Pre-Adamites?

[Freedom]

Since the first chapters of Genesis are most likely a temple vision reenacting sacred ordinances and

rituals, I think we can put the discussion aside and focus on what the scriptures are truly about -

guiding us to return to live with our Father in heaven.

[mfbukowski]

Will it be the "proofs" that men put forth as evidence for their claims or will it be faith in God and his leaders that defines where we find the greatest peace. Since it is faith that is one of God's key factors to have men develop it only appears a better choice to seek such that sustains a faith based paradigm. In a scenario that really has no clear cut answers, the side we choose to defend may be answer enough.

The point for me, is that I have enough faith in God that I believe he does not lie about what "really happened" as far as that is ascertainable. So who am I to believe, a literalistic leader because he is a leader, or my own construction, taught by the spirit, which unifies all of truth as I have studied it, with the scriptures?

Since it is my own testimony which leads me to believe in the leaders in the first place, who am I to doubt that God who sent me the testimony in the first place, that the same God would teach what makes no sense? Should I follow the leader or my own testimony?

Since the leader is teaching the "philosophies of men mingled with scripture"- ie his own philosophies and interpretations- what difference who's interpretations I follow? The key here is that one must always follow one's own testimony or one does not have a leg to stand on in even deciding if the leader is right or wrong.

For the record, I have not read Elder Packer's statement yet- I am stating my general position to statements of prophets in general. I am presuming that my position regarding Elder Packer's statement would be no different than my position regarding Joseph himself or some of the things Brigham Young is quoted as saying. Prophets do get things wrong sometimes, but we always have the spirit to guide us individually.

[canard78]

Since the first chapters of Genesis are most likely a temple vision reenacting sacred ordinances and

rituals, I think we can put the discussion aside and focus on what the scriptures are truly about -

guiding us to return to live with our Father in heaven.

Hallelujah! I agree with you.

I don't 'need' Adam to be my literal first parent 6000 years ago and I don't need a literal moment where he 'fell.' I fall every day and am acutely aware of it.

What I do need is for the Adam story to teach a clear principle about who I am and what I am here for. Adam is more important as a teaching principle than he is as a relative.

[BCSpace]

There must be some historicity of Adam in the same way the BoM must be historical or the Church (and all Christianity in this case) isn't true. However, many of the details can certainly be metaphorical or figurative. For example, the official doctrine on Eve being created from Adam's rib is that it's figurative.

Edited June 9, 2013 by BCSpace

[canard78]

There must be some historicity of Adam in the same way the BoM must be historical or the Church (and all Christianity in this case) isn't true. However, many of the details can certainly be metaphorical or figurative. For example, the official doctrine on Eve being created from Adam's rib is that it's figurative.

Like I said, the truth claims of the church do not, for me, depend on an historical Adam. I'm comfortable with the church teaching him as historical as it lends more weight to the lessons he represents.

I don't consider anything shared in the temple to be of a 'documentary' nature. I don't think it's intended to be.

[Freedom]

Adam is the first man. I do not require him to be the first chronologically. If a child comes first place in a dance competition, they did not perform first, they simply performed best. Adam is the first (most important) man. He could have been the first in our history to take on the covenants so prior to him, the gospel was not on the earth. He was the start of the first dispensation, the first patriarch, the first to receive covenants.

[Stone holm]

Adam is the first man. I do not require him to be the first chronologically. If a child comes first place in a dance competition, they did not perform first, they simply performed best. Adam is the first (most important) man. He could have been the first in our history to take on the covenants so prior to him, the gospel was not on the earth. He was the start of the first dispensation, the first patriarch, the first to receive covenants.

So you think the various other hominids flunked the dance competition?

[ERayR]

Adam is the first man. I do not require him to be the first chronologically. If a child comes first place in a dance competition, they did not perform first, they simply performed best. Adam is the first (most important) man. He could have been the first in our history to take on the covenants so prior to him, the gospel was not on the earth. He was the start of the first dispensation, the first patriarch, the first to receive covenants.

So you think the various other hominids flunked the dance competition?

Creates too many inconsistencies for me.

[Stone holm]

Like I said, the truth claims of the church do not, for me, depend on an historical Adam. I'm comfortable with the church teaching him as historical as it lends more weight to the lessons he represents.

I don't consider anything shared in the temple to be of a 'documentary' nature. I don't think it's intended to be.

Well I agree especially regarding the Temple and an historical Adam is not something I would apostasize over, but there are too many interconnected prophecies, etc for their not to be an historical Adam, so I think you need to wrench a lot of stuff to make him simply symbolic. Of course with regards to the Temple that is a whole different matter.

[mfbukowski]

The whole problem becomes what does "historical" mean in a context where the only possible evidence is totally spiritual in nature.

It is hard to imagine how the term even applies. Did it "really happen"?

That is a matter for faith , not history

[Stone holm]

The whole problem becomes what does "historical" mean in a context where the only possible evidence is totally spiritual in nature.

It is hard to imagine how the term even applies. Did it "really happen"?

That is a matter for faith , not history

True, so are the pre-Adamites what? And if the scientists are right and Europeans interbred with Neanderthals. Then what happens?

Edited June 9, 2013 by Stone holm

[mfbukowski]

True, so are the pre-Adamites what? And if the scientists are right and Europeans interbred with Neanderthals. Then what happens?

What do you mean "what happens"?

If they interbreed you have some more pre-hominid babies.

I don't see that having much to do with the Bible, do you?

[SamIam]

The point for me, is that I have enough faith in God that I believe he does not lie about what "really happened" as far as that is ascertainable. So who am I to believe, a literalistic leader because he is a leader, or my own construction, taught by the spirit, which unifies all of truth as I have studied it, with the scriptures?

Since it is my own testimony which leads me to believe in the leaders in the first place, who am I to doubt that God who sent me the testimony in the first place, that the same God would teach what makes no sense? Should I follow the leader or my own testimony?

Since the leader is teaching the "philosophies of men mingled with scripture"- ie his own philosophies and interpretations- what difference who's interpretations I follow? The key here is that one must always follow one's own testimony or one does not have a leg to stand on in even deciding if the leader is right or wrong.

For the record, I have not read Elder Packer's statement yet- I am stating my general position to statements of prophets in general. I am presuming that my position regarding Elder Packer's statement would be no different than my position regarding Joseph himself or some of the things Brigham Young is quoted as saying. Prophets do get things wrong sometimes, but we always have the spirit to guide us individually.

I understand your perspective, which while more respectful than some of the other observations that sustain the pro-evolution stance is none the less of similar mentality.

Yet I'm not sure you, and certainly the others, grasped the essence of my point. We have two perspectives interpretatively of polar extremes in their purest state. What Darwin conjectured and the subsequent scientific tweeks and twists are devoid of God. What the scriptures teach is hardly classed as scientific. Neither is clear enough or has enough evidence to provide any foundation of sure truth. We cannot say with either one it is precisely a certain way.

Now in the church and in other religious venues we see an interesting dynamic of a "reconciling" process that goes on that wants to pay homage to the scriptural perspective while holding to the scientific evidences.

My point is this. I do not believe that the question is are there pre-adamites? Or was there death before Adam? or any one of the dozens of questions that are solicited concerning this topic. It is well within God's purview to have made this situation more clear and more readily discernible yet he has not. He has left the issue shrouded in mystery and left the question dangling in our collective minds with no obvious answers.

So is it not possible in someones mind that this is just one more point of division that puts the word of God at odds with the arm of flesh? In a probationary state where men are to prove themselves valiant this comes off looking like a perfect test to see if men not having an answer will choose the arm of flesh or the word of God? And if not why is that absolutely not the case?

To conclude here is another quote from the talk by Packer that I consider profound.

Now in conclusion: It is my conviction that to the degree the theory of evolution asserts that man is the product of an evolutionary process, the offspring of animals—it is false! What application the evolutionary theory has to animals gives me no concern. That is another question entirely, one to be pursued by science. But remember, the scriptures speak of the spirit in animals and other living things, and of each multiplying after its own kind (D&C 77:2; 2 Nephi 2:22; Moses 3:9; Abr 4:11–12, 24).

Boyd K. Packer The Law and the Light

I like the Boyd K. Packer material because it provides the second witness to the oft discounted perspective that Bruce R. McConkie and Joseph Fielding Smith championed. I consider it hugely telling when people will discount one witness let alone two or three of the handful of people that have walked the earth that have the right to be the mouthpiece of God. Especially about a subject of such vague understanding on both sides of the debate. We are not so much choosing truth here as much we are choosing sides. There is simply inadequate information to say definitively one way or the other. However, I can only feel safety in sustaining the leaders of the church. I will add that this was not an academic process for me to come to these conclusions. I have pondered them and sought understanding spiritually over these matters. I still do not know the nuts and bolts of creation adequate to answer these difficult speculations but I do know that the spirit has never wavered - stand behind the brethren and you will do fine.

[Freedom]

So you think the various other hominids flunked the dance competition?

Just as people did in every other age of apostasy.

[Freedom]

Creates too many inconsistencies for me.

such as?

[SamIam]

Absolutely. He was an inspiring and beloved Apostle, who unfortunately published a lot of his own opinions which have caused issues. Or was that remark meant as sarcasm?

Not sarcasm in the least. Incredulous would be a better characterization.

It is apparent that you have made your decisions independent of really giving the matter spiritual consideration. So while you may chuck Elder Packer out with Bruce R. McConkie bathwater I provide the rational reasons that Elder Packer provides from a spiritual perspective that surely should warrant a few hours of your consideration: His 6 reasons are as follows.

Reason 1. The revelations from God. The revelations testify of the separate creation of man in the image of God—this after the rest of creation was finished. When the revelations do not fully explain something (and there is purpose in their not doing so), there is safety in clinging to whatever they do reveal. The creation of man and his introduction into mortality by the Fall as revealed in the scriptures conform to eternal laws governing both body and spirit.

If the theory of evolution applies to man, there was no Fall and therefore no need for an atonement, nor a gospel of redemption, nor a redeemer.

Reason 2. An understanding of the sealing authority. The sealing authority with its binding of the generations into eternal families cannot admit to ancestral blood lines to beasts. Let me repeat:An understanding of the sealing authority with its binding of the generations into eternal families cannot admit to ancestral blood lines to beasts. That should be reason enough for any endowed and sealed Latter-day Saint!

Reason 3. Statements of the prophets and apostles. When the First Presidency speaks, we can safely accept their word.

And if my people will hearken unto my voice, and unto the voice of my servants whom I have appointed to lead my people, behold, verily I say unto you, they shall not be moved out of their place. But if they will not hearken to my voice, nor unto the voice of these men whom I have appointed, they shall not be blest (D&C 124:45–46).

Twice the First Presidency has declared the position of the Church on organic evolution. The first, a statement published in 1909 entitled “The Origin of Man” (75–81), was signed by Presidents Joseph F. Smith, John R. Winder, and Anthon H. Lund. The other, entitled “ ‘Mormon’ View of Evolution,” signed by Presidents Heber J. Grant, Anthony W. Ivins, and Charles W. Nibley, was published in 1929 (1090–91). It follows very closely the first statement, indeed quotes directly from it. The doctrines in both statements are consistent and have not changed. One paragraph from the first will give you a feeling for their content.

It is held by some that Adam was not the first man upon this earth, and that the original human being was a development from lower orders of the animal creation. These, however, are the theories of men. The word of the Lord declares that Adam was “the first man of all men” (Moses 1:34), and we are therefore in duty bound to regard him as the primal parent of our race. It was shown to the brother of Jared that all men were created in the beginning after the image of God; and whether we take this to mean the spirit or the body, or both, it commits us to the same conclusion: Man began life as a human being, in the likeness of our heavenly Father (“The Origin of Man” 80; see the full texts of both statements in Appendix A below).

Statements have been made by other presidents of the Church and members of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles which corroborate these official declarations by the First Presidency.

I should take note of one letter signed by a president of the Church addressed to a private individual. It includes a sentence which, taken out of context, reads, “On the subject of organic evolution the church has officially taken no position.” For some reasons the addressee passed this letter about. For years it has appeared each time this subject is debated.

Letters to individuals are not the channel for announcing the policy of the Church. For several important reasons, this letter itself is not a declaration of the position of the Church, as some have interpreted it to be. Do not anchor your position on this major issue to that one sentence! It is in conflict with the two official declarations, each signed by all members of the First Presidency. Remember the revelation in the Doctrine and Covenants, “Every decision made by . . . [the First Presidency] must be by the unanimous voice of the same; that is, every member . . . must be agreed to its decisions . . . . Unless this is the case, their decisions are not entitled to the same blessings which the decisions of a quorum of three presidents were anciently, who were ordained after the order of Melchizedek, and were righteous and holy men” (D&C 107:27, 29).

Reason 4. Moral laws of force and validity. If the laws of genetics alone governed the reproduction and adaptation of living things, then the theory of evolution might convincingly apply to man. But they do not. There are moral laws of force and validity which govern that spiritual part of man, the power to reason, the conscience, which animals do not possess.

Can you not see how careful, how clever, the adversary is? He need not even challenge theexistence of moral laws; simply convince us that, as animals, we are not accountable and are therefore exempt from them. To regard myself as but an animal would cost me my agency, my accountability; I would forfeit justice, mercy, love, faith, the Atonement—all that endures beyond mortality—values more dear than life itself. I will not do it!

Reason 5. The word beauty. Beauty itself cannot be imagined as having come by accident. The precision, harmony, and symmetry of the physical universe and the compelling interrelationship of natural laws with the spirit and emotion of mankind attest to an order directed by divine intelligence.

Unanswered Questions. Those reasons leave questions yet unanswered. How old is the earth? I do not know! But I do know that matter is eternal. How long a time has man been upon the earth? I do not know! But I do know that man did not evolve from animals.

Both questions have to do with time. Time is a medium for measurement, perhaps no more than that. Occasionally I wonder if time exists at all. Quantum physicists are now beginning to say strange things like that, “time” comes from the word “tempus”; so do temporal and temporary. The revelations say that the day will come when “there shall be time no longer” (Rev 10:6; D&C 84:100). In any case, they say “time only is measured unto men” (Alma 40:8 )

What Can I Offer You? What help can I offer as you face persuasive advocates with visible evidence supporting their premise that man evolved from animals when you have little visible evidence to the contrary? Faith!

Faith is not to have a

perfect knowledge

of things; therefore if ye have faith ye hope for things which are

not seen,

which are true (Alma 32:21; emphasis added).

Again:

Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things

not seen

(Heb 11:1; emphasis added).

Notice that both scriptural definitions of faith include the words “not seen.” All the answers as to how man was created have not been discovered by scientists; neither has God revealed them, but he has promised that he will reveal them.

Yea, verily I say unto you, in that day when the Lord shall come, he shall reveal all things—Things which have passed, and

hidden things

which

no man knew,

things of the

earth, by which it was made,

and

the purpose

and

the end

thereof—Things most precious, things that are above, and things that are beneath, things that are in the earth, and upon the earth, and in heaven (D&C 101:32–34; emphasis added).

When confronted by evidence in the rocks below, rely on the witness of the heavens above. Do not be contentious. Speak of conscience, values, moral law. Perhaps others will also see the spiritual side to man and his creation. From that may come a humility and a willingness to see together in faith. You will not be left alone. God has promised a comforter, “Even the Spirit of truth; whom the world . . . seeth . . . not, neither knoweth” (John 14:17).

Reason 6. The Light. I said I would give six reasons for my conviction, and I have listed only five. The sixth is personal revelation. Most of you know how to receive revelation. “Study it out in your mind; then . . . ask” (D&C 9: 8 )

Man is the child of God, formed in the divine image and endowed with divine attributes, and even as the infant son of an earthly father and mother is capable in due time of becoming a man, so the undeveloped offspring of celestial parentage is capable, by experience through ages and aeons, of evolving into a God.

If thou shalt ask, thou shalt receive revelation upon revelation, knowledge upon knowledge, that thou mayest know the mysteries and peaceable things—that which bringeth joy, that which bringeth life eternal (D&C 42:61).

Here we are, spirit children of God, clothed in flesh, sojourning in mortality for a season. Know that your body is the instrument of your mind, and the foundation of your character. Do not mortgage your soul for unproved theories; ask, simply ask! I have asked, but not how man was created; I have asked if the scriptures are true. And I have a witness and a testimony, and I give it unto you: That Jesus is The Christ, the Son of God; that he is our Redeemer and our Messiah; that there was the fall of man; and that he is our Mediator and our Redeemer; that he wrought the Atonement; that he is our Lord. I know him. I bear to you a witness of him, a special witness of him.

Remember what he told the Nephites:

Behold, I am the law, and the light. Look unto me, and endure to the end, and ye shall live; for unto him that endureth to the end will I give eternal life (3 Nephi 15:9).

The full piece is about 19 pages long and is found at this link:

http://rsc.byu.edu/a...1-law-and-light

Very reasoned and solid considerations from the theological side of things.

Edited June 9, 2013 by SamIam

[SamIam]

A daring prophecy which I predict will turn out to be false. For several reasons:

1) I've never heard an apostle or prophet who was specifically opposed to evolution accurately describe evolution. What they are in opposition to are some atheist conclusions about evolution which are also false. A modern example would be Russel M Nelson having to be corrected by his junior companion during the Pew interview. This is also to imply there are or were those who didn't oppose it and even defended it (some were neutral). James E Talmadge, David O. McKay, SWK, GBH, etc.

2) BRM himself essentially, though non doctrinally, admitted that perhaps it was possible to reconcile doctrine with evolution though he himself couldn't see how. That is in his Seven Deadly Heresies Speech.

3) Apostle Ezra Taft Benson gave a stirring Conference talk about the BoM (not mentioning the sealed portion though) in the 1970's; that it was good for combating all sorts of false notions including evolution. However, he repeated this same talk in Conference in the 80's but left evolution off the list.

4) In this very reference you give, BRM also mentions D&C 77:6, the published doctrine on which is a prime indicator that evolution might indeed be possible within the LDS context.

It is disappointing to see something like this published for Seminary teachers and it shows that the conflict within the Church hierarchy about evolution is alive and well even after the HJG first presidency statement. The debate cooled down for awhile especially under David O McKay when he had to clean up after BRM's outspoken views. There are a few who try to resurrect it from time to time. BRM of course continued to be outspoken about it when he could after DoM's death and we see some ripples from that. There was a GA, a Geology professor iirc, who in an Ensign article in the 1990's stated that evolution conflicted with the laws of thermodynamics. This of course has been proven false. Etc.

I've taught my children my views on this and they seem to believe them. We've had several good conversations in Seminary when they've brought it up and the teacher was opposed to evolution and we always ultimately came to the conclusion, at least on the surface, that accepting evolution and LDS doctrine at the same time presented no conflict. In my own case when I was a youth, I spoke up for evolution in the Teacher's quorum and was hauled before the Bishop (who I think merely wanted to convince me of the error of my ways) who then received a call from the Stake President (because of my Dad) who told him to stand down because evolution was not in conflict with the doctrines of the Church. That was more than 30 years ago.

It's been an interesting subject. Hopefully not too much of a Gospel Hobby, but one I enjoy discussing and debating very much. I speak up on it in Church from time to time, usually in answer to someone else who voices their opposition to it.

Regardless of your personal views on the subject it surprises me that when you speak upon the subject from "time to time" that you teach something completely outside of the only official doctrinal statements of the First Presidency. If there is anything that we as Bishops learn from the get go.... It is okay to go into the meeting disagreeing with the stake presidents viewpoint behind closed doors but when you leave his viewpoint is yours or .... you don't serve much longer. I can absolutely see no difference in this and this is truly "disappointing" The official doctrine of the church is clearly stated and has never been retracted. Until the day it is retracted I would be playing on the team that knows the proper way to support the doctrine of the church over personal opinions.

[Freedom]

Not sarcasm in the least. More incredulous would be a better characterization.

It is apparent that you have made your decisions independent of really giving the matter spiritual consideration. So while you may chuck Elder Packer out with Bruce R. McConkie bathwater I provide the rational reasons that Elder Packer provides from a spiritual perspective that surely should warrant a few hours of your consideration: His 6 reasons are as follows.

Have you considered the fact that other apostles have expressed very different opinions on the matter?

[SamIam]

Did you not realize that to some BRM is anathema.

I do realize that. One can't spend much time here on this forum tossing out quotes by Bruce R. McConkie and Joseph Fielding Smith as I am wont to do and not realize that of all the names of those quoted these two seem to draw out the most ire. Makes certain considerations easier for me when I am trying to determine an individuals perspective.

Edited June 9, 2013 by SamIam

[SamIam]

Have you considered the fact that other apostles have expressed very different opinions on the matter?

Provide your support and lets discuss how different they really are.

[SamIam]

That BRM quote has so many holes in it they could use it to sieve pasta.

Hmmm, I see you embrace both meanings of your screen name when it suits your purpose.

Do not get personal.

[bdouglas]

It is apparent that you have made your decisions independent of really giving the matter spiritual consideration. So while you may chuck Elder Packer out with Bruce R. McConkie bathwater I provide the rational reasons that Elder Packer provides from a spiritual perspective that surely should warrant a few hours of your consideration: His 6 reasons are as follows.

The full piece is about 19 pages long and is found at this link:

http://rsc.byu.edu/a...1-law-and-light

Very reasoned and solid considerations from the theological side of things.

The church has no official position on evolution. See link:

http://www.deseretne...nds.html?pg=all

Some LDS find Elder Packer's or BRM's thoughts on the matter convincing, while others--especially scientists or those schooled in the sciences--do not. Elders Talmage, Widtsoe (both scientists before their calls) and B. H. Roberts strongly disagreed with Joseph Fielding Smith's views on evolution. And that's okay. As BRM himself said, the scriptures teach us why the earth was created and by whom, but not how.

Edited June 9, 2013 by bdouglas

[mfbukowski]

I understand your perspective, which while more respectful than some of the other observations that sustain the pro-evolution stance is none the less of similar mentality.

Yet I'm not sure you, and certainly the others, grasped the essence of my point. We have two perspectives interpretatively of polar extremes in their purest state. What Darwin conjectured and the subsequent scientific tweeks and twists are devoid of God. What the scriptures teach is hardly classed as scientific. Neither is clear enough or has enough evidence to provide any foundation of sure truth. We cannot say with either one it is precisely a certain way.

Now in the church and in other religious venues we see an interesting dynamic of a "reconciling" process that goes on that wants to pay homage to the scriptural perspective while holding to the scientific evidences.

My point is this. I do not believe that the question is are there pre-adamites? Or was there death before Adam? or any one of the dozens of questions that are solicited concerning this topic. It is well within God's purview to have made this situation more clear and more readily discernible yet he has not. He has left the issue shrouded in mystery and left the question dangling in our collective minds with no obvious answers.

So is it not possible in someones mind that this is just one more point of division that puts the word of God at odds with the arm of flesh? In a probationary state where men are to prove themselves valiant this comes off looking like a perfect test to see if men not having an answer will choose the arm of flesh or the word of God? And if not why is that absolutely not the case?

To conclude here is another quote from the talk by Packer that I consider profound.

I like the Boyd K. Packer material because it provides the second witness to the oft discounted perspective that Bruce R. McConkie and Joseph Fielding Smith championed. I consider it hugely telling when people will discount one witness let alone two or three of the handful of people that have walked the earth that have the right to be the mouthpiece of God. Especially about a subject of such vague understanding on both sides of the debate. We are not so much choosing truth here as much we are choosing sides. There is simply inadequate information to say definitively one way or the other. However, I can only feel safety in sustaining the leaders of the church. I will add that this was not an academic process for me to come to these conclusions. I have pondered them and sought understanding spiritually over these matters. I still do not know the nuts and bolts of creation adequate to answer these difficult speculations but I do know that the spirit has never wavered - stand behind the brethren and you will do fine.

What you do not know about me is that I affirm that Adam was the first man and that there was no death before the fall, and I am not a Darwinian. I think that Darwin's view is as much a "myth" as any other story we people make up to give ourselves a place in the universe.

The issue is an epistemological one- and is based in an attempt to answer the question of how we can "know" anything, spiritual or otherwise. All we can know are the words of other people- unless we know things for ourselves. The view is called "philosophic anti-realism".

The idea, though complex, in a few words, is that we have no access to any reality independent of our perceptions which our mind has organized. So everything we can know has either been part of our personal experience or it is a social "myth" someone has created to explain a reality beyond our perceptions which we cannot know exists.

I believe this to be the only position which can account for spiritual experiences having any "reality" whatsoever and to surrender this position would be to deny any validity to religious experience.

It's a long story and I doubt that this is the best forum for getting into it, frankly.

Long story short, I think that Darwin and science are at least as wrong in describing "what really happened" as the Bible is, if taken literally.

"What really happened" is beyond our possible knowledge and always will be, so your guess is as good as mine. That is the essence I guess.

About the only thing I know with certainty is what has happened to me in a phenomenological sense, and that starts with what God has told me directly. and that I should take the Bible and Book of Mormon as central works around which I should build and give meaning to my life.

Edited June 9, 2013 by mfbukowski

[exmormonatheistofutah]

Genetic testing of human fossils provides strong evidense that the races of the Earth that we have today were tens of thousands of years in the making. Human evolutionary biologists are now able to date these fossil remains because genetic mutations that spawn evolutionay changes have occured at a very consistant rate. So if God did create Adam and Eve however long ago, he would have had to have given them a genome variation that matches the same percentage of differences from us to Adam and Eve, as their most recent predessesors in human form as if they never went extinct. Why would God choose to make this genetic rate of change back to them appear constant as if Adam and Eve were not really the first human ancestors of us. I find it had to beleive that God would make it appear this way a if to test our faith or something. I dont beleive that the story of Adam and Eve is really anything more than legend. Are there any spin doctors here that would like to add any remarks?

[mfbukowski]

Very reasoned and solid considerations from the theological side of things.

Only based on a literal interpretation and ignoring all others.

On that logic, much of what Jesus taught is about how to raise wheat and tares. "Weed often" becomes the greatest commandment and what we learn in the temple becomes magic incantations.

Sorry- I think there's more to both than that.