Adam Born Or Created

[thesometimesaint]

Every bit of evidence doesn't fit the old earth model only. All the evidence also fits the young earth model.

The point is once Gods word is questioned, a person is no longer basing their faith on Gods word, but are simply making up their own religion. Which is fine if that is the goal. Remember what the first deception was?

 

No. The trees themselves show a older earth than the young earthers want.

See dendrochronology

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dendrochronology

 

For other aspects see:

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Evidence_against_a_recent_creation

 

I have no problem with Gods word. I do have a problem with some peoples interpretation of it. IE; Joseph Smith is said to have placed the earth at 2.5 Billions of years old. Quiite a bit older than 7000 years don't you think? I have plenty of concerns of how he arrived at that number but for the times he lived in it was much better than the date Archbishp Ussher used for his reading of the Bible.

 

See http://bycommonconsent.com/2007/08/27/2555000000/

 

See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Ussher

 

The first lie was that A&E wouldn't die. Things have been living and dying on this old earth for about 3.5 Billions of years.

[danielwoods]

No. The trees themselves show a older earth than the young earthers want.

See dendrochronology

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dendrochronology

 

For other aspects see:

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Evidence_against_a_recent_creation

 

I have no problem with Gods word. I do have a problem with some peoples interpretation of it. IE; Joseph Smith is said to have placed the earth at 2.5 Billions of years old. Quiite a bit older than 7000 years don't you think? I have plenty of concerns of how he arrived at that number but for the times he lived in it was much better than the date Archbishp Ussher used for his reading of the Bible.

 

See http://bycommonconsent.com/2007/08/27/2555000000/

 

See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Ussher

 

The first lie was that A&E wouldn't die. Things have been living and dying on this old earth for about 3.5 Billions of years.

 

Not really the thread for a protracted discussion on the age of the earth, so I'll leave it at that. 

 

However, the first lie is related to the beginning of Adam and Eve. 

 

Gen.3:3 Now the serpent was more subtil than any beast of the field which theLord God had made. And he said unto the woman, Yea, hath God said, Ye shall not eat of every tree of the garden?

 

 

The first deception was to cause them to doubt what God said, his word. 

[thesometimesaint]

Actually Lucifer(No I don't believe in talking snakes, or in talking a$$es either) is stating a truth there. God did say not to eat the fruit of every tree. He did make a lone exception for the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil.

[Stone holm]

Wasn't there a...nevertheless choose for yourself...somewhere in that dialogue?

[BCSpace]

Any in conjunction with being a literal son of God?  Adam was surely formed in his father's womb according to evolution, but the Bible makes a distinction between the descendents of Adam being the literal sons of their fathers while Adam was merely formed in the womb of someone.  It also dovetails with LDS doctrine that Jesus is the only literal son of the Father (begotten: spirit and flesh), at least in the context of this world.

Mormon teachings, especially those of Brigham Young suggest otherwise

 

In terms of doctrine, I'm not aware of any.  As for BY, you'd have to point something out that was published by the Church and not say, merely in the JoD.  I think it's unreasonable to accept that BY ever taught an "Adam God theory"  because it contradicts some established doctrines such as Jesus being the only Begotten of the Father and that resurrected beings don't die.

[BCSpace]

Adam was surely formed in his father's womb

Quoted for the (I'm assuming unintended) funnies.

 

Yes.  I recently saw again the movie Junior with Arnold Schwarzenegger and Danny DeVito.

 

[Stone holm]

In terms of doctrine, I'm not aware of any.  As for BY, you'd have to point something out that was published by the Church and not say, merely in the JoD.  I think it's unreasonable to accept that BY ever taught an "Adam God theory"  because it contradicts some established doctrines such as Jesus being the only Begotten of the Father and that resurrected beings don't die.

Only Begotten is short for Only Begotten in the flesh which has been interpreted to mean in mortality, Adam was an unmortal being when born.

[BCSpace]

Only Begotten is short for Only Begotten in the flesh which has been interpreted to mean in mortality, Adam was an unmortal being when born.

 

Seeing as how man was created and then placed into the garden state (2 Nephi 2:22), I hypothesize that Adam was born a mortal to homo sapiens and then placed into the garden to await the Fall.

 

In addition, a resurrected being has flesh so there is no mortality constraint that I can see if one doesn't like my hypothesis.

Edited October 22, 2013 by BCSpace

[Stone holm]

Seeing as how man was created and then placed into the garden state (2 Nephi 2:22), I hypothesize that Adam was born a mortal to homo sapiens and then placed into the garden to await the Fall.

 

In addition, a resurrected being has flesh so there is no mortality constraint that I can see if one doesn't like my hypothesis.

Well that would be consistent with what BY taught that Adam was born elsewhere and placed in the Garden. And I am not arguing for the Adam God theory which is something much different.

[JLHPROF]

In terms of doctrine, I'm not aware of any.  As for BY, you'd have to point something out that was published by the Church and not say, merely in the JoD.  I think it's unreasonable to accept that BY ever taught an "Adam God theory"  because it contradicts some established doctrines such as Jesus being the only Begotten of the Father and that resurrected beings don't die.

 

That is exactly what Brigham Young taught, in over 15 separate discourses and the Temple ceremony (and it didn't contradict Jesus as the Only Begotten at all).

[Solitario]

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

The Scientific evidence shows clearly Adam was not created on the spot...........

[ERayR]

The Scientific evidence shows clearly Adam was not created on the spot...........

 

Please post this irrefutable evidence.

[thesometimesaint]

Wasn't there a...nevertheless choose for yourself...somewhere in that dialogue?

Yes there is. It is part of Agency.

[cursor]

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

 

"Dust of the earth" ... literally born in the flesh ... as was Eve.

[thesometimesaint]

Please post this irrefutable evidence.

 

There is no spot of dry ground(dust) that exactly equals the human body.

Edited October 22, 2013 by thesometimesaint

[BCSpace]

In terms of doctrine, I'm not aware of any.  As for BY, you'd have to point something out that was published by the Church and not say, merely in the JoD.  I think it's unreasonable to accept that BY ever taught an "Adam God theory"  because it contradicts some established doctrines such as Jesus being the only Begotten of the Father and that resurrected beings don't die.

 

That is exactly what Brigham Young taught, in over 15 separate discourses and the Temple ceremony (and it didn't contradict Jesus as the Only Begotten at all).

 

Actually no it isn't.  Not even the Nutall statement about the temple ceremony shows Adam God.

 

As you may have noticed, I subscribe to "Adam Sr. Adam Jr."  I came to this realization on my own, but found that Elden Watson had already done the work to show it and it's considered a legitimate approach to BY's statements:

 

http://en.fairmormon.org/Adam-God

http://eldenwatson.net/7AdamGod.htm

 

Of course either way you slice it, neither Adam God or Adam Sr. Adam Jr. are supported by the doctrine of the Church though the nice thing about Adam Sr. Adam Jr is that it doesn't conflict as much with it as Adam God does.

[ERayR]

There is no spot of dry ground(dust) that exactly equals the human body.

 

You are good at red herrings.  The statement was: "The Scientific evidence shows clearly Adam was not created on the spot...........".  I asked for the irrefutable evidence for such a statement.

 

By the way if he means what I think he does I agree with him.  I just think such a bald pronouncement should be backed up with some evidence.

[Solitario]

Please post this irrefutable evidence.

Evolution of Humans is obvious.....

[ERayR]

Evolution of Humans is obvious.....

 

Why, because you say so?  There are some intelligent people to whom it is not so obvious. 

[ERayR]

You are good at red herrings.  The statement was: "The Scientific evidence shows clearly Adam was not created on the spot...........".  I asked for the irrefutable evidence for such a statement.

 

By the way if he means what I think he does I agree with him.  I just think such a bald pronouncement should be backed up with some evidence.

 

In light of a subsequent post I can see I don't agree with him.  I thought he might be referring to an instantaneous ex-nihilo  creation.

[Solitario]

Why, because you say so?  There are some intelligent people to whom it is not so obvious. 

whose fault is that when overwhelming evidence is everywhere on the planet; 95% of reputable universities, medical institutions teach it as fact, all medical science is empowered by basic biological evolution facts....

[Stone holm]

Actually no it isn't.  Not even the Nutall statement about the temple ceremony shows Adam God.

 

As you may have noticed, I subscribe to "Adam Sr. Adam Jr."  I came to this realization on my own, but found that Elden Watson had already done the work to show it and it's considered a legitimate approach to BY's statements:

 

http://en.fairmormon.org/Adam-God

http://eldenwatson.net/7AdamGod.htm

 

Of course either way you slice it, neither Adam God or Adam Sr. Adam Jr. are supported by the doctrine of the Church though the nice thing about Adam Sr. Adam Jr is that it doesn't conflict as much with it as Adam God does.

This is a sidetracking argument. The Adam God theory which postulated that Adam was a celestial being who shed his celestial status to become the mortal Adam, is not the same as the teaching that Adam was sired by Heavenly Father and conceived and birthed by Heavenly Mother in a non mortal state and placed in the garden of Eden. The Adam God theory was renounced or denounced, depending on your historical view, decades ago, the other teaching, to my knowledge has never been so disclaimed. So please quit bringing up the Adam God theory as a straw man to knock down, nobody is arguing it. Just get a copy of the discourses of Brigham young and read for yourself.

[Stone holm]

Why, because you say so?  There are some intelligent people to whom it is not so obvious.

No because nearly all of the credible biologists say so and the fossil record backs them up.

[Bill “Papa” Lee]

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

He was created...his earthy body. So not he was not (other than spirit) born of heavenly parents in the flesh. "For dust thou art, and unto dust Ye shall return.

[cdowis]

No because nearly all of the credible biologists say so and the fossil record backs them up.

 

http://www.mormondialogue.org/topic/62016-human-skull-discovery/

 

Once again, it appears that the interpretation of the fossil record has been challenged by recent discoveries.  The fossel record does not "speak", it is subject to interpretation.

 

I understand the difference between fact and opinion.