Adam And The Apes

[Freedom]

Show me a verse in the scriptures where it says Adam is begotten of the Father in the flesh. This, to my knowledge, does not exist. This notion is conjecture. Only Jesus is begotten in the flesh based on the need to promote creationism. 

[mfbukowski]

In the quoted portion of Mark E Peterson's book that you posted, it says Jesus is the only begotten Son of God in mortality, meaning Christ's body of flesh and blood was born into this fallen, mortal world. Adam is not a second son of God born in mortality (Christ is the only one), reason being that when Adam was created (born) he was born in paradise as an immortal being of flesh and spirit (not flesh and blood). Adam fell into the world of mortality, he wasn't born into it. So Christ is the only son of God who was born into this fallen world where everything and everyone eventually dies.

First of all I didn't quote it.

That's funny- I thought we were all sons of God, and I don't know about you, but I was definitely born into mortality.

 

Yes, Jesus was the only one with an Immortal Father AND a mortal mother- I get that, but for the life of me I can't see how that is important.

 

The only way the distinction becomes important is IF and only if, Christ was different from Adam in some crucial respect- and having a mortal mother doesn't seem terribly important to me- perhaps because I do not understand why it IS important.

 

So just from that, I have to conclude that the idea that Adam was a literal physical son of God just doesn't make sense.

 

It essentially denies all of what makes Christ unique.

 

You start blurring that distinction, and you end up with the silly idea that we are all mortal sons of an immortal father and Christ loses his importance as the "only begotten".  You start confusing that and it all turns into shades of grey- "well he was more mortal" or "less mortal" or "kind of like us but not exactly" etc.  It just becomes a distinction without a real difference.

 

To me it just waters down the doctrine to the point of making it confused and meaningless.  This thread itself is proof of that idea.  "To me, it is a mass of confusion."

[teddyaware]

First of all I didn't quote it.

That's funny- I thought we were all sons of God, and I don't know about you, but I was definitely born into mortality.

 

Yes, Jesus was the only one with an Immortal Father AND a mortal mother- I get that, but for the life of me I can't see how that is important.

 

The only way the distinction becomes important is IF and only if, Christ was different from Adam in some crucial respect- and having a mortal mother doesn't seem terribly important to me- perhaps because I do not understand why it IS important.

 

So just from that, I have to conclude that the idea that Adam was a literal physical son of God just doesn't make sense.

 

It essentially denies all of what makes Christ unique.

 

You start blurring that distinction, and you end up with the silly idea that we are all mortal sons of an immortal father and Christ loses his importance as the "only begotten".  You start confusing that and it all turns into shades of grey- "well he was more mortal" or "less mortal" or "kind of like us but not exactly" etc.  It just becomes a distinction without a real difference.

 

To me it just waters down the doctrine to the point of making it confused and meaningless.  This thread itself is proof of that idea.  "To me, it is a mass of confusion."

I can see you are confused. But with regard to Christ being the only begotten of the Father in mortality, I see nothing confusing about that. And with regard to Adam being a son of God created (or born if you will) into a paradisiacal/immortal state, I see nothing confusing about that either.

While He dwelt in the mortal world Christ had the choice to live forever, through the power He inherited from His Father; or He could choose to die, through the weakness of the flesh He inherited from His mother.

It could be we that we are sons, in the flesh, of an immortal Father, but Adam is or later common ancestral father and He fell and became mortal. So Adam becoming fallen and mortal cancelled out the possibility of God passing His immortality on to us.

Edited January 18, 2014 by teddyaware

[mfbukowski]

While He dwelt in the mortal world Christ had the choice to live forever, through the power He inherited from His Father; or He could choose to die, through the weakness of the flesh He inherited from His mother.

OK fair enough- I see how your distinction works in your view, and it makes sense. I just disagree that there is a need for Adam to have been a physical son of God.

I see the story more as a parable about the fall of mankind from innocence, and how sin is related to death. I have no problem with evolution so there is no need for your belief in my view, but I can see how it works for you.

Just for the record, as far as how it "really happened", since that is unknowable, I think we all get to make up our own interpretations as guided by the spirit, the "Comforter" so we can all get to a state of comfort with out own explanations.

God teaches us all in the way each of us needs to learn- that's my view, so we can differ on interpretation without need for arguing about who is "right", since that is unknowable anyway.

I am just interested in whether or not a particular view is consistent, and now I see how yours works= thanks.

[Stone holm]

OK fair enough- I see how your distinction works in your view, and it makes sense. I just disagree that there is a need for Adam to have been a physical son of God.I see the story more as a parable about the fall of mankind from innocence, and how sin is related to death. I have no problem with evolution so there is no need for your belief in my view, but I can see how it works for you.Just for the record, as far as how it "really happened", since that is unknowable, I think we all get to make up our own interpretations as guided by the spirit, the "Comforter" so we can all get to a state of comfort with out own explanations.God teaches us all in the way each of us needs to learn- that's my view, so we can differ on interpretation without need for arguing about who is "right", since that is unknowable anyway.I am just interested in whether or not a particular view is consistent, and now I see how yours works= thanks.

I believe that Teddyware is stating Mormon beliefs consistent with our teachings.

[cinepro]

In the quoted portion of Mark E Peterson's book that you posted, it says Jesus is "the only begotten of the Father in mortality," meaning Christ's body of flesh and blood was born into this fallen, mortal world. Adam is not a second son of God born in mortality (Christ is the only one), reason being that when Adam was created (born) he was born in paradise as an immortal being of flesh and spirit (not flesh and blood). Adam fell into the world of mortality, he wasn't born into it. So Christ is the only son of God who was born into this fallen world where everything and everyone eventually dies.

 

So, why couldn't Adam and Eve have children in the Garden of Eden before the Fall?

Edited January 18, 2014 by cinepro

[Stone holm]

So, why couldn't Adam and Eve have children in the Garden of Eden before the Fall?

Because they hadn't fallen into the world of mortality yet, that didn't happen until they ate some real kick a-- fruit that a serpent turned them on to.

[cinepro]

Because they hadn't fallen into the world of mortality yet, that didn't happen until they ate some real kick a-- fruit that a serpent turned them on to.

 

But why did they need to "fall" to have kids? 

[Stone holm]

But why did they need to "fall" to have kids?

It's the fruit , silly.

[teddyaware]

So, why couldn't Adam and Eve have children in the Garden of Eden before the Fall?

I've often wondered about that one myself. As far as I know, that's never been revealed. I'll look it up and see if I can find something concrete before I start speculating and get myself into more trouble around here.

[teddyaware]

OK fair enough- I see how your distinction works in your view, and it makes sense. I just disagree that there is a need for Adam to have been a physical son of God.

I see the story more as a parable about the fall of mankind from innocence, and how sin is related to death. I have no problem with evolution so there is no need for your belief in my view, but I can see how it works for you.

Just for the record, as far as how it "really happened", since that is unknowable, I think we all get to make up our own interpretations as guided by the spirit, the "Comforter" so we can all get to a state of comfort with out own explanations.

God teaches us all in the way each of us needs to learn- that's my view, so we can differ on interpretation without need for arguing about who is "right", since that is unknowable anyway.

I am just interested in whether or not a particular view is consistent, and now I see how yours works= thanks.

I agree with you. Though I fear I may come off as a know-it-all at times, I'm keenly aware of the fact that I don't know it all. The truth is we're all, as Paul said, looking through a glass darkly."

 

The main point I've tried to convey on this thread is I think it's a not good idea to jump to conclusions on the whole creation thing. In the D&C the Lord tells us there's going to be a lot of surprises during the millennium when He reveals exactly how He did it. And He says the things that are going to be revealed are "things which no man knew." For this reason I believe it's wise to suspend judgment on the matter.

 

I also have a phobia when it comes to foot-in-mouth disease. I hate public humiliation, especially when that humiliation is precipitated by my saying I know something is true, only to it turn out I got it wrong. Ouch, that hurts!

Edited January 18, 2014 by teddyaware

[mfbukowski]

I believe that Teddyware is stating Mormon beliefs consistent with our teachings.

So do I - what's your point?

[mfbukowski]

I've often wondered about that one myself. As far as I know, that's never been revealed. I'll look it up and see if I can find something concrete before I start speculating and get myself into more trouble around here.

Trust me- there is no satisfactory explanation and the whole idea flies in the face of the idea that God gives us no commandment which we cannot fulfill.

 

I have never felt that those who believe that really thought it through.

[mfbukowski]

I agree with you. Though I fear I may come off as a know-it-all at times, I'm keenly aware of the fact that I don't know it all. The truth is we're all, as Paul said, looking through a glass darkly."

 

The main point I've tried to convey on this thread is I think it's a not good idea to jump to conclusions on the whole creation thing. In the D&C the Lord tells us there's going to be a lot of surprises during the millennium when He reveals exactly how He did it. And He says the things that are going to be revealed are "things which no man knew." For this reason I believe it's wise to suspend judgment on the matter.

Totally agree.

[Garden Girl]

 

The main point I've tried to convey on this thread is I think it's a not good idea to jump to conclusions on the whole creation thing. In the D&C the Lord tells us there's going to be a lot of surprises during the millennium when He reveals exactly how He did it. And He says the things that are going to be revealed are "things which no man knew." For this reason I believe it's wise to suspend judgment on the matter.

 

teddy...

This is one of my favorite scriptures and I ponder it often... it tells me that with all of our advancing science (which I believe is inspired), we still do not know fully, nor will we ever, until the Lord comes to reveal it and all the things that... no man knew...  That's a beautiful promise, and I look forward to it.

 

GG

[teddyaware]

So, why couldn't Adam and Eve have children in the Garden of Eden before the Fall?

So I've done some research, Yoda, and this is what I found: In 1993 Dallin Oaks taught that while in the garden Adam and his bride were in a transitional state of existence -- they had bodies of flesh and bone but no blood. So they weren't spirits, as they were in the pre-existence, and they weren't creatures of flesh and blood either. They were beings bodies of flesh and bone animated by spirit, not by blood.  Since it was God's design that His pre-existent spirit children be born into this fallen mortal world, so as to be tested, it would have been useless and counterproductive for Adam and Eve to have had the ability to bring the spirit children of the Father into a paradisiacal state of existence where no real testing could occur.

 

Elder Oaks went on to say that God deliberately gave Adam and Eve the commandment to multiply, knowing full well the commandment could not have fulfilled unless they fell from their transitional paradisiacal state. This set up a rationale for Adam to follow Eve into the fall because He knew that though his wife had violated the first commandment, to not partake of the fruit of the tree of knowledge, he further knew he could at least fulfill the second commandment by following Eve's lead into mortality where childbearing is possible.

Now here's the biggie:

10 And in that day Adam blessed God and was filled, and began to prophesy concerning all the families of the earth, saying: Blessed be the name of God, for because of my transgression my eyes are opened, and in this life I shall have joy, and again in the flesh I shall see God.

11 And Eve, his wife, heard all these things and was glad, saying: Were it not for our transgression we never should have had seed, and never should have known good and evil, and the joy of our redemption, and the eternal life which God giveth unto all the obedient.

 

What Eve seems to be saying here is that she and Adam were sterile while in the transitional state. They weren't able to have children because while in the transitional state their procreative organs were not fertile with seeds or eggs. So they had a choice: they could remain in the life of ease in Eden (transitional state) but basically accomplish nothing, or they could initiate the fall and become fertile so as to bring the spirit children of God into this fallen world to be tested, according to the will of God, and prepared for eternal glory. They wisely chose the latter and had lots of kids.

Edited January 18, 2014 by teddyaware

[teddyaware]

The main point I've tried to convey on this thread is I think it's a not good idea to jump to conclusions on the whole creation thing. In the D&C the Lord tells us there's going to be a lot of surprises during the millennium when He reveals exactly how He did it. And He says the things that are going to be revealed are "things which no man knew." For this reason I believe it's wise to suspend judgment on the matter.

 

teddy...

This is one of my favorite scriptures and I ponder it often... it tells me that with all of our advancing science (which I believe is inspired), we still do not know fully, nor will we ever, until the Lord comes to reveal it and all the things that... no man knew...  That's a beautiful promise, and I look forward to it.

GG

I love it too GG. Won't it be just flat out wonderful to have the Lord of all creation reveal to us precisely how He went about his incredible work of creation? I can just see it now as the secrets are revealed: In the vast throng there will be shouts of joy, shouts of astonishment, shouts of wonder, shouts of awe, shouts of pure joy, shouts of praise, shouts of deepest gratitude, and tear-filled shouts of endless love and adoration for the God of miracles who is the fount of all knowledge and blessings.

Edited January 18, 2014 by teddyaware

[cdowis]

What Eve seems to be saying here is that she and Adam were sterile while in the transitional state. They weren't able to have children because while in the transitional state their procreative organs were not fertile with seeds or eggs. 

 

 

I personally favor the idea that they were physically capable of having children (God gave them this commandment, knowing that they were sterile?), but they did not have the emotional capability to have physical intimacy.  They did not realize, for example, that they were naked.  

 

They were innocent,  like children, until they partook of the fruit.

Edited January 18, 2014 by cdowis

[teddyaware]

I personally favor the idea that they were physically capable of having children (God gave them this commandment, knowing that they were sterile?), but they did not have the emotional capability to have physical intimacy.  They did not realize, for example, that they were naked.  

 

They were innocent,  like children, until they partook of the fruit.

I agree. I also hold this as another possibility as well. My post was speaking of Dallin Oaks' 1993 explaination on this point.

[Freedom]

If we accept the story as an analogy, or a parable, there are multiple application

1) The story is an analogy of raising a family. They were children and eating the fruit is comparable to going through puberty. The caution to Adam and eve was a loving father explaining the facts of life

2) It is a temple vision and the creation of the earth is a parallel to the construction of the temple, and the introduction of Adam and Eve was that of a couple entering the temple to be sealed for all time and eternity. The temple does not use the creation story, rather the creation story is the temple ordinance. 

3) Adam and Eve existed outside the garden and were separated from the other proto-humans and placed in the garden in an altered state as the origins of the human species and eating the fruit returned them to a mortal state as the start of the human race. 

Edited January 19, 2014 by Freedom

[Tiki]

If we accept the story as an analogy, or a parable, there are multiple application

3) Adam and Eve existed outside the garden and were separated from the other pro-humans and placed in the garden in an altered state as the origins of the human species and eating the fruit returned them to a mortal state as the start of the human race. 

 

"separated from the other pro-humans" - fascinating!

I thought they were joined with that 1/3 host of heaven - the fallen angels or anti-humans - who tempt their children to believe they evolved from apes.  

[thesometimesaint]

"separated from the other pro-humans" - fascinating!

I thought they were joined with that 1/3 host of heaven - the fallen angels or anti-humans - who tempt their children to believe they evolved from apes.  

 

No just the ones that believe that God simply said alakazam 6000 years ago creating everything out of nothing just as we now see it.

[Tiki]

No just the ones that believe that God simply said alakazam 6000 years ago creating everything out of nothing just as we now see it.

 

The Church has never taught God created everything out of nothing. I believe it's Evolutionists who believe that.

Edited January 19, 2014 by Tiki

[Freedom]

The Church has never taught God created everything out of nothing. I believe it's Evolutionists who believe that.

Uh, no. Science demands that everything we how have came from pre-existing matter. 

[Stone holm]

The Church has never taught God created everything out of nothing. I believe it's Evolutionists who believe that.

Neither teach that.