Jump to content
Seriously No Politics ×

Recommended Posts

Until the day it is retracted I would be playing on the team that knows the proper way to support the doctrine of the church over personal opinions.

This is self-contradictory since the only way we can know that doctrine is "true" in the first place is by "personal opinion" called "a testimony.

Link to comment

Hmmm, I see you embrace both meanings of your screen name when it suits your purpose. :sad:

Just plain rude.

Link to comment

Of coarse we do not have Adam and Eves DNA to test, but is our ancestors from 5000 years ago vary from our own by .005 percent, and our DNA from our ancestors from 50000 years ago vary by .05 percent, and our ancestors from 500000 years ago vary from our own by .5 percent, then something is amiss with our commonly held views of the Adam and Eve origins of mankind.

Link to comment

Very reasoned and solid considerations from the theological side of things.

Actually, I find it as trite as declaring the earth to be the center of the universe because of the perfectness of the heavens.

And, frankly, once BRM or Packer or whoever step outside 1st Presidency statements, they're on their own opinion and have no authority. And given that, their comments are utterly laughable. Just look at the entry for "Dragons" in Mormon Doctrine. Or the entry on Evolution, for that matter. The man didn't have the foggiest notion of what the theories or evidences even were. (Of course, he didn't need to.)

It was BRM's delusions about young-earth creationism as necessary for an LDS to believe that brought me to my first crisis of faith. Thanks for that BRM. On the other hand he also bore powerful testimony of the Risen Lord. I'm forever grateful for his witness of the Lord. I won't clutter my kids' heads with his silliness on dinosaurs being contemporaneous with Noah, or the wickedness of face cards however.

Link to comment

And scientist dont just rely on the genetic rate of change to test the age of these human fossils. They rarely rely on one dating system. They do multiple tests using different radio isotopes, rock strata with known dates, etc, in order to do double check for accuracy. Sure they can be wrong sometimes, but their methods are more reliable than using mythologies that have historically been on the loosing side of the battle against empirical scientific method. I dont know why nowadays religionists think it would be any different. Maybe it has something to do with our habits as of late to come to a conclusion and try to back it up with pseudoscience. It doesnt help when most of us cannot tell the difference between pseudoscience and real science that is reproducable and testable with consistant results. It also doesnt help when apologists twist the original meanings in the scriptures for a modern day interpretation. It doesnt matter ehat modern interpretations are. What matters is what the authors meant. For example, some apolgiss sill twist the Genesis creation myth to represent the in some contorted form, te creation of our galaxy or universe down to the time thatman was placed on earth by evolution'from te dust' bbGod. But that is not what the original tellers of the story meant. What they meant was more in line with what neighboring civilizations beleived in their somewhat similar creation stories.

Link to comment

The church has no official position on evolution. See link:

http://www.deseretne...nds.html?pg=all

Yes they do. See this link:

http://www.lds.org/e...of-man?lang=eng

This is a statement signed by the entire First Presidency in 1909, and reprinted in the Ensign in 2002. The introduction for the reprint notes that the statement "expresses the Church’s doctrinal position on these matters."

Additionally, in the "Making the Most of This Issue" section of that issue of the Ensign, readers are told:

Ever wondered about the Church’s official teachings on the creation of mankind and evolution? Find assistance for your study of Genesis 1–3 [Gen. 1–3] on p. 26.

So for those keeping score, we have an official statement from the First Presidency, republished in the official Church magazine in which readers are told that this statement is "the Church's doctrinal position" and "the Church's official teachings".

Here is what that statement says about pre-Adamites:

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 declared 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; 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.

Let the semantic exercise begin!

Edited by cinepro
Link to comment

Maybe it would be better if some Church members stayed within their field of expertise.

May 14, 1961 - Apostle Joseph Fielding Smith announces to stake conference in Honolulu:

"We will never get a man into space. This earth is man's sphere and it was never intended that he should get away from it.The moon is a superior planet to the earth and it was never intended that man should go there. You can write it down in your books that this will never happen."

Link to comment

Genetic testing of human fossils provides strong evidense that the races of the Earth that we have today were tens of thousands of years in the making. Human evolutionary biologists are now able to date these fossil remains because genetic mutations that spawn evolutionay changes have occured at a very consistant rate. So if God did create Adam and Eve however long ago, he would have had to have given them a genome variation that matches the same percentage of differences from us to Adam and Eve, as their most recent predessesors in human form as if they never went extinct. Why would God choose to make this genetic rate of change back to them appear constant as if Adam and Eve were not really the first human ancestors of us. I find it had to beleive that God would make it appear this way a if to test our faith or something. I dont beleive that the story of Adam and Eve is really anything more than legend. Are there any spin doctors here that would like to add any remarks?

That's quite the winning screen name you've got there. I thought 'canard' had potential to get people riled (even though it was chosen in ignorance).

Why are you asking people (spin doctors?!) to justify the motives of a being you don't think exists?

Link to comment

Not sarcasm in the least. Incredulous would be a better characterization.

It is apparent that you have made your decisions independent of really giving the matter spiritual consideration. So while you may chuck Elder Packer out with Bruce R. McConkie bathwater I provide the rational reasons that Elder Packer provides from a spiritual perspective that surely should warrant a few hours of your consideration: His 6 reasons are as follows.

The full piece is about 19 pages long and is found at this link:

http://rsc.byu.edu/a...1-law-and-light

Very reasoned and solid considerations from the theological side of things.

Although I agree with the notion that Adam and Eve were beings who did not evolve from other species. I do not find it necessary to discard the notion of evolution in other respects, nor do I find it necessary to adopt the young earth theory.

Link to comment

There is a history of LDS interpretation on the topic, with larger social trends and, social contexts, opposing interpretations, and trends over time. David Bailey is very good on this for people who prefer to go beyond twitter levels of understanding, and the supposition that quoting one's favored authority tells the whole story, with the succintness of the bumper sticker that says, "God said it, I believe it, that settles" as though interpretation is not a variable worth pondering.

http://www.sciencemeetsreligion.org/

Another layer of this debate happens with personality type. People of SJ temperament tend be traditionalists, having things closed and decided. They also tend to be the best administrators. But our scriptures provide long lists of diverse spiritual gifts, and administration is not the only gift out out there. We're told that no one has all the gifts, and knowledge is also a gift, and we are commended to seek the best gifts. And as Joseph Smith said, "It don't prove that a man is a bad man because he believes false doctrine." I can think of some very good men with whom I disagree, and am thankful that Joseph Smith wants me to be comfortable with that difference.

Another aspect of difference happens along the Perry Scheme. At position 2 of 9, for instance, people tend to depend heavily on favored authorities as a way of dealing with complexity.

POSITION 2 - Multiplicity Prelegitimate. (Resisting snake)

Now the person moves to accept that there is diversity, but they still think there are TRUE authorities who are right, that the others are confused by complexities or are just frauds. They think they are with the true authorities and are right while all others are wrong. They accept that their good authorities present problems so they can learn to reach right answers independently.

And of course, there is the problem of using non-scriptural opinions from favored personalities as proof texts in light of the way D&C 1 cautions interested readers on what to expect. Some people prefer to deal with complexity by appealing to authority, as though their authorities are like a black box, the hidden inner workings of which contain some secret understanding and infallibility.

Behold, I am God and have spoken it; these commandments are of me, and were given unto my servants in their weakness, after the manner of their language, that they might come to understanding.

25 And inasmuch as they erred it might be made known;

26 And inasmuch as they sought wisdom they might be instructed;

27 And inasmuch as they sinned they might be chastened, that they might repent;

28 And inasmuch as they were humble they might be made strong, and blessed from on high, and receive knowledge from time to time.

FWIW

Kevin Christensen

Bethel Park, PA

Link to comment

What you do not know about me is that I affirm that Adam was the first man and that there was no death before the fall, and I am not a Darwinian. I think that Darwin's view is as much a "myth" as any other story we people make up to give ourselves a place in the universe.

The issue is an epistemological one- and is based in an attempt to answer the question of how we can "know" anything, spiritual or otherwise. All we can know are the words of other people- unless we know things for ourselves. The view is called "philosophic anti-realism".

The idea, though complex, in a few words, is that we have no access to any reality independent of our perceptions which our mind has organized. So everything we can know has either been part of our personal experience or it is a social "myth" someone has created to explain a reality beyond our perceptions which we cannot know exists.

I believe this to be the only position which can account for spiritual experiences having any "reality" whatsoever and to surrender this position would be to deny any validity to religious experience.

It's a long story and I doubt that this is the best forum for getting into it, frankly.

Long story short, I think that Darwin and science are at least as wrong in describing "what really happened" as the Bible is, if taken literally.

"What really happened" is beyond our possible knowledge and always will be, so your guess is as good as mine. That is the essence I guess.

About the only thing I know with certainty is what has happened to me in a phenomenological sense, and that starts with what God has told me directly. and that I should take the Bible and Book of Mormon as central works around which I should build and give meaning to my life.

Your position is far more readily discerned from this response and I can see no conflict with your perspective and my own.

Link to comment

The church has no official position on evolution. See link:

http://www.deseretne...nds.html?pg=all

Some LDS find Elder Packer's or BRM's thoughts on the matter convincing, while others--especially scientists or those schooled in the sciences--do not. Elders Talmage, Widtsoe (both scientists before their calls) and B. H. Roberts strongly disagreed with Joseph Fielding Smith's views on evolution. And that's okay. As BRM himself said, the scriptures teach us why the earth was created and by whom, but not how.

As it pertains to the subject of the OP and pre-Adamites, which has always been the sticking point and which is the issue clearly publicly opposed by the First Presidency and certainly one we can clearly accept as a foundational expectation of evolution your article states the following:

In the following years (since the officiol 1909 and 1925 First Presidency statements), LDS apostles, including B.H. Roberts and James E. Talmage, wrote about the issue and presented their findings to the First Presidency with a leaning toward scientific theory, while junior apostle Joseph Fielding Smith vehemently opposed their views in his own writings and presentations to the First Presidency, Jeffery said. Much of their disagreement came over whether "pre-Adamites" walked the Earth before God created Adam, and whether death of any species had occurred prior to Adam. The debate became so heated that on April 7, 1931, the First Presidency called all the general authorities together and distributed a seven-page memo that "said straight out the church has no position on pre-Adamites or death before the fall of Adam, Jeffery said.

"They basically said, 'leave the subject alone.'"

Some will take the reference to the 1931 "memo" as license to air their own opinions but when they do so they are only ignoring the other half of the recommendation which was leave the subject alone. So If you give any significance to the "memo" you should observe the memo recommendation as of equal legitimacy.

Nonetheless there was no effort to rescind the original two statements and unless the church comes out and agrees with your reporter and a few scholars and others that have nothing to do with church policy then I consider it disingenuous to empower their opinions ahead of the official stance.

As I paraphrase Elder Packer from another time he commented that It is clear that there are times when the truth is not very helpful. Where I in a position such as the 12 and First Presidency were then I would make the same decision. There is no need to keep poking a stick in peoples eye when the subject is not directly pertinent to the goals of the church which is broadly a vehicle to lead to salvation.

Thus once again we are back to the point I have been making all along. Evolution is not the point but how you sustain the church and it's leaders is far more an indicator of an individuals allegiance in the overall big scheme of things. Even though one might disagree with them, we should not publicly espouse such for its faith weakening impact. Thus it is woefully inappropriate to discredit Bruce R McConkie and the others for the fact that once you convince your children they were wrong on this subject it is so much easier for them to take it to the next level that they were wrong all together. Best to take the "memo" approach and sustain the "we can't be sure" or "we don't know enough" and properly preserve the image than sully it with unproveable personal opinions. People who do such often rue their choice in the next generation.

Edited by SamIam
Link to comment

In the late 70s or early 80s, I remember the Stake Presidency reading from the pulpit, a statement from the First Presidency on the issue. Although I do not remember the exact wording of it, it reflected this quote:

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 declared 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; 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.

As I remember the statement, it allowed for whatever evolutionary beliefs for animals, but man was different.

To me, this is enough to take to heart that Man, was not part of any evolutionary process, and as far as Pre-Adamites...no such thing.

I truely beleive that true religion and true science go hand in hand. There are things that science has down fairly good so that I trust it...things that can be observed and experimented with.

Things like evolution can only be guessed at and speculated given the data that exists. Unfortunately, interpretation of that data changes...

This is why I have my religious beleifs, and my scientific learning dealing with evolution and the like, and they are kept separate.

I can learn all that science has to offer, but if it does not agree with my religious beliefs, then I do not have to try and overlay one on top of the other.

Link to comment

Hallelujah! I agree with you.

I don't 'need' Adam to be my literal first parent 6000 years ago and I don't need a literal moment where he 'fell.' I fall every day and am acutely aware of it.

What I do need is for the Adam story to teach a clear principle about who I am and what I am here for. Adam is more important as a teaching principle than he is as a relative.

It follows that the "Jesus story" is in the same category and it is not literally true either. The love of God is taught in all the details of the "Jesus Story"....

Link to comment

Thus once again we are back to the point I have been making all along. Evolution is not the point but how you sustain the church and it's leaders is far more an indicator of an individuals allegiance in the overall big scheme of things. Even though one might disagree with them, we should not publicly espouse such for its faith weakening impact. Thus it is woefully inappropriate to discredit Bruce R McConkie and the others for the fact that once you convince your children they were wrong on this subject it is so much easier for them to take it to the next level that they were wrong all together.

That's terribly misguided and promotes erroneous belief of inerrancy. In my case when I learned of the massive evidences for an ancient Earth (as a teen), it was precisely this thinking that made me worry that I'd have to reject the church if I didn't reject the truth staring me in the face.

Understanding that our leaders are NOT inerrant means we can accept and be uplifted by their testimonies and teachings without elevating their errors to doctrine.

Link to comment

Samalm:

"Thus it is woefully inappropriate to discredit Bruce R McConkie and the others for the fact that once you convince your children they were wrong on this subject it is so much easier for them to take it to the next level that they were wrong all together".

What of those other Apostles that disagree with BRM?

Link to comment

Am opening this thread at the suggestion of Canard in another thread. What is the feeling about non human hominids, given recent assertions that Neanderthal DNA has shown up especially in the European races.

I love all non human hominids, regardless of DNA, race, color, religion, creed, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity, national origin, ancestry, age, veteran status, disability, military service, or other status any non human hominid might enjoy or suffer in common (or not) with human hominids.

Link to comment

Thus it is woefully inappropriate to discredit Bruce R McConkie and the others for the fact that once you convince your children they were wrong on this subject it is so much easier for them to take it to the next level that they were wrong all together.

This is why it is best for people like BMR or Elder Packer to remain silent about things they really don't know much about. They might think they do, but they really don't, and wisdom would seem to enjoin either silence, or at least, "It is my considered opinion" etc., etc. "but the fact of the matter is that the answers to these questions have not been revealed."

Edited by bdouglas
Link to comment

Yes they do. See this link:

http://www.lds.org/e...of-man?lang=eng

This is a statement signed by the entire First Presidency in 1909, and reprinted in the Ensign in 2002. The introduction for the reprint notes that the statement "expresses the Church’s doctrinal position on these matters."

Additionally, in the "Making the Most of This Issue" section of that issue of the Ensign, readers are told:

So for those keeping score, we have an official statement from the First Presidency, republished in the official Church magazine in which readers are told that this statement is "the Church's doctrinal position" and "the Church's official teachings".

Here is what that statement says about pre-Adamites:

Let the semantic exercise begin!

You didn't read the link to the article in the Des News. Read the article. The church has no official position on evolution.

You might also look at following wiki...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mormon_views_on_evolution

...which begins with "The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (LDS Church) takes no official position on whether or not biological evolution has occurred, or on the validity of the modern evolutionary synthesis as a scientific theory...."

Edited by bdouglas
Link to comment

Actually, I find it as trite as declaring the earth to be the center of the universe because of the perfectness of the heavens.

And, frankly, once BRM or Packer or whoever step outside 1st Presidency statements, they're on their own opinion and have no authority. And given that, their comments are utterly laughable. Just look at the entry for "Dragons" in Mormon Doctrine. Or the entry on Evolution, for that matter. The man didn't have the foggiest notion of what the theories or evidences even were. (Of course, he didn't need to.)

It was BRM's delusions about young-earth creationism as necessary for an LDS to believe that brought me to my first crisis of faith. Thanks for that BRM. On the other hand he also bore powerful testimony of the Risen Lord. I'm forever grateful for his witness of the Lord. I won't clutter my kids' heads with his silliness on dinosaurs being contemporaneous with Noah, or the wickedness of face cards however.

How many others are there who have stumbled over BRM? I sure did. (lol)

Link to comment

It follows that the "Jesus story" is in the same category and it is not literally true either. The love of God is taught in all the details of the "Jesus Story"....

This is the best example yet provided for why it is very important to differentiate between truth and error and where our allegiances should lie concerning things such as the OP. One step leads to the next step leads to the next and pretty soon soulless Pre-Adamites become the ancestors of fictional characters represented as Adam and Eve and finally Jesus Christ becomes a myth. If the clarity of my stance makes it clear to everyone that I am as far away as conceivably possible from this type of perspective then I feel better already.

Those who tend to disagree with correct scriptural foundations and discredit their leaders in regards to Pre-Adamites set the stage to find other concepts that they disagree on with the brethren. Until finally we have sacrificed the power of their testimonies of Jesus Christ to have the proper influence on our weakened sustainment of God's chosen servants until their pleas calling us to Christ fade away in the din of the crowd.

Edited by SamIam
Link to comment
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...