Jump to content

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Anijen

First Humans Adam And Eve?

Recommended Posts

I actually don't doubt we'd agree. It's simple. In this context, "the church is true" means that God actually exists, is like what the LDS say he is, and he really did grant Joseph Smith some kind of divine mandate to found and lead his Kingdom on Earth, and that Brigham Young rightfully inherited this mandate, and through him the successors until GBH today.

So, how far off are we in this?

Hmmm... I think we're victims of gross over-generalization, personally. Ok, there's more to it than just that, probably. Still, I love your distinction between "God actually exists" and "is like what the LDS say he is". That's a good start, indeed. Mormonism deals with God in manifestation, IMO. While it's true that there is some discussion beyond that, typically Joseph set the precedent and we remain focused on Him in manifestation. D&C 93 would be a notable exception, among the few exceptions that I'm aware of.

Practically everything you mention, is a "yes....but" kind of thing, for me. In general terms, I agree that all that is true, but that's just not doing each of those things justice, IMO. There's things that can be doubted on each of those points, generalizations or exaggerations that have been made and perhaps not corrected, over time. Then there's the human factor in all of it that can't be ignored. Well, not if you care about truth...

I mean, clearly the (religious) Jews believe in God. Yet the mystical Jews will tell you that God is Nothing. These two views actually agree with each other, if you understand how they think. How they back up their thought with evidence and reason. It's fascinating to me.

ps: I think the LDS church fails that definition of "truth" right from the start, since I don't believe that God even exists, if he does exist, I don't believe he's likely to be anything like what the LDS imagine him to be, and if he does exist, I don't believe he empowered Joseph Smith to do anything at all, nor did he recognize Joseph Smith as his right-hand man on Earth and leader of his Earthly Kingdom, and after that Brigham Young and the others until GBH, and probably fairly soon someone else after GBH.

I think the Church is true like an arrow is true. It does the job it was set to do, and does it well. It is not crooked or warped, except in some micro- sense, when members are not 'true' themselves.

HiJolly

Share this post


Link to post

We keep telling you, and you keep either not noticing, or not understanding. I'm beginning to think it's willful.

The answer is that God isn't telling us anything. Other human beings are standing up and telling the rest of us that they talked with God, and God told them to tell us certain things, and we don't believe that this actually happened. It comes down to credibility. In order to believe the "words of God" one has to believe that the people claiming to be speaking for God, actually do. If they lack credibility, then naturally one will not regard their words as likely actually to be the words of God.

I accept what you say from the standpoint of what you are experiencing, but I'm not experiencing the same thing you're experiencing.

To you, I am simply another one of those people who claims God has spoken to them.

I think you see me speaking without hearing who is speaking to me.

It's kinda like seeing someone talking on a cell phone without seeing their cell phone or any evidence that they are hearing from some other person.

I think you'll never hear who I am hearing from until you use your own cell phone and actually hear from the same person I am hearing from.

Until then you'll probably continue thinking we are only talking to and hearing from ourselves.

Share this post


Link to post

Sounds like another assumption to me.

The Earth was different then, and so were Adam and Eve.

Everything was eternal then, and now everything isn't.

Who knows what the fall involved and how the changes were accomplished?

I simply know that what God has revealed through all of God's prophets is true.

I have absolutely no doubts about that.

Now who is making assumptions? The fall was a spiritual one not a physical one. If the earth was successful in following the reason for its creation then it didn't fall, but man did. Therefore, the earth was and is carbon-based. Man is created from that. This is what is revealed through the prophets.

That's another assumption, and a very bad one.

I am in perfect agreement with all of God's prophets.

Why aren't you?

I doubt that since prophets have changed doctrine over the ages. I doubt seriously or at least I hope you don't accept polygamy still?

Please refrain from flirting with me, katherine.

I am a happily married man.

I think you're cute, but I won't cheat on my wife.

:P

Hmmmmm....this is not only not funny, but a bit condescendingly sexist.

Share this post


Link to post

Now who is making assumptions?

Several people, I'm sure, but not me. :P

The fall was a spiritual one not a physical one.

Please continue your studies, young padawan.

If the earth was successful in following the reason for its creation then it didn't fall, but man did.

Some people seem to not even know that man actually fell.

Some people think man has ascended and will continue ascending.

For more information concerning Earth, keep studying.

There is much you don't seem to be are of. <_<

Therefore, the earth was and is carbon-based.

Can you see how your "therefore" statement is predicated on your previous "if/then" statement?

Many scientists often do the same thing.

What if you someday found out the Earth also fell... and was later baptized?

Maybe you should also consider that hypothesis?

Man is created from that.

Adam and Eve were created from a different type of Earth... it wasn't corrupted like it is now.

God has told us more about the "Fall" than you seem to be aware of.

You'll eventually learn everything I know if you keep studying. :unsure:

I doubt that since prophets have changed doctrine over the ages. I doubt seriously or at least I hope you don't accept polygamy still?

It sounds like you have some doubts. Please seek enlightenment.

Hmmmmm....this is not only not funny, but a bit condescendingly sexist.

Only if you interpret it that way. I didn't mean it that way.

I think we all have our own "sense" of humor. :ph34r:

Share this post


Link to post

Some people think man has ascended and will continue ascending.

Apparently you don't believe in eternal progression.

Share this post


Link to post
No lesson is more manifest in nature than that all living things do as the Lord commanded in the Creation. They reproduce â??after their own kind.â? (See Moses 2:12, 24.) They follow the pattern of their parentage. Everyone knows that; every four-year-old knows that! A bird will not become an animal nor a fish. A mammal will not beget reptiles, nor â??do men gather â?¦ figs of thistles.â? (Matt. 7:16.)

In the countless billions of opportunities in the reproduction of living things, one kind does not beget another. If a species ever does cross, the offspring cannot reproduce. The pattern for all life is the pattern of the parentage.

This is demonstrated in so many obvious ways, even an ordinary mind should understand it. Surely no one with reverence for God could believe that His children evolved from slime or from reptiles. (Although one can easily imagine that those who accept the theory of evolution donâ??t show much enthusiasm for genealogical research!) The theory of evolution, and it is a theory, will have an entirely different dimension when the workings of God in creation are fully revealed.

Since every living thing follows the pattern of its parentage, are we to suppose that God had some other strange pattern in mind for His offspring? Surely we, His children, are not, in the language of science, a different species than He is?

So what's your point, Paul Ray? Is it that Boyd K. Packer never read Darwin or attended a biology class taught at BYU, where evolution is the currency and not creationism?

I like something HiJolly said earlier:

Nothing trumps personal investigation and research. I was about to say "except revelation", but don't you see that revelation comes best when we have first researched it out, and pondered it in our minds FIRST? HONESTLY? Revelation always, bar nothing, ALWAYS comes more easily when we know what we're talking about, or are trying to know what we're talking about.

And Boyd K. obviously doesn't know what he's talking about.

Share this post


Link to post

Apparently you don't believe in eternal progression.

For some people it doesn't seem like a very likely possibility.

... and btw, I am specifically referring to people who think they never fell to begin with.

Share this post


Link to post

'Paul Ray' writes,

What if you someday found out the Earth also fell... and was later baptized?

Again, with the assumptions!

Adam and Eve were created from a different type of Earth... it wasn't corrupted like it is now.

The corruption is through man not through what the Earth has done. The Bible modern day doctrine is complete in saying that Adam was created from "red earth" what the Sumerians considered blood from a god and earth. So far all we have heard is your assumptions without sustaining information. Why should we accept your testimony? There is little there, but codswallop. While I appreciate your zeal I can say but little for your knowledge.

Only if you interpret it that way. I didn't mean it that way.

I think we all have our own "sense" of humor. :P

As strange as it is.

Share this post


Link to post

Then perhaps Adam was the first man because he was the first to practice agriculture 11,000 years ago. That would also make him the first to use language.

Wrong. There was language before agriculture.

Share this post


Link to post

Wrong. There was language before agriculture.

Agreed. I used to teach a class in language acquisition and the first language or speech was actually a repetition of a single sound that would stand for an item. For example, "ma" and "pa", the ubiquitous first words of infants for their parents, is actually somewhat self-fulfilling. All languages share some connection with these words showing their ancient status. Other words are equally unique. For example, the sound "n" which is universally used for negative sounds. There are, of course, some exceptions, but for the most part it is part of a rudimentary system of using phonemes (rudimentary sounds).

I posted earlier that as early as Homo Erectus this ability could have existed.

Share this post


Link to post
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×