How literally do you take the creation story?

[cinepro]

1931 Statement of the First Presidency

TO THE COUNCIL OF THE TWELVE,

THE FIRST COUNCIL OF SEVENTY,

AND THE PRESIDING BISHOPRIC.

Do internal memos really count as "statements"?

And is anyone else a little disappointed that the First Presidency wasn't able to actually bring additional clarity to the issue instead of just begging people to stop talking about it?

And this statement is exceedingly interesting:

We call attention to the fact that when one of the general authorities of the Church makes a definite statement in regard to any doctrine, particularly when the statement is made in a dogmatic declaration of finality, whether he express it as his opinion or not, he is regarded as voicing the Church, and his statements are accepted as the approved doctrines of the Church, which they should be.

[Rob Osborn]

Rob, why should I believe that you are correct, just because you say so? I place my faith in God the Father and His Son. Whom/What are you placing your faith in? Are the scriptures a science book? Was Eve truly created from one of Adam's ribs? Is pi really 3?

If you place your faith in God and the Creator, then why don't you believe the words from their lips? They themselves said that Adam and Eve wer ethe first humans. they also said their was a global flood some 4-5 thousand years ago.

So when will you open your eyes and see that you can't even begin to defend your position in the slightest without repeatedly citing that those who disagree with you lack faith and are deceived by the evil men who do science?

There is a lot of great science out there, I am just skepticle of those who mingle fairytales with science.

[Rob Osborn]

Zelder:

No name calling please.

There is no controversy about the mechanisms of Evolution. The controversy is about the fine details of the product. Just like there is no controversy about gravity, just in the theory that explains it.

Perhaps you may have forgotten that the main controversy with evolution is the mechanism itself. The problem lies in the "theory that explains" it.

[Rob Osborn]

I find it rather interesting when those who believe in the literal creation of Adam and Eve, basically, young earthers, who demand that current science be able to explain the chains of events in evolution that finally led to man and if there is anything lack of data, then that is, to them, solid evidence that it's all a farce and should be totally rejected, yet, when they are asked to do the same for their beliefs about how man came about, they say that it's all a matter of faith.

L = Link in evolution

MD - Missing Data

Current science

MD --> L --> L --> L --> L --> L --> L --> MD --> L --> L --> L --> MD --> Man

What young earthers demand (no faith required)

L --> L --> L --> L --> L --> L --> L --> L --> L --> L --> L --> L --> L --> L --> L --> L --> L --> L --> L --> L --> L --> L --> L --> L --> L --> L --> L --> L --> L --> L --> L --> L --> L --> L --> L --> L --> L --> L --> L --> L --> L --> L --> L --> L --> L --> L --> L --> L --> L --> L --> L --> L --> L --> L --> L --> L --> L --> L --> L --> L --> L --> Man

What they insist you believe:

MD --> POOF --> Man

I just find it interesting is their feeble attempt to explain the data we have in the current science. Mountains of sandstone caused by a flood 5000 years ago is totally laughable, but I have been urged to accept it without questioning it.

There would be no problem whatsoever if the evolutionists would just admit that their ideas are not "fact" and have no way to be proven at this juncture.

The sediment layers are all over the world, . Hello? I am not asking you to believe something completely on faith, I am just asking you to take off the dang blinders and look around for a change.

[thesometimesaint]

Rob:

So to your mind if a prophet said it. It must by definition be fact. I wonder how you deal with all the errors in the Scriptures. Please inform us on the fact value of Pi as recorded in the Bible, and no subsequent prophet has repudiated, and gone through the "Common Consent" requirements of LDS.

[semlogo]

If you place your faith in God and the Creator, then why don't you believe the words from their lips? They themselves said that Adam and Eve wer ethe first humans. they also said their was a global flood some 4-5 thousand years ago.

There is a lot of great science out there, I am just skepticle of those who mingle fairytales with science.

Point 1: let's not confuse God with the multiple authors of Genesis, none of whom were Moses.

Point 2: Oy, vey!

[urroner]

There would be no problem whatsoever if the evolutionists would just admit that their ideas are not "fact" and have no way to be proven at this juncture.

The sediment layers are all over the world, . Hello? I am not asking you to believe something completely on faith, I am just asking you to take off the dang blinders and look around for a change.

None of that sedimentary layer here in Florida? How old is this sedimentary layer anyway and does it have a name so I can look it up? If it's all over the world, then it should have a name?

BTW, you chide us evolutionists for stating our ideas as facts, yet you are stating your ideas as facts. Don't you see a problem in doing that?

[cinepro]

Point 1: let's not confuse God with the multiple authors of Genesis, none of whom were Moses.

One of the key differences between internet/orthodox Mormons and chapel/folk Mormons is that one group believes the Apostles and Prophets are reliable and authoritative in their interpretations of and teachings about the scriptures, whereas the other believes that if the source is dubious (i.e. the scriptural record), then the words of the Apostles and Prophets about those scriptures are built on a shaky foundation and can be excused as fallible.

[semlogo]

One of the key differences between internet/orthodox Mormons and chapel/folk Mormons is that one group believes the Apostles and Prophets are reliable and authoritative in their interpretations of and teachings about the scriptures, whereas the other believes that if the source is dubious (i.e. the scriptural record), then the words of the Apostles and Prophets about those scriptures are built on a shaky foundation and can be excused as fallible.

Internet Mormons ARE chapel Mormons. That's a bogus dichotomy.

[cinepro]

Internet Mormons ARE chapel Mormons. That's a bogus dichotomy.

...he says in a thread where some LDS are proposing a less-than-literal understanding of the Adam and Eve story.

[thesometimesaint]

cinepro:

I'm about as orthodox LDS as they come. I have no expectation that the Creation story as told in the Bible is literal fact, and I do still accept LDS Prophets, and Apostles as inspired by God in their callings.

[Nathair/|\]

If the Atonement could happen 4/7 of the way through the "Seals" and still be efficacious for all those who lived before the meridian of time, Couldn't the Fall apply retroactively to humanity prior to the lifetime of Adam and Eve? Couldn't they have been selected out of the human tribes, placed in the Garden for an indefinite period of timeless time before transgressing a law leading them to fall back into mortality, having children and descendants, including Enoch, Noah, Abraham and Jesus of Nazareth? Does this idea violate anything in Restoration scripture? Does it make sense of the statement attributed to Brigham Young that Adam came to Earth from somewhere else and brought one of his wives with him?

The movie in my head is reminiscent of Stanley Kubrick's 2001, only with an act of God rather than Aliens and a Monolith.

I am not taking a position on if my idea is correct or not, I lean towards it being way off base, but if it allows someone to maintain faith in the Gospel in light of all the evidence for Human evolution, they are welcome to try to make it work. I do believe there had to be a literal fall, but beyond the fun of myth-making, it doesn't matter to me how it happened.

Yours under the esoteric oaks,

Nathair /|\

[Hestia]

Everyone stop the name-calling and stick to the issues.

[cinepro]

cinepro:

I'm about as orthodox LDS as they come. I have no expectation that the Creation story as told in the Bible is literal fact, and I do still accept LDS Prophets, and Apostles as inspired by God in their callings.

It's not whether or not an LDS accepts the Prophets and Apostles as "inspired by God in their callings." It's how they accept it.

And based on the findings in the PEW forum survey on evolution, I'd say many see it differently than you do:

[zelder]

If I didn't believe that Adam and Eve ever actually existed then I'd probably be on my way out the door. There is no avenue for departure on that doctrine. In the church there is no ambiguity on this. If I thought it was just a metaphor, a myth teaching a lesson then I'd be an unhappy camper because to me thats lying. If you believe that the Adam and Eve story is a lie then what else do you think is a lie? Or what else could you eventually begin to believe is a lie? As far as testimony is concerned, I think some of you people are on very shaky ground. As I said initally, there are three pillars to the gosple; The Creation, The Fall and The Atonement. Some of you people have only got one pillar to stand on.

I'd love to know the opinions of other church leaders but here is Elder Nelson's

Pew Forum: Conservative denominations tend to have more trouble with Darwinian evolution. Does the church have an official position on this topic?

Nelson: We believe that God is our creator and that he has created other forms of life. It's interesting to me, drawing on my 40 years experience as a medical doctor, how similar those species are. We developed open-heart surgery, for example, experimenting on lower animals simply because the same creator made the human being. We owe a lot to those lower species. But to think that man evolved from one species to another is, to me, incomprehensible.

Pew Forum: Why is that?

Nelson: Man has always been man. Dogs have always been dogs. Monkeys have always been monkeys. It's just the way genetics works.

Nelson is not ignorant, the "science" is not irrifutable. The issue is controversial.

http://pewforum.org/PublicationPage.aspx?id=3838

Any of you people see Ben Steins "Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed"? The issue IS controversial but the power over what is taught is centrally controlled by people with an agenda.

[cinepro]

Nelson: Man has always been man. Dogs have always been dogs. Monkeys have always been monkeys. It's just the way genetics works.

Isn't it weird how people who try to reconcile LDS Doctrine with evolution are always quoting 80-year old private memos and unpublished opinions from long-dead Church leaders? And every time a living Apostle or Prophet does publicly express an opinion, it's against evolution?

Just weird.

[zelder]

If the Atonement could happen 4/7 of the way through the "Seals" and still be efficacious for all those who lived before the meridian of time, Couldn't the Fall apply retroactively to humanity prior to the lifetime of Adam and Eve? Couldn't they have been selected out of the human tribes, placed in the Garden for an indefinite period of timeless time before transgressing a law leading them to fall back into mortality, having children and descendants, including Enoch, Noah, Abraham and Jesus of Nazareth? Does this idea violate anything in Restoration scripture? Does it make sense of the statement attributed to Brigham Young that Adam came to Earth from somewhere else and brought one of his wives with him?

The movie in my head is reminiscent of Stanley Kubrick's 2001, only with an act of God rather than Aliens and a Monolith.

I am not taking a position on if my idea is correct or not, I lean towards it being way off base, but if it allows someone to maintain faith in the Gospel in light of all the evidence for Human evolution, they are welcome to try to make it work. I do believe there had to be a literal fall, but beyond the fun of myth-making, it doesn't matter to me how it happened.

Yours under the esoteric oaks,

Nathair /|\

Just to stirr the pot and give urroner something to talk about, I'd like to say the Stanley Kubrick was the director who filmed the Apollo moon landings. just a little FYI, peace!

[SilverKnight]

And every time a living Apostle or Prophet does publicly express an opinion, it's against evolution?

Because they are mistaken in that opinion.

[thesometimesaint]

cinepro:

I know what the church teaches as doctrine. It is not my fault if others of my religion don't.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mormonism_and_evolution#Gordon_B._Hinckley

[zelder]

cinepro:

I know what the church teaches as doctrine. It is not my fault if others of my religion don't.

http://en.wikipedia....don_B._Hinckley

The church does not take a stand on evolution but I think they have made it pretty clear that Adam was a real person and our first father.

[thesometimesaint]

zelder:

I too believe Adam and Eve were real live people. That we are all descendant from them. Though I don't know exactly how that happened. Maybe through a series of genetic bottlenecks. Maybe the relationship is more of Priesthood. I just don't know.

[Jeff K.]

It's not that there aren't any suppositions, but scientists are candid about them. The field of genetics has really eliminated any ambiguity at all in much of what was already a very solid line of evidence.

No genetics speaks to similarities not evolution, you are conflating two different fields that interact but are not predictive of each other. There is no line of evidence.

[Tarski]

No genetics speaks to similarities not evolution

No. That's an uninformed creationist talking point. The pattern is a branching that shows temporally ordered inherited relationships.

There is a very very clear picture that tells a story for anyone with their eyes open and the more one learns the clearer the picture. Far too many independent strands of evidence line up and mutually corroborate each other to allow such an interpretation as you suggest.

Do you think the relationship between your genetics and that of your parents shows more than just unrelated similarity?

Maybe you should denounce DNA evidence of paternity.

[semlogo]

No genetics speaks to similarities not evolution, you are conflating two different fields that interact but are not predictive of each other. There is no line of evidence.

That is simply ignorant. If what you said were true we could not prove paternity through genetic testing.

[Hughes]

Whew... after reading the whole thread here's one scripture I hadn't seen yet.