How literally do you take the creation story?

[zelder]

Fair enough.

What about LDS people (like me) who believe the Genesis account to be completely figurative (didn't really happen)?

What should the church do with us?

Well I suppose nothing. I just think its a slipperly slope to stand on.

[zelder]

Zelder-

Before you join Cinepro's cheer squad, you should know he is an unbelieving member who loves cynically playing 'Angel's' advocate to point out the hypocrisy of apologists.

Hmmm. thanks for the info. I guess I should have introduced myself in the introductions board but I'm a card carrying, temple married, go-to-church every sunday kind of mormon. What about you?

p.s. what is <LI class=title>Heidnischer Krieger

[thesometimesaint]

Ceeboo:

I believe in a literal Adam and Eve. I don't believe some of the stories that have grown up around them.

[cinepro]

Hmmm. thanks for the info. I guess I should have introduced myself in the introductions board but I'm a card carrying, temple married, go-to-church every sunday kind of mormon.

Hey, me too!

[SilverKnight]

Hmmm. thanks for the info. I guess I should have introduced myself in the introductions board but I'm a card carrying, temple married, go-to-church every sunday kind of mormon. What about you?

Same as you.

I am the Sunday School President, 17yo Sunday School Teacher and unofficial Ward testimony-saver.

Don't worry, my bishop knows I am a bit "progressive".

[zelder]

What does that mean, though?

*smiles with a quiet chuckle*

I'm done. I need to get some work done.

[cinepro]

Zelder-

Before you join Cinepro's cheer squad, you should know he is an unbelieving member who loves cynically playing 'Angel's' advocate to point out the hypocrisy of apologists.

Let me get this straight.

We have a thread where certain LDS are expressing their disbelief in one of the most frequently and fervently taught historical stories in the Church, and you accuse me of being "unbelieving"? What is it that I don't believe that is worse than not believing in the literalness of Adam and Eve and the story of the Fall? Look at the quote in my sig, and tell me how I am any worse than LDS who don't believe in a global flood?

[semlogo]

*smiles with a quiet chuckle*

I'm done. I need to get some work done.

So you don't know?

[SilverKnight]

p.s. what is <LI class=title>Heidnischer Krieger

Heathen Warrior in German

[thesometimesaint]

Zelder:

Early next year will be my 40th year in the Church. Temple married. Served in many different Ward and Stake positions.

[SilverKnight]

Let me get this straight. We have a thread where certain LDS are expressing their disbelief in one of the most frequently and fervently taught historical stories in the Church, and you accuse me of being "unbelieving"?

You know exactly what you're doing. Your shtick is known to everyone.

What is it that I don't believe that is worse than not believing in the literalness of Adam and Eve and the story of the Fall?

Nobody knows what you believe - Cinepro's testimony might be the world's biggest mystery - it's impossible to separate real beliefs from the perpetual stream of disingenuous sarcasm.

[LeSellers]

I must say, I am really shocked that so many LDS seem to deny (or at least do not take literal), the very begining (Adam and Eve) from Scripture.

Well it kind of depends on what one means by "literal" (or "litteral" if you prefer) because the accounts (and there are two, not one) in Genesis are extremely vague.

For instance, the word translated "day" (and the evening and the morning were the first day) does not necessarily mean "24-hour period". So I can believe that God created the earth in several billion years, just as Genesis describes. Most people do not believe or care that a "day" might be a thousand years, six million years, or an indeterminate amount of time. They assume a day is a day is a day, and by another name, it would be 24 hours.

Young's Literal Translation says, Gen 1:1 "In the beginning of God's preparing the heavens and the earth

[Zakuska]

Remember what I said before about using credible sources?

And remember what I said about the 14th International Convention of Sedimentology... The film they made starts at 7 minutes in, and cooberates everything the source you deam uncredible says. So it apears the problem is with you and not with the science. That you are too ******-footed to even watch the movie speaks volumes.

[Zakuska]

True, but science is self-correcting. Genesis is what it is.

Yet science is "imperical" until the next cacamamy theory comes along.

[semlogo]

And remember what I said about the 14th International Convention of Sedimentology... The film they made starts at 7 minutes in, and cooberates everything the source you deam uncredible says. So it apears the problem is with you and not with the science. That you are too ******-footed to even watch the movie speaks volumes.

I'm also too closed minded to scour this publication, even if a nugget of truth is found somewhere in it.

If you want me to take you seriously, start providing some serious sources - not fringe sources that quote them, but primary sources.

[cinepro]

You know exactly what you're doing. Your shtick is known to everyone.

My only regret is that elguanteloko started this thread before I thought of it.

Nobody knows what you believe - Cinepro's testimony might be the world's biggest mystery - it's impossible to separate real beliefs from the perpetual stream of disingenuous sarcasm.

It's not that hard. I've never said I believed something that I didn't.

[SilverKnight]

My only regret is that elguanteloko started this thread before I thought of it.

Yeah this and global flood are neck and neck in your hobby-horse race.

It's not that hard. I've never said I believed something that I didn't.

Well here's your chance:

Would you consider yourself a believing, or unbelieving, member of the LDS church?

[Zakuska]

If you want me to take you seriously, start providing some serious sources - not fringe sources that quote them, but primary sources.

You mean "serious primary sources" like these that you claimed were.... and I quote... "IRRELEVANT"?

Recent developments in sedimentology

The longstanding understanding of how some mudstones form has been challenged by geologists at Indiana University (Bloomington) and the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. The research, which appears in the December 14th, 2007, edition of Science, counters the prevailing view of geologists that mud only settles when water is slow-moving or still, instead showing that "muds will accumulate even when currents move swiftly." The research shows that some mudstones may have formed in fast-moving waters: "Mudstones can be deposited under more energetic conditions than widely assumed, requiring a reappraisal of many geologic records."^[7]

Macquaker and Bohacs, in reviewing the research of Schieber et al., state that "these results call for critical reappraisal of all mudstones previously interpreted as having been continuously deposited under still waters. Such rocks are widely used to infer past climates, ocean conditions, and orbital variations."^[8]

1. ^ Juergen Schieber, John Southard, and Kevin Thaisen, "Accretion of Mudstone Beds from Migrating Floccule Ripples," Science, 14 December 2007: 1760-1763.
   See also "As waters clear, scientists seek to end a muddy debate," at PhysOrg.com (accessed 27 December 2007).
2. ^ Joe H. S. Macquaker and Kevin M. Bohacs, "Geology: On the Accumulation of Mud," Science, 14 December 2007: 1734-1735.

It's patently obvious that you're not here to dicuss the subject rationaly. If you want people to take YOU serious... might I suggest some of your own medicine.

[Brenda]

I must say, I am really shocked that so many LDS seem to deny (or at least do not take literal), the very begining (Adam and Eve) from Scripture.

Peace,

Ceeboo

'Twas a big shock to me too. You NEVER hear this kind of discussion in church. I had no idea ..... it still blows me away.

[Zakuska]

'Twas a big shock to me too. You NEVER hear this kind of discussion in church. I had no idea ..... it still blows me away.

Ditto that.

And it all comes down to cacamamy theories of Scientist that the sediments prove the earth is billions of years old. Of course recent Sedementology proves that the scientific assumptions of how sedimentary rock is formed is fataly flawed.

[semlogo]

Yet science is "imperical" until the next cacamamy theory comes along.

Strawman.

[SilverKnight]

'Twas a big shock to me too. You NEVER hear this kind of discussion in church. I had no idea ..... it still blows me away.

I've been asked about evolution vs. creation a number of times by members of my 17-18 year old Sunday School class.

All I can do is tell them what I believe, taking special care to let them know that it is my personal opinion and not church doctrine, and encourage them to learn and study and come up with their own way of dealing with it.

[Senator]

You NEVER hear this kind of discussion in church.

That really doesn't suprise you, does it?

[semlogo]

You mean "serious primary sources" like these that you claimed were.... and I quote... "IRRELEVANT"?

It's patently obvious that you're not here to dicuss the subject rationaly. If you want people to take YOU serious... might I suggest some of your own medicine.

Yes, those are serious sources, and yes, they're irrelevant. You might as well have sent me a link to a study on quarks or the composition of moon rocks - none of them would support your global flood hypothesis either.

So let's summarize: I'm looking for credible, scientific sources that SUPPORT the possibility of a global flood sometime in the last 5000 years or so. Simply citing any old study isn't enough - it has to have something to do with the topic at hand.

[Zakuska]

Yes, those are serious sources, and yes, they're irrelevant. You might as well have sent me a link to a study on quarks or the composition of moon rocks - none of them would support your global flood hypothesis.

Explain please.

From the middle link...

"Mudstones make up two-thirds of the sedimentary geological record," said IU Bloomington geologist Juergen Schieber, who led the study. "One thing we are very certain of is that our findings will influence how geologists and paleontologists reconstruct Earth's past."

http://www.physorg.c...s116777974.html

1) They have proven that the way in which sedimentary rock forms and therefore the bones and other artifacts contained in it are depositing... has nothing what so ever to do with the age of the bones.

2) They have also proven that largely straified expanses of back filled sediments can be deposited in an instant. A matter of a few minutes to a few hours in fact.