My favorite cogdis of the Mormons.

[_Jason Bourne]

Going back to Adam and Eve, I think this is one of the slam-dunks that really discredits Mormonism (and probably quite a few other religions as well). The Mormon doctrine that no death existed in the world until Adam and Eve made their choices and fell is deeply engrained in the whole worldview of the church. It's woven into the explanation of the Plan of Salvation. Tearing this doctrine out and replacing it with suitable excuses would leave a big, gaping, bloody wound, and yet this is really the only option (other than loss of faith).

Additionally, this issue stands as a very clear indicator of the kind of credibility the Prophets, Seers, and Revelators of Mormonism have. They've taught this stuff for generations, and it's in the scriptures as the Word of the Creator of the Entire Universe. And they're all wrong. Their credibility is gravely injured by this.

Without the problems with "no death" vs. evolution, evolution vs. creation, and the Flood of Noah, I might still be a TBM today. They weren't the final nails in the coffin, but they were the first chinks in the armor of my faith.

If there was no literal Adam and Even and no literal fall I think it does cause problems for Mormonism. I also think it causes problems for ALL of Christianity as well as Judaism. But in particular the fall of man brought death and sin and thus the need for a redeemer. Without it all of Christianity seems to be mssing one od the key missions that Jesus fulfilled.

I personally have no problem believing that God created things via evolution nor do I have an issue with believing the Adam and Eve may have been the first two humans God placed a soul in as ridiculous as some thinks that sounds. Or, Adam and Eve could have been to persons God decided to covenant with. However this does pose a problem for the no death issue so would have to conclude that death did exist in the world for a long time and that religious teachers were simply wrong about this like they have been about other things as well.

[_truth dancer]

Hi GP,

Can I get a straight answer?

No.



The reality is, the ancient myth of Adam and Eve, like all ancient myths the world over, was created at a time when humans had to come up with a way of answering the difficult questions, without much to go on.

Of course the story of Adam and Eve was not the original creation myth of the time, and we have two different versions in the Bible (not to mention the other LDS versions), so it seems odd that anyone would suggest it is factual. Which version? And why take the story as literally true when so much other stuff in the Bible is either completely outdated, disgustingly cruel, and/or obviously make-believe?

Does it pose questions for Mormonism? Of course.

If Adam and Eve were the first people on the Earth, and there was no death prior to their fall, well then we are either living in some sort of alternative universe, or as some LDS leaders have stated, Satan is behind evolution, trying to trick us.

OTOH, if the story is mythical (which of course it is), then LDS have to figure out some other way to explain their story, the plan, and all the revelations, doctrine, and teachings from their prophets.

So, no. You won't get a clear answer.

Not to say that we won't be the recipient of BC space's convoluted rationalization to make it all work!

Where are you BC?

~td~

[_Jason Bourne]

Hi GP,




If Adam and Eve were the first people on the Earth, and there was no death prior to their fall, well then we are either living in some sort of alternative universe, or as some LDS leaders have stated, Satan is behind evolution, trying to trick us.



~td~

Better said SOME LDS Leaders have said that Satan is behind evolution. As have a number of other leaders of other Christian faiths.

[_Some Schmo]

Scientists can kiss my ass. I didn't come from a monkey. My father didn't come from a monkey, nor did his father. My ancestors were human all the way. So, you can take that "evolved" crap to hell were it was first taught -- by the devil himself to fool mankind here on earth.

Those who don't believe in Adam and Eve are monkey lovers.

Yes, I don't think you came from a monkey either. I think your ancestral line branched off from ostriches, given the way you like to bury your head in the sand.

Nobody thinks we evolved from monkeys, so you can drop the ignorant strawman.

Oh, and if scientists are all in some great conspiracy to trick you ( ) then you should really get off your computer. God only knows if it's going to blow up any second, given is was invented due to science. I wouldn't get on a plane, either. Don't watch TV or listen to the radio. No taking any prescriptions. And next time you're hurt, avoid the doctor; you better fix it yourself. Can't be trusting stupid science now, can we?

[_EAllusion]

Humans derive from a fork in the evolutionary road where old world monkeys and apes split. We're from the ape side of things. The species around that ancestral fork are kinda monkey-like, but I don't think convention has them being called monkeys.

[_William Schryver]

GP:

Science has shown in a very convincing manner that humans evolved from animals.

This, of course, is the entire premise of the argument. The rest stands or falls depending on whether or not this statement is true.

I, for one, am not convinced.

Seth:

That evolution occurred is a fact. The "theory of evolution" is the body of ideas that seek (sic) to explain this evolution. This body is constantly being refined - but that evolution happened is a fact. It's not in dispute by anyone in possession of the facts, enough education to understand and interpret these facts, and a sound mind.

This, of course, is not true. There are countless people who are “in possession of the facts”; have “enough education to understand and interpret” those facts; and who also possess a “sound mind” – and yet they are not convinced of the reality of organic evolution as it is popularly conceived. The belief that all knowledgeable, intelligent people universally acknowledge the reality of evolutionary theory is a fallacy, but it is widely believed by people, like Seth, who have other, entirely unrelated, reasons to believe in these things.

Of course, I am quite content to have people believe in whatever they’d like. It doesn’t bother me in the least if people, like Seth, believe that organic evolution is a “fact.” I know perfectly well that Seth doesn’t “know” evolution to be true, just as he didn’t “know” Mormonism to be true back when he uttered similar statements concerning that one-time belief. It’s simply that the tribe with which Seth now identifies demands such certainty about these things, and Seth is more than willing to comply. He is now one of those who “know” something, and it pleases him very deeply, just as it pleases him to paint those who don’t believe in his new “knowledge” as ignorant buffoons who are clinging obstinately to the remnants of obviously obsolete superstitions.

[_EAllusion]

I can reword the statement so it is more apt:

The idea that humans evolved from other animals is more strongly corroborated by the available evidence than the idea that measles is caused by a virus. The available information is sufficient to rationally compel acceptance of it. To honestly reject it while being of sound mind and educated on the topic is to be irrational.

There you go.

[_William Schryver]

The idea that humans evolved from other animals is more strongly corroborated by the available evidence than the idea that measles is caused by a virus.

No, it's not.

But I find it fascinating that people like you believe it is.

The available information is sufficient to rationally compel acceptance of it. To honestly reject it while being of sound mind and educated on the topic is to be irrational.

Yeah. Believe me, we get that.

[_EAllusion]

Here's Will Schryver arguing that natural selection is a tautology - an argument that even the young earth creationist organization AIG cautions its followers is too stupid to use - on MADB. I think that brings some context to what he does and does not find convincing.

Still, it is a fact that for quite some time the Darwin-proposed mechanism of "survival of the fittest" (coupled with the corollary of mutations) was not seriously examined. It was the Nobel prize-winning geneticist T. H. Morgan who first suggested the whole thing looked suspiciously like a tautology when he wrote: "For, it may appear little more than a truism to state that the individuals that are the best adapted to survive have a better chance of surviving than those not so well adapted to survive." No kidding!

Well, my point was not to discuss "survival of the fittest", but rather to note how (when faced with the discovery of their trite tautology) the High Priests of Darwinism have systematically engaged in an elaborately-crafted series of clever apologetics for several decades now. Our grandfathers' "evolution" as espoused in the Scopes Trial bares little resemblance to the 21st century version.

http://www.mormonapologetics.org/index. ... opic=15982

[_EAllusion]

But I find it fascinating that people like you believe it is.

People with degrees in biology?