Rob Osborn Posted January 17, 2012 Posted January 17, 2012 I am also going to make the stand that as far as man goes, the scriptures teach against man evolving from lower orders of life. 1
thesometimesaint Posted January 17, 2012 Posted January 17, 2012 (edited) Rob:That is full of unwarranted assumptions. We don't say that we had a good meal therefore procreated to create our children.PS. That is an argument from silence. The Scriptures say nothing about evolution. Edited January 17, 2012 by thesometimesaint
JeremyOrbe-Smith Posted January 17, 2012 Posted January 17, 2012 (edited) "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."Yes, you've made it abundantly clear in this thread that you're far more scripturally-minded than us pitiable sinners who, along with Joseph Smith, believe in the Bible "as it read when it came from the pen of the original writers. Ignorant translators, careless transcribers, or designing and corrupt priests have committed many errors."So according to you, because scripture is "written by prophets of God under the inspiration of the Almighty, and contain the truth," it is the Literal Word of God, unsullied by the "ignorant translators, careless transcribers, or designing and corrupt priests" when, for instance:Deuteronomy 20:16 says "But of the cities of these people, which the Lord thy God doth give thee for an inheritance, thou shalt save alive nothing that breatheth: but thou shalt utterly destroy them."And when 1 Samuel 15:2 says "thus saith the Lord of hosts, I remember that which Amalek did to Israel, how he laid wait for him in the way, when he came up from Egypt. Now go and smite Amalek, and utterly destroy all that they have, and spare them not; but slay both man and woman, infant and suckling, ox and sheep, camel and ***."If these examples of the murder of children (commanded by the being we are supposed to worship) are not inspired scripture, then you've allowed errors and untruths into scripture. If errors and untruths and metaphors and poetry and milieu-dependent cultural expressions are acceptable to admit, then there is nothing which precludes the Garden story as being part of a Temple Drama dealing with Types and images.(If the murder of children was commanded by the being you say I'm supposed to worship, I'm, uh, more than a little frightened. I prefer the "whosoever shall offend one of these little ones that believe in me, it is better for him that a millstone were hanged about his neck, and he were cast into the sea" teachings, myself.)There are at least as many intellectual leaps in believing that God ate the fruit of this earth, procreated, and therefore mankind is "of the dust", as there are in believing that human primate bodies evolved. More, if anything, since it is never stated that God physically procreated Adam, whereas the Bible is full of Adoption and Covenant, and the waters are said to be the origin of life. Edited January 17, 2012 by JeremyOrbe-Smith
Rob Osborn Posted January 17, 2012 Posted January 17, 2012 Rob:That is full of unwarranted assumptions. We don't say that we had a good meal therefore procreated to create our children.PS. That is an argument from silence. The Scriptures say nothing about evolution.It takes some (a little) logic to realize that God actually came to the earth (physically) at the point where man was going to be formed. It stands to reason that he came for the purpose of creating man. It is not hard to realize that if you have out-take (seed) you must have intake (through eating). God just can't magically make seed out of nothing! Take us for example- if we were to quit eating- taking input, we would have no capacity for output (in our seed). That is just real simple logic.The scriptures say a lot about things not evolving out of "nothing" as Darwinian evolution has defined it. It specifically states that the first life was put here by their own kind. The plants themselves came about by their being a seed first planted. Man, as the scriptures state, was first formed with Adam. He was the first man of all men. The scriptures also state that Adam was the first formed flesh on the earth. Now, if Darwinian evolution is true as you state, then the scriptures lie because Adam would have had to of had parents that were pretty much identical to him in every way and thus they too would be called "man".
JeremyOrbe-Smith Posted January 17, 2012 Posted January 17, 2012 (edited) "If you have out-take (seed) you must have intake (through eating)."So, does the seed "die" when it is consumed? Does that mean there was Death in the Garden, before the Fall? What is the purpose of reproducing fruit, if fruit never dies? Did Adam and Eve have skin (dead cells)?Seriously tho, watch this lecture from FAIR: (Find the rest on YouTube - this board doesn't allow me to post the rest.) Edited January 17, 2012 by JeremyOrbe-Smith
Senator Posted January 17, 2012 Posted January 17, 2012 Senator:Human evolution is still going on.Yes???
Rob Osborn Posted January 17, 2012 Posted January 17, 2012 Did Adam and Eve have flesh?Does the resurrected Christ have flesh? Of course.Adam and Eve, who were immortal were told they could eat of any of the fruit in the garden without dying except for the tree of good and evil.One must define "death" in speaking about eating the fruit from a tree. Are we speaking of the tree itself or just of the fruit? The tree doesn't die when one takes fruit from it. A little common sense goes a long way.It is said that we will still eat after resurrection (Christ certainly did). Why do you suppose that is? Eating is not solely for mortality.
ERayR Posted January 17, 2012 Posted January 17, 2012 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*I believe that a great deal of scientific and theological data has been misinterpreted because it has been evaluated only through the prisim of of inividual disciplines. Evolution is definatly an ascent from the simple to the complex. In my view that is ascent and not in a metaphorical sense. Likewise the fall described in the scriptures is a description of a fall from the presence of God to a lesser realm. A descent such as this to me is not metaphorical.
thesometimesaint Posted January 17, 2012 Posted January 17, 2012 Senator:I don't understand the ???. Are you asking for a reference?
thesometimesaint Posted January 17, 2012 Posted January 17, 2012 Rob:I believe that Adam and Eve were real live people with flesh, bone, and blood just like you and I. What I can not do, at least at this point is prove it scientifically.I believe in the Resurrection of Christ, and have hope that it applies to me as well. What I can not do, at least at this point is prove it scientifically.I believe that after his Resurrection Christ did eat. What I have no proof of and do not believe is that is a requirement of all of us after Resurrection.
Senator Posted January 17, 2012 Posted January 17, 2012 Senator:I don't understand the ???. Are you asking for a reference?I didn't understand what prompted the statement. Did I say something contrary?
thesometimesaint Posted January 17, 2012 Posted January 17, 2012 Senator:I'm probably misunderstanding your post #348
Rob Osborn Posted January 17, 2012 Posted January 17, 2012 Rob:I believe that Adam and Eve were real live people with flesh, bone, and blood just like you and I. What I can not do, at least at this point is prove it scientifically.I believe in the Resurrection of Christ, and have hope that it applies to me as well. What I can not do, at least at this point is prove it scientifically.I believe that after his Resurrection Christ did eat. What I have no proof of and do not believe is that is a requirement of all of us after Resurrection.So....let me understand- the things you believe in "science" may go against what you believe in religion. Isn't that a contradiction?
zerinus Posted January 17, 2012 Posted January 17, 2012 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*The Fall certainly was a fall. What else was it if it wasn't a fall? 2
zerinus Posted January 17, 2012 Posted January 17, 2012 Yes, you've made it abundantly clear in this thread that you're far more scripturally-minded than us pitiable sinners who, along with Joseph Smith, believe in the Bible "as it read when it came from the pen of the original writers. Ignorant translators, careless transcribers, or designing and corrupt priests have committed many errors."So according to you, because scripture is "written by prophets of God under the inspiration of the Almighty, and contain the truth," it is the Literal Word of God, unsullied by the "ignorant translators, careless transcribers, or designing and corrupt priests" when, for instance:Deuteronomy 20:16 says "But of the cities of these people, which the Lord thy God doth give thee for an inheritance, thou shalt save alive nothing that breatheth: but thou shalt utterly destroy them."And when 1 Samuel 15:2 says "thus saith the Lord of hosts, I remember that which Amalek did to Israel, how he laid wait for him in the way, when he came up from Egypt. Now go and smite Amalek, and utterly destroy all that they have, and spare them not; but slay both man and woman, infant and suckling, ox and sheep, camel and ***."If these examples of the murder of children (commanded by the being we are supposed to worship) are not inspired scripture, then you've allowed errors and untruths into scripture. If errors and untruths and metaphors and poetry and milieu-dependent cultural expressions are acceptable to admit, then there is nothing which precludes the Garden story as being part of a Temple Drama dealing with Types and images.(If the murder of children was commanded by the being you say I'm supposed to worship, I'm, uh, more than a little frightened. I prefer the "whosoever shall offend one of these little ones that believe in me, it is better for him that a millstone were hanged about his neck, and he were cast into the sea" teachings, myself.)There are at least as many intellectual leaps in believing that God ate the fruit of this earth, procreated, and therefore mankind is "of the dust", as there are in believing that human primate bodies evolved. More, if anything, since it is never stated that God physically procreated Adam, whereas the Bible is full of Adoption and Covenant, and the waters are said to be the origin of life.I believe those scriptures you quoted are correct and true scripture and "correctly translated".
altersteve Posted January 17, 2012 Posted January 17, 2012 The Fall certainly was a fall. What else was it if it wasn't a fall?Did Adam and Eve literally trip over something and fall over when they ate the fruit? 1
cinepro Posted January 17, 2012 Posted January 17, 2012 (edited) There are many ways we can reconcile the metaphor of the "Fall" with evolution.I suspect this may be the most important comment in the entire thread so far. It says clearly in one sentence what so many have only hinted at. Edited January 17, 2012 by cinepro
ERayR Posted January 17, 2012 Posted January 17, 2012 Did Adam and Eve literally trip over something and fall over when they ate the fruit?Don't be obtuse. Adescent from celestial realms to telestial realms is certainly a fall in my reasoning. 1
thesometimesaint Posted January 17, 2012 Posted January 17, 2012 Rob:Nope. I believe I love my wife. What I can not do is prove it to you.Anyone can see dinosaur bones. That is proof of their existance. You must on faith that I am telling you the truth, accept my statement that I love my wife.
altersteve Posted January 17, 2012 Posted January 17, 2012 Don't be obtuse. Adescent from celestial realms to telestial realms is certainly a fall in my reasoning.Sorry, it was a joke. I didn't mean any harm by saying that.
Jeff K. Posted January 17, 2012 Posted January 17, 2012 (edited) I believe scripture disallows Evolution.I know, and based on your particular interpretation (not saying it isn't valid) you cannot help but be right. I think my view and interpretation (along with others) take a different point of view for both scriptures and what I would deem as prophetic opinion. This is, I believe, an impass neither of us can bridge until we recieve greater light and knowledge.I would also add that if a prophet were to come out and have it revealed and sealed in our Doctrine and Covenants as a declaration, then I would not lose sleep in accepting such a position. My testimony is in the gospel and not an aspect of the gospel that either supports or negates evolution. Edited January 17, 2012 by Jeff K.
ERayR Posted January 17, 2012 Posted January 17, 2012 Sorry, it was a joke. I didn't mean any harm by saying that. Sorry a joke in the middle of a heated discussion can result in a black eye.
ERayR Posted January 17, 2012 Posted January 17, 2012 I know, and based on your particular interpretation (not saying it isn't valid) you cannot help but be right. I think my view and interpretation (along with others) take a different point of view for both scriptures and what I would deem as prophetic opinion. This is, I believe, an impass neither of us can bridge until we recieve greater light and knowledge.I would also add that if a prophet were to come out and have it revealed and sealed in our Doctrine and Covenants as a declaration, then I would not lose sleep in accepting such a position. My testimony is in the gospel and not an aspect of the gospel that either supports or negates evolution.I do not know if I hold similar views as zerinious but I do subscribe to his conclusions. I suspect we have come to that conclusion by different paths. My biggest objection is that evolution nullifies the fall and with it the atonement. I know that there are those who think they are metaphorical but to me the atonement was real and not metaphorical at all and for it to be real the fall must also have taken place.
altersteve Posted January 17, 2012 Posted January 17, 2012 Sorry a joke in the middle of a heated discussion can result in a black eye. You should see how many jokes I make in the middle of heated discussions in real life. It's kind of a big issue for me, really. But I can't really help it. I'm funny and I embrace that.
katherine the great Posted January 18, 2012 Posted January 18, 2012 KtG:Go back far enough and everything has a common ancestor even dogs and cats.http://www.scientifi...32752A3D3E23B03Oh absolutely! What I am saying is that that common ancestor was not a dog or a cat. Like the common ancestor of man and chimp was neither a man or a chimp.
Recommended Posts