How literally do you take the creation story?

[CA Steve]

Well, not since the first questions are "Do you believe that God is our Eternal Father? Do you believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God, the Savior and Redeemer of the world?"

As a Missionary, if the answer was negative, we would not baptize them.

Nackhadlow,

If the investigator answered "I don't know but I am willing to live the commandments until I do" would they still not be eligible?

[semlogo]

Your mother was wrong. Not everything in the Temple is symbolic. Some of it is exactly what it appears to be.

According to whom?

[cinepro]

The Gospel Principles book still seems to take things literally:

This seems pretty literal to me unless you consider Adam and Eve to simply be the first spirit children to enter bodies. And mortality simply means the separation of spirit children from their bodies.

If that's the case, we wouldn't need a "fall" at all.

God had been placing humanoid-spirits into humanoid-flesh bodies for thousands of years as they evolved into a properly humanoid shape that could receive a Spirit Child-spirit. So at some point, He just had to start placing authentic Spirit Child brand spirits into the humanoid bodies that were being born, and the whole Plan of Salvation would be kicked off.

No need for an Eden, since humans were already in a fallen state. The whole story of "The Fall" becomes rather pointless, because at the end of the story, Adam and Eve end up in the exact same place and condition in which they started: mortal, and apart from God.

[semlogo]

Nackhadlow,

If the investigator answered "I don't know but I am willing to live the commandments until I do" would they still not be eligible?

I'll bet a lot of missions would baptize that person - though they really shouldn't.

[Rob Osborn]

Evolution is the fantasy. If we disregard Adam and Eve as being the first human beings on this planet then we must as well disregard all of mormonism. The entire gospel is built upon these two facts- first, that Adam and Eve were the first humans and the very parents of our race and two, that because of their disobedience they caused themselves and the entire creation to become fallen. It is at this point death entered the world for all living things. If one claims to be mormon and yet denies these two facts, they cannot rightly claim to have a knowledge of the truth pertainingf to LDS doctrine.

LDS doctrine proclaims that the temporal age of the earth (since time was measured unto man and death has reigned) will be 7,000 years. That is official church doctrine.

Let's be perfectly honest here. Darwinian evolution is not compatible with LDS doctrine concerning the creation of man on this earth. Darwinian evolution demands that human beings were here upon this earth a far greater time than 6-7 thousand years. LDS doctrine however teaches that Adam and Eve were the first humans on the earth some 6,000 years ago. Be honest here- LDS doctrine is not thus compatible with what modern science has to say on the matter.

I keep waiting for there to be actual evidence for the evolution of man but all I keep seeing is that man only begets man and as far as one can positively tell, that is all he will ever reproduce- man! If this is truth then it stands to reason that since man only comes from man that it would be impossible for man to come about in any other way. I am sorry but the evidence that man only comes from man is extremely sound to this point. You guys still have to find all of your supposed missing links and then from there prove that we are the true ancestors of that evidence. And then, on top of all that, you have to be able to show why our intelligence is what it is and is not really comparable to that of the animals. You guys have a pretty much insurmountable mountain to climb and in the end it will be directly in opposition to what God has already revealed.

Good luck!

[David T]

Nackhadlow,

If the investigator answered "I don't know but I am willing to live the commandments until I do" would they still not be eligible?

"If a candidate does not qualify according to the baptismal interview questions, the baptism and confirmation should be postponed. The investigator should receive additional teaching by the full-time missionaries and fellowshipping from ward members." - Preach My Gospel.

Faith in Jesus Christ and His Atonement is clearly taught as a prerequisite for Baptism.

[SilverKnight]

Well, not since the first questions are "Do you believe that God is our Eternal Father? Do you believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God, the Savior and Redeemer of the world?"

Yes that is question #1.

But I think if a committed, worthy, yet unbelieving investigator who appealed to "a desire to believe" as found in Alma 32:27, he would very likely end up getting baptized anyway.

Or, he might be admonished to keep praying for a more sure spiritual witness.

[David T]

I keep waiting for there to be actual evidence for the evolution of man but all I keep seeing is that man only begets man and as far as one can positively tell, that is all he will ever reproduce- man! If this is truth then it stands to reason that since man only comes from man that it would be impossible for man to come about in any other way. I am sorry but the evidence that man only comes from man is extremely sound to this point. You guys still have to find all of your supposed missing links and then from there prove that we are the true ancestors of that evidence. And then, on top of all that, you have to be able to show why our intelligence is what it is and is not really comparable to that of the animals. You guys have a pretty much insurmountable mountain to climb and in the end it will be directly in opposition to what God has already revealed.

Good luck!

I keep waiting to see evidence you're actually paying attention to what we're saying here, or have done any research to see what the theory of organic evolution actually claims. I haven't seen that.

[David T]

Yes that is question #1.

But I think if a committed, worthy, yet unbelieving investigator who appealed to "a desire to believe" as found in Alma 32:27, he would very likely end up getting baptized anyway.

Or, he might be admonished to keep praying for a more sure spiritual witness.

I'm telling you what the official policy is, and what the practice was I was instructed to follow as a Missionary (I got back from my mission 2 years ago - I entered the MTC exactly 4 years ago today !) - What some district leaders may individually choose to authorize is besides the point.

[Rob Osborn]

Rob:

You seem to believe that because the Preying Mantis, and the Black Widow are among a few species that eat their mates. That some how justifies human cannibalism.

As to a global flood.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-noahs-ark.html

The global flood was real. Go ahead and discount it but do so knowing that LDS doctrine teaches the literalness of it being "global".

[cinepro]

According to whom?

According to the Temple Ceremony and the Prophets.

For example, the covenants we make in the Temple are not "symbolic". They are real, actual covenants that are supposed to mean something. The parts of the ceremony that "rehearse" those things which will take place at a future date are not "symbolic". That is supposed to be the actual process by which certain things are done.

As Brigham Young said:

[semlogo]

The global flood was real. Go ahead and discount it but do so knowing that LDS doctrine teaches the literalness of it being "global".

Satan must have gone around the world and removed every single piece of evidence for that flood. Oh, and also he must have had his own ark, where he saved examples from every existing culture around the world that existed before and after the flood.

[David T]

According to the Temple Ceremony and the Prophets.

For example, the covenants we make in the Temple are not "symbolic". They are real, actual covenants that are supposed to mean something. The parts of the ceremony that "rehearse" those things which will take place at a future date are not "symbolic". That is supposed to be the actual process by which certain things are done.

As Brigham Young said:

Those "key words, signs and tokens" aren't "symbolic" those are the actual "key words, signs and tokens" that will be needed to pass by the angels.

Yes, there is much (very much) in the Temple that is "symbolic". But it's overstating the case to say that everything is "symbolic".

So anyone who has internet access and knows how to use google can get past the heavenly guards. Good to know.

Seriously. I honestly didn't think that anyone believed those signs and symbols were literal, physical 'keys' to Exaltation. It still kind of blows my mind that some do. From the beginning, it was clear to me that they were heavily and profoundly symbolic.

[urroner]

The global flood was real. Go ahead and discount it but do so knowing that LDS doctrine teaches the literalness of it being "global".

Are you stating that the Flood was indeed global? If it was global, it would have left behind plenty of scientific evidence, where is that evidence?

[Rob Osborn]

I keep waiting to see evidence you're actually paying attention to what we're saying here, or have done any research to see what the theory of organic evolution actually claims. I haven't seen that.

I have done plenty of research into what evolution teaches. It is wrong on every point concerning the creation of man. Not only that but it discounts there being an actual intelligent being who guided life into existance on this earth. Evolution is contrary to the gospel of Jesus Christ and especially contrary to LDS doctrine regarding the Creation and fall. I am duty bound to regard Adam and Eve as the parents of our race, that they were the first humans on this earth and that there was no death on this world until after the fall of man. This knoewledge comes straight from God himself. Whom am I more likely to believe- the wisdom and arm of flesh or the wisdom and knowledge of God?

It's a no-brainer.

[semlogo]

According to the Temple Ceremony and the Prophets.

For example, the covenants we make in the Temple are not "symbolic". They are real, actual covenants that are supposed to mean something. The parts of the ceremony that "rehearse" those things which will take place at a future date are not "symbolic". That is supposed to be the actual process by which certain things are done.

As Brigham Young said:

Those "key words, signs and tokens" aren't "symbolic" those are the actual "key words, signs and tokens" that will be needed to pass by the angels.

Yes, there is much (very much) in the Temple that is "symbolic". But it's overstating the case to say that everything is "symbolic".

I don't find that terribly convincing.

[Rob Osborn]

Are you stating that the Flood was indeed global? If it was global, it would have left behind plenty of scientific evidence, where is that evidence?

This is a classic case of not being able to see the forest because all of the trees in the way. If you can't see the literal "mountains" of evidence right before your eyes then there is no convincing otherwise. Sometimes you actually have to open your eyes.

[semlogo]

I have done plenty of research into what evolution teaches. It is wrong on every point concerning the creation of man. Not only that but it discounts there being an actual intelligent being who guided life into existance on this earth. Evolution is contrary to the gospel of Jesus Christ and especially contrary to LDS doctrine regarding the Creation and fall. I am duty bound to regard Adam and Eve as the parents of our race, that they were the first humans on this earth and that there was no death on this world until after the fall of man. This knoewledge comes straight from God himself. Whom am I more likely to believe- the wisdom and arm of flesh or the wisdom and knowledge of God?

It's a no-brainer.

See what I mean about the elaborate fantasy world of literalism?

[SilverKnight]

Evolution is the fantasy.

Full throttle right out of the gates I see.

If we disregard Adam and Eve as being the first human beings on this planet then we must as well disregard all of mormonism.

Might this be teensy bit of a false dichotomy?

The entire gospel is built upon these two facts-

Lets here em.

first, that Adam and Eve were the first humans and the very parents of our race

Yep.

and two, that because of their disobedience they caused themselves and the entire creation to become fallen.

Yep.

It is at this point death entered the world for all living things.

Nope

If one claims to be mormon and yet denies these two facts, they cannot rightly claim to have a knowledge of the truth pertainingf to LDS doctrine.

But one can, it seems, hold callings, a temple recommend, and leadership positions (including that of apostle and prophet) and ultimately be exalted in the celestial kingdom.

LDS doctrine proclaims that the temporal age of the earth (since time was measured unto man and death has reigned) will be 7,000 years. That is official church doctrine.

So LDS are now young-earth creationists? Astounding.

Let's be perfectly honest here. Darwinian evolution is not compatible with LDS doctrine concerning the creation of man on this earth.

Perhaps we need a new temple recommend question.

Darwinian evolution demands that human beings were here upon this earth a far greater time than 6-7 thousand years.

Yes it does. Thankfully one not need to believe such superstitious nonsense to be a mormon.

LDS doctrine however teaches that Adam and Eve were the first humans on the earth

So far so good

some 6,000 years ago.

Bzzzzt!

I keep waiting for there to be actual evidence for the evolution of man

ROFL

[thesometimesaint]

Rob:

Your black and white thinking is leading you down a very wrong path. The science is clear. The earth is round(slightly pear shaped). It orbits the sun approximately every 365.25 days. The earth is also about 4.5 billions of those orbits old. That Homo Sapiens Sapiens(us) are the product of those billions of years of evolution from simpler animals.

LDS doctrine makes no claim on evolution and evolution makes no claim on the LDS doctrine.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vss1VKN2rf8&feature=channel

[Rob Osborn]

See what I mean about the elaborate fantasy world of literalism?

Let's cut to the chase here-

Under your own criteria then God himself is a fantasy...I mean really, where is the scientific evidence for him? Are we just supposed to take "God" as some type of fantasy creature and not some literal being?

Get real.

[David T]

I have done plenty of research into what evolution teaches.

It doesn't teach that man came from monkeys, but you keep asserting that it does.

It is wrong on every point concerning the creation of man. Not only that but it discounts there being an actual intelligent being who guided life into existance on this earth. Evolution is contrary to the gospel of Jesus Christ and especially contrary to LDS doctrine regarding the Creation and fall.

You never answered my question: Do you believe that a personal choice your spirit made to enter into a mortal body, and a specific choice you made to sin, isn't enough to need a Redeemer? Do you really believe that if the fall story didn't happen as it appears in Genesis, that there would be no possibility for the Plan of Salvation for us as individuals?

I am duty bound to regard Adam and Eve as the parents of our race, that they were the first humans on this earth and that there was no death on this world until after the fall of man.

I don't recall Church members making a covenant to believe those things.

This knoewledge comes straight from God himself.

No, it doesn't. The framework story, however, does.

Whom am I more likely to believe- the wisdom and arm of flesh or the wisdom and knowledge of God?

I believe both, belieiving that many scientific discoveries are approved of and even inspired by God.

It's a no-brainer.

...which may be the problem. The Lord wants us to use our brains.

You're welcome to believe what you want. You're certainly not alone.

You come under fire here for insulting and making judgments on those who understand such things differently than you. That's what's not cool.

[Rob Osborn]

I guess it's just the few of us and the prophets of God then. I will continue to stand by them on this issue. Your fantasy of evolution will dry up and blow away in the coming wind.

[David T]

I guess it's just the few of us and the prophets of God then. I will continue to stand by them on this issue. Your fantasy of evolution will dry up and blow away in the coming wind.

Except David O McKay. And President Hinckley who said evolution didn't bother him.

[cinepro]

If we disregard Adam and Eve as being the first human beings on this planet then we must as well disregard all of mormonism.

I agree.

On the question of Adam and Eve, we have on one side the atheists and skeptics, who disbelieve the claims of the Bible and classify the stories as "fairy tales" and superstition.

On the other side, we have LDS Prophets and Apostles, who teach that Adam and Eve were two actual people, who lived in an actual Terrestrial garden until they disobeyed God and became mortal.

This thread illuminates the perplexing reality that many who would consider themselves "faithful, believing LDS" are arraying with the skeptics, dressing up their disbelieving views with words like "symbolism" and "allegory".

In the end, I suspect the "symbolists" are fooling no one but themselves. The skeptics know exactly what it is when they see it, as do those who are standing fast with the doctrines of the Church as taught by the Prophets and Apostles in official Church publications.

This happens frequently in the apologetic quest for harmony, but usually not so clearly.