Jump to content

Archived

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

Anijen

First Humans Adam And Eve?

Recommended Posts

There has been allusion and appeal to claims of understanding "higher authority" but little in the way that can be taken as a walk-away material for discussion elsewhere. And if we can't do that then /yawn.

Okay, I'll dig some scriptures up for you... using our (LDS) Topical Guide.

I guess I take it for granted that everyone already knows how to do their own research.

I'll be back in a moment. :P

From http://scriptures.lds.org/en/bd/a/30 :

The name Adam is given to the first man of the human family on this earth as cited in the account of the creation in the books of Genesis, Moses, and Abraham, and in many instances in the New Testament, Book of Mormon, and Doctrine and Covenants. From these scriptures we learn that Adam is the father and patriarch of the human race on the earth. The aggregate of the scriptures certifies that his transgression in the garden of Eden, although designated as a â??fall,â? was necessary to the advancement and spiritual progress of humanity on this earth, and Adam rightly should be honored, not denigrated. Adam is the Ancient of Days and is also known as Michael. He is the archangel and will come again to the earth in power and glory as the patriarch of the human family, preparatory to the second coming of Jesus Christ (Dan. 7: 9-14; D&C 116; HC 3: 385-387; HC 4: 207-<_<.

From latter-day revelation we learn that Adam had a pure and perfect language that was both written and spoken (Moses 6: 5-6); that he was taught the gospel of Jesus Christ (Moses 6: 51-63); that he was baptized in water and received the Holy Ghost (Moses 6: 64-68); and that he was visited personally by the Lord (D&C 107: 55-56). Other references to Adam include Luke 3: 38; Rom. 5: 12-21; 1 Cor. 11: 9; 1 Cor. 15: 20-22, 45-49; 1 Tim. 2: 13; 2 Ne. 2: 20-26; Mosiah 3: 11, 16; D&C 29: 34-44; D&C 107: 41-57; Moses 2 - 6.

There is a lot more you can find if you are interested, but act soon.

Weâ??re going to redo the Earth someday.

Share this post


Link to post

We can choose how to interpret any scriptures but I think we should choose to interpret them God's way.

Yes.

I was asking why someone would accept an interpretation from scientists and not just take the words literally.

Why lean toward interpretations from scientists?

Why not just accept what prophets of God tell us when they say something clearly in words?

For me, the answer is simple: the prophets are wrong more often than science.

...

And btw, just in case you missed it, I also brought out the fact that scientific evidence exists which can substantiate the idea that the universe is eternal, but for some reason many people favor the "big bang" theory... instead.

Uh, forgive my ignorance, but in what way does the Big Bang theory contradict the idea that matter is eternal?

The evidence can be interpreted either way.

Why do you think people choose their own way?

You've chosen your own way. Why shouldn't the rest of us?

Share this post


Link to post

For me, the answer is simple: the prophets are wrong more often than science.

According to who?

Uh, forgive my ignorance, but in what way does the Big Bang theory contradict the idea that matter is eternal?

That's not what I was saying.

I was saying that, according to the "big bang" theory, the universe is not eternal while the same evidence can also be used to show that it is eternal.

You've chosen your own way. Why shouldn't the rest of us?

I'm just asking why people choose to interpret the evidence the way that they do.

Can you explain that one to me?

The evidence, itself, is speechless... if you don't count each personal witness as evidence.

Share this post


Link to post

According to who?

According to me, obviously.

That's not what I was saying.

I was saying that, according to the "big bang" theory, the universe is not eternal while the same evidence can also be used to show that it is eternal.

The Big Bang does not posit a noneternal universe. Where are you getting that from?

I'm just asking why people choose to interpret the evidence the way that they do.

I would imagine we choose to interpret the evidence the way we do for the same reason you intepret it the way you do.

Can you explain that one to me?

I'm not the one insisting that my way is the right way.

The evidence, itself, is speechless... if you don't count each person as evidence.

I'm not sure what you mean here.

Share this post


Link to post

According to me, obviously.

Oh, okay. Just checking. :P

The Big Bang does not posit a noneternal universe. Where are you getting that from?

I was talking about the universe... you know, the one we're in now.

Not some supposed universe "egg" from which all of this came from... according to the "big bang"-ers.

Do you now know what I am talking about now?

Are you a "big-bang"-er, yourself? If so, why?

I would imagine we choose to interpret the evidence the way we do for the same reason you intepret it the way you do.

I interpret evidence according to the way God explains it to me because I don't want to rely on just my own noggin or the minds of other mere "humans".

Is that the way and the reason you interpret evidence the way that you do?

Who is this "we" you're referring to?

I'm not the one insisting that my way is the right way.

Why not?

Do you lack confidence, or something?

I claim that my way is God's way according to what God has told me.

If God is wrong, then I'm wrong... because I'm just repeating what God taught me.

I'm not sure what you mean here.

Okay, let me put it this way.

According to scientists, this Earth is millions of years old and we all ascended from a very basic life organism that very gradually progressed in complexity.

The reason scientists believe that is because of the way they interpret things that don't talk or tell how old they are, by themselves... not counting real persons who give their own personal testimonies.

... you know, things like rocks and fossils and sedimentary layers and carbon and other things that don't really talk.

So what or who is it we should trust to really know the truth about anything?

Share this post


Link to post

Oh, okay. Just checking. :P

I was talking about the universe... you know, the one we're in now.

Not some supposed universe "egg" from which all of this came from... according to the "big bang"-ers.

I was unaware that Mormonism posited an eternal universe; rather, I was under the impression that, according to LDS scripture, the materials used to build the universe were eternal, which is entirely consistent with the Big Bang. I guess I'm not comprehending the conflict you see here.

Do you now know what I am talking about now?

Are you a "big-bang"-er, yourself? If so, why?

Seems like a reasonable approach, but I'm not a scientist (alas, degrees in Latin American Studies and English).

I interpret evidence according to the way God explains it to me because I don't want to rely on just my own noggin or the minds of other mere "humans".

How do you experience God's explanations if not through your own noggin or the minds of others (I believe you call them prophets)?

Is that the way and the reason you interpret evidence the way that you do?

Again, you and I both choose to evaluate evidence based on our own experience and perceptions. I'm not sure why you see us as so diametrically opposed.

Who is this "we" you're referring to?

That would be the royal "we."

Why not?

Do you lack confidence, or something?

No lack of confidence whatsoever. My way of thinking is right for me. That's all I need to know. It would be incredibly presumptuous to project my experience and beliefs on you and pronounce it "right" for you.

I claim that my way is God's way according to what God has told me.

If God is wrong, then I'm wrong... because I'm just repeating what God taught me.

Can't argue with that. I'm not you, so I have no way of knowing if some God or another is teaching you.

Okay, let me put it this way.

According to scientists, this Earth is millions of years old, and the reason scientists believe that is because of the way they interpret things that don't talk or tell how old they are, by themselves... not counting real people who give their own personal testimony.

... you know, things like rocks and sedimentary layers and carbon and other minerals.

So what or who is it we should trust to really know the truth about anything?

Humans generally trust our own perceptions, whether we call it observation, revelation, or whatever.

Share this post


Link to post

Humans generally trust our own perceptions, whether we call it observation, revelation, or whatever.

I'll say this much more.

If God is speaking to us, I think we should perceive it and acknowledge that it is God who is speaking to us.

If God is not speaking to us... even if we think he really is... we shouldn't think we are the only God.

:P

Share this post


Link to post

'Paul Ray' writes,

I'm not suggesting that we discount the evidence, just the way the evidence is interpreted by many scientists whose reasoning is inconsistent with what God has told us through his prophets.

Forgive me for this, but you are discounting the evidence. If Adam and Eve were the first then we couldn't have Neolithic man nor would there have been Paleolithic "Lucy". These are not figments of our imagination. They existed and interpretation otherwise doesn't denigrate that.

We are told by God, through his prophets, that we are literal descendants of Adam and Eve, and that Adam and Eve were created by God as his literal children.

We are the literal descendants, but not necessrily physically. We might be the spiritual descendants of people who first saw God as an individual and not an animistic bug-a-boo.

And we know for a fact that Jewish thinking was always spot on the truth too, don't we.

It is, after all, their scriptures, now isn't it. Our prophets are based on their prophets.

Why does what scientists tell you affect how you interpret the scriptures?

Simple. To take the scriptures in only one context is to limit their beauty and sustenance. To add to them an added dimension of intelligence and deduction is to bring them alive for what they are.

I could find the scriptures for you but I think you are capable of finding them for yourself.

True, but it is your argument, isn't it?

I'd just like to know why you reject clear teachings in words of God's prophets just because a scientist says something.

I don't believe I have. I certainly don't believe it when a scientist/scholar states there isn't a God. They have their level of discernment and I have mine.

Why don't you try talking to scientists and tell them that they should interpet the evidence differently?

Fair enough. I have and will continue to do so.

If words aren't inspired by God then they are not scriptures.

Can great accomplishments of man be considered inspiration as well. Was C. Columbus inspired when he discovered the New World or Galileo inspired when he stated his theories?

Why do you accept the work of scientists when they do not work under inspiration from God?

You assume that they don't. I find some of them certainly inspired. James Talmadge was a scientist as was Eyring. Many of those who sit among the apostles are also scientists and scholars.

I do know some scientists who are inspired by God and they are always in agreement with scripture.

You know of a scientist who would argue against the fossil evidences? Can you post some of their works?

I'll have to pick this up later...gotta run...

Share this post


Link to post

I'll say this much more.

If God is speaking to us, I think we should perceive it and acknowledge that it is God who is speaking to us.

Seems reasonable.

If God is not speaking to us... even if we think he really is... we shouldn't think we are the only God.

:P

I don't know anyone who thinks that. Do you?

Share this post


Link to post

Forgive me for this, but you are discounting the evidence. If Adam and Eve were the first then we couldn't have Neolithic man nor would there have been Paleolithic "Lucy".

I acknowledge that we do still have the actual evidence referred to as Neolithic man and Paleolithic Lucy, but our interpreation of that evidence doesn't necessarily require us to believe we ascended from beings who lived on this Earth before Adam and Eve.

I believe there is another way to interpret the evidence that we have available..

These are not figments of our imagination.

I acknowledge that.

They existed and interpretation otherwise doesn't denigrate that.

Our interpretation of evidence determines what we think the evidence proves.

We are the literal descendants, but not necessarily physically. We might be the spiritual descendants of people who first saw God as an individual and not an animistic bug-a-boo.

We are physical and we are descendants. I'm not sure about what bug-a-boo you are referring to.

It is, after all, their scriptures, now isn't it. Our prophets are based on their prophets.

Please rephrase. I don't understand what you are saying.

It is whose scriptures?

Who are our prophets, and who are their prophets, in connection with Adam and Eve?

To take the scriptures in only one context is to limit their beauty and sustenance.

I don't take them in only one context.

I take them the way God explained them to me.

And according to God, in his witness to me, Adam and Eve are our literal, and physical, parents.

To add to them an added dimension of intelligence and deduction is to bring them alive for what they are.

I have no problem adding scriptures to scriptures.

You seem to want to take some away and reject the literal message.

Can great accomplishments of man be considered inspiration as well.

Are you referring to inspiration from God?

I think anyone can be inspired by God, to do anything good, but I think we will know it is God.

Was C. Columbus inspired when he discovered the New World or Galileo inspired when he stated his theories?

I believe they were, but that doesn't mean everything they thought came from God, necessarily.

James Talmadge was a scientist as was Eyring. Many of those who sit among the apostles are also scientists and scholars.

I know, but they are not among those who reject the idea that we are literally the children of Adam and Eve.

Share this post


Link to post

The problem I have with that is that they walked out of the garden straight into an agricultural world. Adam was a farmer--not a hunter/gatherer.

Why not save the symbolism of conflict between the nomadic hunter-gatherers and the farmers for tale of Cain and Abel?

The trouble with these allegorical tales, is that there are those who take them literally. It tends to complicate the religious experience for the rest of us.

Share this post


Link to post

Why not save the symbolism of conflict between the nomadic hunter-gatherers and the farmers for tale of Cain and Abel?

The trouble with these allegorical tales, is that there are those who take them literally. It tends to complicate the religious experience for the rest of us.

I don't mean to disturb you.

You can go ahead and think what you want. :P

Share this post


Link to post

I don't mean to disturb you.

You can go ahead and think what you want. :P

And I fully support your right to believe everything literally. However, I have been disturbed in my Gospel Doctrine class by many statements lambasting evolution. Not wanting to stir things up, I have suffered this no-nothing approach in silence. However, I have reason to believe that the Church is not profited by taking such a non-scientific stance, nor am I persuaded that it is indeed irrevocable Church doctrine. In all, I would like to see both understandings being able to co-exist side by side without offending the other.

Share this post


Link to post

'Paul Ray' writes,

I acknowledge that we do still have the actual evidence referred to as Neolithic man and Paleolithic Lucy, but our interpreation of that evidence doesn't necessarily require us to believe we ascended from beings who lived on this Earth before Adam and Eve.

Are you familiar with Neolithic man? They are identical to us down to the last DNA strand. I know that Katherine is descended from one particular Neolithic character found in England.

I believe there is another way to interpret the evidence that we have available..

How would you interpret it?

Our interpretation of evidence determines what we think the evidence proves.

Actually, it is the other way around. The proof is not through our interpretation, but through empiricism.

We are physical and we are descendants. I'm not sure about what bug-a-boo you are referring to.

Animistic bug-a-boo is a reference to the early worship of animal spirits, etc.

It is, after all, their scriptures, now isn't it. Our prophets are based on their prophets.

Please rephrase. I don't understand what you are saying.

It is whose scriptures?

Who are our prophets, and who are their prophets, in connection with Adam and Eve?

The OT is Hebrew scriptures and however they want to interpret them is their pervue.

I know, but they are not among those who reject the idea that we are literally the children of Adam and Eve.

Nor did they reject evolution. We have a conundrum, I think.

Share this post


Link to post

'Paul Ray' writes,

Are you familiar with Neolithic man? They are identical to us down to the last DNA strand. I know that Katherine is descended from one particular Neolithic character found in England.

Believing that is true... and I'm not saying it isn't... how does that belief negate your belief that we are children of Adam and Eve, literally?

How would you interpret it?

In a way that would be in perfect harmony with the word of God.

Actually, it is the other way around. The proof is not through our interpretation, but through empiricism.

I was referring to the idea that a person's interpretation of evidence determines what that person believes the evidence proves. I think you are saying pretty much the same thing now, but your interpretation of the evidence does not agree with God's literal word.

The OT is Hebrew scriptures and however they want to interpret them is their pervue.

Yes, but that doesn't mean that the way they interpret them is correct.

God meant what God meant, not what other people who disagree with God think he meant.

Nor did they reject evolution.

Yes, they do reject the idea that we ascended from a lower life form.

They believe, and teach, that we descended from God... aka the fall of Adam.

We have a conundrum, I think.

The only conundrum I see is that you don't believe what God said, literally, while I do.

And you are free to believe what you want to believe, naturally.

I was simply asking you why you accept that interpretation.

Share this post


Link to post

Are you familiar with Neolithic man? They are identical to us down to the last DNA strand. I know that Katherine is descended from one particular Neolithic character found in England.

I am not sure where you are getting your information. At least one DNA study has shown that Neolithic Europeans have little to no connection to modern Europeans.

How would you interpret it?

Everywhere you look you find disagreement and, often, heated debate among archaeologists, anthropologists and other scientists on these matters.

Actually, it is the other way around. The proof is not through our interpretation, but through empiricism.

Yet scientists continue to interpret the data in different ways, coming to different conclusions. How do you account for this?

My best,

T-Shirt

Share this post


Link to post

'Paul Ray' writes,

Believing that is true... and I'm not saying it isn't... how does that belief negate your belief that we are children of Adam and Eve, literally?

The fossil in question is much earlier than was the purported dates for Adam and Eve.

Yes, they do reject the idea that we ascended from a lower life form.

They believe, and teach, that we descended from God... aka the fall of Adam.

That is not correct. You should read Talmage. While he did preach that we are descendants of Adam, he was often uncertain of his convictions. In his journal he stated, "This is one of the many things on which we cannot preach with assurance, and dogmatic assertions on either side are likely to do harm rather than good." Towards the end of his life he recorded, "Undoubtedly true evolution is true, meaning progress from the lower to the higher, from the simple to the more complex. We cannot sweep aside all the accumulated knowledge in geology, archeology or any other branch of science simply because our interpretation of some isolated passage of scripture may seem to be opposed thereto. I do not believe that Adam derived his mortal body by evolutionary processes from the lower animals. The adamic race of men are of an entirely different order."

The only conundrum I see is that you don't believe what God said, literally, while I do.

It depends who is doing the reporting. I cannot accept literally what the OT states while I approach the NT differently. The modern LDS scriptures I see even more differently. I will acknowledge that while the church has taken no stand on evolution they are unequivocal in that we are descended from Adam and Eve.

Share this post


Link to post

The fossil in question is much earlier than was the purported dates for Adam and Eve.

Exactly... purported dates.

Do you accept those purported dates?

What else can you tell me about how those purported dates play a part in rejecting the idea that we descended from Adam and Eve, literally?

You should read Talmage. While he did preach that we are descendants of Adam, he was often uncertain of his convictions.

Can you show me some evidence to support you statement that he was unsure of his convictions?

If he ever said anything like that, I would like to read it in the context of his statement.

And regardless, I have a witness from God on this issue and I am absolutely certain of that.

In his journal he stated, "This is one of the many things on which we cannot preach with assurance, and dogmatic assertions on either side are likely to do harm rather than good." Towards the end of his life he recorded, "Undoubtedly true evolution is true, meaning progress from the lower to the higher, from the simple to the more complex. We cannot sweep aside all the accumulated knowledge in geology, archeology or any other branch of science simply because our interpretation of some isolated passage of scripture may seem to be opposed thereto. I do not believe that Adam derived his mortal body by evolutionary processes from the lower animals. The adamic race of men are of an entirely different order."l

The part of your quote that I highlighted in bold justifies my belief that James believed and taught that we are descended from Adam and Eve and that Adam did not evolve from lower life forms.

It depends who is doing the reporting.

I got my testimony on this issue from God.

I cannot accept literally what the OT states while I approach the NT differently. The modern LDS scriptures I see even more differently.

I think it would be best for you to get a direct testimony from God instead of trying to interpret the scriptures. When you get a testimony from God, God will tell you how to interpret the scriptures.

I will acknowledge that while the church has taken no stand on evolution they are unequivocal in that we are descended from Adam and Eve.

But the Church does take a stand on evolution. We, the Church, just don't know every little thing about how things happened. What we do know, however, is that what God has told us is in harmony with the scriptures and how things actually happened.

... and just to try to make that point a little more clearly:

I am suggesting that you ask God to tell you... something, anything, everything... and then just repeat what God tells you, exactly.

I think people get themselves in trouble by trying to interpret the scriptures instead of letting God do that for them.

Share this post


Link to post

Can you show me some evidence to support you statement that he was unsure of his convictions?

Why don't you just pray about it? You don't believe physical evidence anyway.

Share this post


Link to post

...You don't believe physical evidence anyway.

I don't know what gave you that idea.

What I don't believe are some of the interpretations people have concerning evidence.

Share this post


Link to post

Basically every one of your posts on this thread.

Well then I think it should not be obvious to you now that I disagree with those interpretations.

Try asking me what I meant.

Share this post


Link to post

I am not sure where you are getting your information. At least one DNA study has shown that Neolithic Europeans have little to no connection to modern Europeans.

My best,

T-Shirt

I think you greatly misinterpret the data. The argument is whether most modern Europeans descend from Neolithic FARMERS OR much more ancient European hunter/gatherers. There is absolutely no study that shows that modern Europeans do not descend from ancient Europeans.

Share this post


Link to post

Well then I think it should not be obvious to you now that I disagree with those interpretations.

Try asking me what I meant.

Why don't you just say what you mean?

Share this post


Link to post

Why don't you just say what you mean?

I do.

Why don't you just interpret my words the way I mean them?

Is that really so difficult?

Try reading these words again, from my post #168, and let me know if you do not understand them:

"I think it would be best for you to get a direct testimony from God instead of trying to interpret the scriptures. When you get a testimony from God, God will tell you how to interpret the scriptures.

â?¦

I am suggesting that you ask God to tell you... something, anything, everything... and then just repeat what God tells you, exactly.

I think people get themselves in trouble by trying to interpret the scriptures instead of letting God do that for them."

And btw, I think it would be a pretty neat trick for you to know that you do not understand my words if you think you really do understand them and what you think is not what I meant.

How would you know if what you thought was not what I meant?

Would you even think to ask me to clarify?

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.

×
×
  • Create New...