and off, off and on all day, all night.... Tire salons, automobile dealerships and wonderful, wonderful billboards reaching as far as the eye can see. My God, it'll be beautiful." -- Judge Doom
Tobin wrote: The Book of Mormon itself is proof of nothing.
Ok, now I know where you're coming from. You have a rather liberal view of at least one important "keystone" central to the restoration story. I was thinking that you were more orthodox in your views/beliefs.
