zerinus Posted January 17, 2012 Posted January 17, 2012 That terminology in scripture may not be taken as literal as might think.So which is it Z, was Adam raised up "out of the dust" which could then fully incorporate an evolutionary process; or was he born of a Divine Parent, like what B. Young suggests?Whichever way it was, there are no grounds for "incorporating the evolutionary process" into it.
Senator Posted January 17, 2012 Posted January 17, 2012 Whichever way it was, there are no grounds for "incorporating the evolutionary process" into it.I believe, as has been shown in this thread, that there are substantial grounds for it
altersteve Posted January 17, 2012 Posted January 17, 2012 Whichever way it was, there are no grounds for "incorporating the evolutionary process" into it.This is nothing but YOUR OPINION. You keep stating it as fact. You don't think evolution can be reconciled with scripture; fine, we get it. But seriously, STOP saying that like it's fact. It's what's making us not want to be part of this discussion anymore.
Senator Posted January 17, 2012 Posted January 17, 2012 You are now inventing your own theology, which no one else has any obligation to accept.This is not LDS theology? Wow, I do need to go back to the Gospel Essentials class....
JeremyOrbe-Smith Posted January 17, 2012 Posted January 17, 2012 (edited) "Far more reasonable to believe that as an Uncreated Intelligence he was Adopted through the Covenant. God is not the physical "father" of our bodies. Neither is Abraham. Yet we call them both "father" because we have been Adopted into their family."You are now inventing your own theology, which no one else has any obligation to accept.Not at all.As D&C 93:29 says, "Man was also in the beginning with God. Intelligence, or the light of truth, was not created or made, neither indeed can be."We are, fundamentally, Uncreated Intelligence. We are co-eternal with God the Father, the Spirit of Wisdom, Christ the Son, and everyone else.As the LDS.org Guide to the Scriptures says:"People who, by obedience to the laws and ordinances of the gospel of Jesus Christ, receive the promises and covenants made by God to Abraham. Men and women may receive these blessings if they are literally of Abraham’s lineage or if they are adopted into his family by embracing the gospel and being baptized (Gal. 3:26–29; 4:1–7; D&C 84:33–34; 103:17; 132:30–32; Abr. 2:9–11)."As Galatians 3:26 says, "For ye are all the children of God by faith in Christ Jesus. For as many of you as have been baptized into Christ have put on Christ. There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus. And if ye be Christ’s, then are ye Abraham’s seed, and heirs according to the promise."Or as Galatians 4:4 says, "When the fulness of the time was come, God sent forth his Son, made of a woman, made under the law, to redeem them that were under the law, that we might receive the adoption of sons. And because ye are [now, through adoption,] sons, God hath sent forth the Spirit of his Son into your hearts, crying, Abba, Father. Wherefore thou art no more a servant, but a son; and if a son, then an heir of God through Christ."Or as D&C 84:34 says, "[We] become the sons of Moses and of Aaron and the seed of Abraham, and the church and kingdom, and the elect of God." Edited January 17, 2012 by JeremyOrbe-Smith
zerinus Posted January 17, 2012 Posted January 17, 2012 I believe, as has been shown in this thread, that there are substantial grounds for itNothing that I have seen.
Senator Posted January 17, 2012 Posted January 17, 2012 Nothing that I have seen.Ok, not much more to discuss then.
zerinus Posted January 17, 2012 Posted January 17, 2012 This is nothing but YOUR OPINION. You keep stating it as fact. You don't think evolution can be reconciled with scripture; fine, we get it. But seriously, STOP saying that like it's fact. It's what's making us not want to be part of this discussion anymore.I think you should put your money where your mouth is, and stop acting as spokesman for everybody else.
zerinus Posted January 17, 2012 Posted January 17, 2012 Not at all.As D&C 93:29 says, "Man was also in the beginning with God. Intelligence, or the light of truth, was not created or made, neither indeed can be."We are, fundamentally, Uncreated Intelligence. We are co-eternal with God the Father, the Spirit of Wisdom, Christ the Son, and everyone else.As the LDS.org Guide to the Scriptures says:"People who, by obedience to the laws and ordinances of the gospel of Jesus Christ, receive the promises and covenants made by God to Abraham. Men and women may receive these blessings if they are literally of Abraham’s lineage or if they are adopted into his family by embracing the gospel and being baptized (Gal. 3:26–29; 4:1–7; D&C 84:33–34; 103:17; 132:30–32; Abr. 2:9–11)."As Galatians 3:26 says, "For ye are all the children of God by faith in Christ Jesus. For as many of you as have been baptized into Christ have put on Christ. There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus. And if ye be Christ’s, then are ye Abraham’s seed, and heirs according to the promise."Or as Galatians 4:4 says, "When the fulness of the time was come, God sent forth his Son, made of a woman, made under the law, to redeem them that were under the law, that we might receive the adoption of sons. And because ye are [now, through adoption,] sons, God hath sent forth the Spirit of his Son into your hearts, crying, Abba, Father. Wherefore thou art no more a servant, but a son; and if a son, then an heir of God through Christ."Or as D&C 84:34 says, "[We] become the sons of Moses and of Aaron and the seed of Abraham, and the church and kingdom, and the elect of God."Sure, but what has all of this got to do with Evolution?
ERayR Posted January 17, 2012 Posted January 17, 2012 This is nothing but YOUR OPINION. You keep stating it as fact. You don't think evolution can be reconciled with scripture; fine, we get it. But seriously, STOP saying that like it's fact. It's what's making us not want to be part of this discussion anymore.Please reconcile that evolution calls for an ascension what scripture describes as a fall.
ERayR Posted January 17, 2012 Posted January 17, 2012 I believe, as has been shown in this thread, that there are substantial grounds for itNothing overwhelming
Senator Posted January 17, 2012 Posted January 17, 2012 Nothing overwhelmingI'd say scripture's tutorial on the creative process to be a bit underwhelming as well.
zerinus Posted January 17, 2012 Posted January 17, 2012 I'd say scripture's tutorial on the creative process to be a bit underwhelming as well.Scripture does not teach Evolution, neither does it allow for that possibility.
JeremyOrbe-Smith Posted January 17, 2012 Posted January 17, 2012 (edited) Wait, Zerinus, weren't you just saying a few minutes ago that my statement that we are Uncreated Intelligence Adopted through the Covenant was just my own invented theology which no one else has any obligation to accept? Now it's just taken for granted with a "sure"? *grin*It has to do with evolution in that if you have made even the most cursory study of it, there is so much data to support it that it is simply irresponsible to wave it away based on a few sentences from a book. Sacred as it is, Joseph Smith knew "that many important points touching the salvation of men, had been taken from the Bible, or lost before it was compiled."The scriptures themselves are ambiguous - how can Adam be both a biological "Son" of God (which is what you were asserting earlier) and yet be formed of the Dust (because your general attitude expressed in this thread has been one tending towards literalism)? How can Eve be a biological "Daughter" of God if she was taken from Adam's rib? If being formed of the dust or taken from a rib is metaphorical, what are the grounds for taking "sonship" as literal?... especially when there is significant evidence, as I've already shown, that we are all Adopted through the Covenant to become Sons of God and Joint Heirs with Christ?...ERayR: I reconciled evolution with the metaphorical Fall of our Uncreated Intelligence into mortal bodies subject to death here and to a lesser extent here. As cursory, non-binding, speculative, and science-fictiony as my attempts are, I think they fit the data from both science and scripture (which is what Hugh B. Brown encouraged) better than the fundamentalist reading y'all are espousing. Edited January 17, 2012 by JeremyOrbe-Smith
Senator Posted January 17, 2012 Posted January 17, 2012 Scripture does not teach Evolution, neither does it allow for that possibility.This thread has devolved into discussion by assertion. (at least on one side of the isle) And that's not very enlightening.
zerinus Posted January 17, 2012 Posted January 17, 2012 This thread has devolved into discussion by assertion. (at least on one side of the isle) And that's not very enlightening.No it hasn't. I have demonstrated the validity of that assertion in numerous posts in this thread. Unless someone comes up with something new, asserting what has been previously proven is the only remaining option.
Senator Posted January 17, 2012 Posted January 17, 2012 (edited) No it hasn't. I have demonstrated the validity of that assertion in numerous posts in this thread. Unless someone comes up with something new, asserting what has been previously proven is the only remaining option.So it has devolved.Since neither side is convinced as to the validity of the opposing argument.....We'll just have to agree to disagree. Edited January 17, 2012 by Senator
thesometimesaint Posted January 17, 2012 Posted January 17, 2012 Senator:I don't believe we can take the Scriptures, especially the Bibles creation accounts, as literal. Not even the BoM claims to be inerrant.The Bible was writen by a pre-science people whom believed that lead could be turned to gold, that axe heads float, and Pi is exactly equal to three. Even JS lived at a time when leeches were used in medicine, and not the medical leeches we use to releave brusing.
ERayR Posted January 17, 2012 Posted January 17, 2012 ERayR: I reconciled evolution with the metaphorical Fall of our Uncreated Intelligence into mortal bodies subject to death here and to a lesser extent here. As cursory, non-binding, speculative, and science-fictiony as my attempts are, I think they fit the data from both science and scripture (which is what Hugh B. Brown encouraged) better than the fundamentalist reading y'all are espousing.You know nothing about what I am espousing and your assumption that they are fundamentalist is incorrect. Please do not get the idea that just because I do not place my faith in evolution that my views are fundamentalist. If you want to get sci-fi try Brigham Youngs explanation.
zerinus Posted January 17, 2012 Posted January 17, 2012 So it has devolved.I wouldn't call it devolved. I would say it has reached its end. Unless someone comes up with something new, there is not a lot more left to discuss.
zerinus Posted January 17, 2012 Posted January 17, 2012 Senator:I don't believe we can take the Scriptures, especially the Bibles creation accounts, as literal. Not even the BoM claims to be inerrant.The Bible was writen by a pre-science people whom believed that lead could be turned to gold, that axe heads float, and Pi is exactly equal to three. Even JS lived at a time when leeches were used in medicine, and not the medical leeches we use to releave brusing.This post demonstrates the fundamental divide between us. Scripture was written by prophets of God under the inspiration of the Almighty, and contain the truth; and I have no doubts in my mind that axes can float if God wants them to float.
JeremyOrbe-Smith Posted January 17, 2012 Posted January 17, 2012 (edited) "You know nothing about what I am espousing and your assumption that they are fundamentalist is incorrect."If you're saying something different than Zerinus (you seemed to be supporting him earlier), then my bad. What, then, are you saying? Any response to the substance of my attempt at reconciling evolution (which is not really an "ascent", unless you want to describe it as such metaphorically) and the Fall (which is not really a "fall", unless you want to describe it as such metaphorically)? Are we really just arguing about which metaphor is better? *grin* Edited January 17, 2012 by JeremyOrbe-Smith
Senator Posted January 17, 2012 Posted January 17, 2012 I wouldn't call it devolved. I would say it has reached its end. Unless someone comes up with something new, there is not a lot more left to discuss.Yes, I already said that.
thesometimesaint Posted January 17, 2012 Posted January 17, 2012 Senator:Human evolution is still going on.
Rob Osborn Posted January 17, 2012 Posted January 17, 2012 How can Adam be a "Son" of God in a physical, procreative way if he was "formed of the Dust"?Far more reasonable to believe that as an Uncreated Intelligence he was Adopted through the Covenant. God is not the physical "father" of our bodies. Neither is Abraham. Yet we call them both "father" because we have been Adopted into their family.We all are formed of the dust of the earth. Even though I am the literal seed of my father, I am made from the dust of the earth. I see no difference with God coming to earth, partaking of various food he planted and then procreating to form Adam and Eve.
Recommended Posts