Jump to content
Seriously No Politics ×

Adam Born Or Created


Recommended Posts

Posted

Was Adam the physical offspring of Heavenly Father and Heavenly Mother, or was he created from the dust of this Earth?

Posted

Was Adam the physical offspring of Heavenly Father and Heavenly Mother, or was he created from the dust of this Earth?

 

Well, Brigham Young made it clear that the "dust of the earth" thing was allegoric - probably refers to the elements from which our bodies are composed.

People are physical offspring of other people, whatever level of glory or planet those people are originating from.

The Saviour was physical offspring, Adam was physical offspring, and we are physical offspring.  There is no other means of creating life than some kind of reproduction, unless a scientist knows more about it than I do.

 

Now, how Adam was first immortal and then mortal, that is the real question.  We know that we all start of mortal and are resurrected to immortality, but how is it done in reverse.  We know Brigham Young's (disavowed) teaching on that subject.  But somehow, the first person was made or born immortal, then mortal.

Posted

Well, Brigham Young made it clear that the "dust of the earth" thing was allegoric - probably refers to the elements from which our bodies are composed.

People are physical offspring of other people, whatever level of glory or planet those people are originating from.

The Saviour was physical offspring, Adam was physical offspring, and we are physical offspring.  There is no other means of creating life than some kind of reproduction, unless a scientist knows more about it than I do.

 

Now, how Adam was first immortal and then mortal, that is the real question.  We know that we all start of mortal and are resurrected to immortality, but how is it done in reverse.  We know Brigham Young's (disavowed) teaching on that subject.  But somehow, the first person was made or born immortal, then mortal.

I am not sure the term immortal is a correct description , I tend to use the word unmortal. He was in a temporary state that potentially could end at any time he chose. An immortal is a permanent state. I wouldn't even consider translated beings as in an immortal state.

Posted (edited)

I am not sure the term immortal is a correct description , I tend to use the word unmortal. He was in a temporary state that potentially could end at any time he chose. An immortal is a permanent state. I wouldn't even consider translated beings as in an immortal state.

 

If that is the way you want to define it then he was born to an unmortal state and became dust of the earth or mortal by partaking of the elements of this earth, we can call that partaking of the forbidden fruit.  Just some thoughts.

Edited by ERayR
Posted (edited)
Was Adam the physical offspring of Heavenly Father and Heavenly Mother, or was he created from the dust of this Earth?

 

I posit that Adam was physically born of evolved (created from the dust of the earth) homo sapiens parents and the spirit placed within him is a literal spirit child of God.  Likely he and Eve were the first born with this type of spirit and then at some point were placed together into the Garden state to await and precipitate the Fall.

 

Neither the hypothetical Adam-God or the actual Adam Sr./Adam Jr. theories are doctrine so I believe I can hypothesize this way without conflict.

Edited by BCSpace
Posted

The vague events surrounding creation leaves a lot for speculation. If we pick up on day seven of creation we find that the Gods come down to earth and cause it to rain. Then they create man from the dust of the earth. Logically we could assume that the Gods created Adam and Eve through procreation after eating fruit of the earth.

Posted (edited)

Brigham answered this one in clear detail, and he said he learned this answer from Joseph, and the Saints sadly rejected the answer. It's a shame for everyone. Especially for those that reject it.

 

Instead you get the theories of men like "he's the son of monkeys who became human-like." Nice one. Reject BY and embrace Darwin. That'll get you far.

Edited by iamse7en
Posted

Only Brigham answered this one, and he said he learned this answer from Joseph, and the Saints sadly rejected the answer. It's a shame for everyone. Especially for those that reject it.

 

Instead you get the theories of men like "he's the son of monkeys who became human-like." Nice one. Reject BY and embrace Darwin. That'll get you far.

 

Agreed.  Why is it so hard to believe Brigham might have had it right?  It's not like the rest of Mormonism is filled with hugely popular beliefs.  What's one more new controversial revelation, even  if it did go to Brigham Young?

Posted
Instead you get the theories of men like "he's the son of monkeys who became human-like." Nice one. Reject BY and embrace Darwin. That'll get you far

 

Except that's not Darwin.  You're making the same mistake Russell M Nelson in the PEW interview.  In Evolution, like produces like and members of a species do not morph.

Posted

The scriptures are silent so we must look to the physical evidence. This tells us that they were likely born of parents just like you and me, and placed in the garden at some point. Or, perhaps the story of the garden is an allegory of the temple, and they simply were the first humans to make covenants.

Posted

Except that's not Darwin.  You're making the same mistake Russell M Nelson in the PEW interview.  In Evolution, like produces like and members of a species do not morph.

Since when? While it is true that evolution does not have humans evolving from monkeys, speciation does occur as part of evolutionary theory. Sounds like you have been imbibing from the fount of micro evolution which is not real evolutionary science.

Posted

Since when? While it is true that evolution does not have humans evolving from monkeys, speciation does occur as part of evolutionary theory. Sounds like you have been imbibing from the fount of micro evolution which is not real evolutionary science.

 

To be accurate that is a false dichotomy microevolution is just evolution below the species level. While macroevolution is just evolution at the species level.

Posted

The scriptures are silent so we must look to the physical evidence. This tells us that they were likely born of parents just like you and me, and placed in the garden at some point. Or, perhaps the story of the garden is an allegory of the temple, and they simply were the first humans to make covenants.

 

I think it is that Adam & Eve were the first people to have the Priesthood of God.

Posted

The scriptures are silent so we must look to the physical evidence. This tells us that they were likely born of parents just like you and me, and placed in the garden at some point. Or, perhaps the story of the garden is an allegory of the temple, and they simply were the first humans to make covenants.

 

Or maybe Brigham got it right and they were brought here and placed in the garden in an "unmortal" (as another poster called it) state and when they partook of the fruit of this earth became mortal and were ushered into a world full ofmortal creaturesof great diversity.  Some even very similar.

Posted

Or maybe Brigham got it right and they were brought here and placed in the garden in an "unmortal" (as another poster called it) state and when they partook of the fruit of this earth became mortal and were ushered into a world full ofmortal creaturesof great diversity.  Some even very similar.

Except that contradicts what the Scriptures say.

Posted

Born=Created . In the same sense that a building is constructed today ie. preplanning, design parameters , blueprints, material collection, information/instructions as to the steps to be taken ,etc. , a child is born.

I don't hold to the " poof" method of origins .

Posted (edited)

Or maybe Brigham got it right and they were brought here and placed in the garden in an "unmortal" (as another poster called it) state and when they partook of the fruit of this earth became mortal and were ushered into a world full ofmortal creaturesof great diversity.  Some even very similar.

 

Or maybe Brigham got it REALLY right, and Adam and Eve were resurrected beings from a previous creation, who agreed to take off their immortality in order to provide mortal bodies for spirit children....Nah, that's just too weird compared to the other teachings of Mormonism.  We'd better label it heresy and pretend the idea doesn't exist.... :nea:

 

And maybe Joseph got it right when he said

 

This earth was organized or formed out of other planets which were broke up and remodeled and made into the one on which we live.

http://www.lds.org/ensign/1989/01/the-restoration-of-major-doctrines-through-joseph-smith-the-godhead-mankind-and-the-creation

And this could explain some part of the fossil record and the age of the pieces of the earth...Nah.

Edited by JLHPROF
Posted (edited)

Or maybe Brigham got it REALLY right, and Adam and Eve were resurrected beings from a previous creation, who agreed to take off their immortality in order to provide mortal bodies for spirit children....Nah, that's just too weird compared to the other teachings of Mormonism.  We'd better label it heresy and pretend the idea doesn't exist.... :nea:

 

And maybe Joseph got it right when he said

And this could explain some part of the fossil record and the age of the pieces of the earth...Nah.

I have no problem with LDS doctrine. Just some peoples (mis)interpretation of it.

 

That would be a miracle inded if all those planets were destroyed and the materials transported in just the right order to make it appear that life evolved here.

Edited by thesometimesaint
Posted

So is there official doctrine on this topic? 

 

No, not in my personal opinion.  The whole subject is in flux.  The Bible is a Standard Work, but unlike the other Standard Works its contents are not considered to always accurately reflect doctrine.  I suspect there are a large number of Mormons on both sides of this question, and it is not one that Correlation would be willing to allow the General Authorities to speak out upon as it is way beyond "milk" and we do not want to violate the most important policy of Correlation namely "milk before meat" and the PA department's aversion to having GAs speak on such subjects under the rubric that most people are swine, therefore you don't cast pearls before the people.

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...