Tiki Posted July 24, 2014 Posted July 24, 2014 (edited) What do you think about this?https://www.lds.org/ensign/1994/01/i-have-a-question?lang=eng"President Spencer W. Kimball taught that the term man in the story of the Creation refers to “a complete man, which is husband and wife.” (Ensign, Mar. 1976, p. 71.) The detailed description of the creation of Adam and Eve describes their relationship as “corresponding to each other” and prescribes the ideal of unity between a man and woman. The significance of this phrase “help meet” is that the woman is a creation who is a fitting and proper companion for Adam because she is like him and corresponds to him. This concept is further solidified by the description of the creation of woman as being formed from the rib of Adam—a rib being a metaphor for a person corresponding to Adam. Modern prophets have taught that the creation of woman from the rib of the man is to be taken figuratively. (See Spencer W. Kimball, Ensign, Mar. 1976, p. 71.)"So Eve evolved from a smelly ape? Did she grovel in the dirt for grubs and swing in the trees? Did she walked stooped over like her parents from whom she evolved? Did she grunt and howl and show her teeth and shake her head like a chimpanzee?Give it up. It's insulting.You think too freely. Edited July 24, 2014 by Tiki
teddyaware Posted July 24, 2014 Posted July 24, 2014 So Eve evolved from a smelly ape? Did she grovel in the dirt for grubs and swing in the trees? Did she walked stooped over like her parents from whom she evolved? Did she grunt and howl and show her teeth and shake her head like a chimpanzee?Give it up. It's insulting.You think too freely.While reading your laugh out loud descriptions of the apelike ancestors of Mother Eve, I was reminded of the following video that kind of puts this whole debate into vivid perspective.
Tiki Posted July 24, 2014 Posted July 24, 2014 Well, here are Adam's first words just after he evolved. Notice the surprised look on his mother's face:http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=Cdmqn9JIuzc
teddyaware Posted July 24, 2014 Posted July 24, 2014 Well, here are Adam's first words just after he evolved. Notice the surprised look on his mother's face: http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=Cdmqn9JIuzc Very funny! If and when the Church is totally taken over by the evolutionists, one wonders if this scene will be canonized. 1
thesometimesaint Posted July 24, 2014 Posted July 24, 2014 The problems seemingly avoided by the local flood theory only open up other problems. Such as: IF the flood was local, then God's promise to not kill using a flood again, has been broken many times over. If the flood was local then Genesis 6-9 has to be thrown out because the details are written as from the point of view of an eyewitness to the events, which are claimed to be world wide (numerous times). If the flood was local, then every reference to the event has to be re-interpreted, which changes the meaning. For example, Jesus referenced it as a world wide event, in relation to the end of days, and if the flood was only a local event, then logically the end of days must also be only a local event. So, problems seemingly avoided only creates new ones. God never promised not to kill again using water. All we have is thousands of years later tales of a supernatural event. Whatever the truth is that is all we have. I think if we become overly literal as to what our interpretation of what Jesus said we run a high risk of Bibliolatry.
thesometimesaint Posted July 24, 2014 Posted July 24, 2014 I don't think that is entirely true. Science is always issuing corrections and changes. I would say some is some not so much. Science is supposed to change as we learn more and more. So are the Saints if we truly believe our Articles of Faith.
thesometimesaint Posted July 24, 2014 Posted July 24, 2014 So Eve evolved from a smelly ape? Did she grovel in the dirt for grubs and swing in the trees? Did she walked stooped over like her parents from whom she evolved? Did she grunt and howl and show her teeth and shake her head like a chimpanzee?Give it up. It's insulting.You think too freely. The Apes smell just about as well as their cousins the Humans. The Apes are no more fond of grubbing in the dirt for insects than their cousins the Humans. Their preferred food is ripe fruit. The first true hominids didn't walk stooped over. Eve was the first female of our kind.SEE
thesometimesaint Posted July 24, 2014 Posted July 24, 2014 Very funny! If and when the Church is totally taken over by the evolutionists, one wonders if this scene will be canonized. It is so much better to have Eve made from one of Adam's ribs.
MormonFreeThinker Posted July 24, 2014 Author Posted July 24, 2014 Give it up. It's insulting.You think too freely. I simply follow the evidence, not what I like. I don't like the Theory of Evolution, but the evidence points to it. https://www.lds.org/ensign/1994/01/i-have-a-question?lang=eng"President Spencer W. Kimball taught that the term man in the story of the Creation refers to “a complete man, which is husband and wife.” (Ensign, Mar. 1976, p. 71.) The detailed description of the creation of Adam and Eve describes their relationship as “corresponding to each other” and prescribes the ideal of unity between a man and woman. The significance of this phrase “help meet” is that the woman is a creation who is a fitting and proper companion for Adam because she is like him and corresponds to him. This concept is further solidified by the description of the creation of woman as being formed from the rib of Adam—a rib being a metaphor for a person corresponding to Adam. Modern prophets have taught that the creation of woman from the rib of the man is to be taken figuratively. (See Spencer W. Kimball, Ensign, Mar. 1976, p. 71.)"
danielwoods Posted July 24, 2014 Posted July 24, 2014 (edited) God never promised not to kill again using water. All we have is thousands of years later tales of a supernatural event. Whatever the truth is that is all we have. I think if we become overly literal as to what our interpretation of what Jesus said we run a high risk of Bibliolatry. The event wasn't just killing using water. It was killing using a flood. If the flood was local, then God has broken his promise many times. Second, it's a covenant, not just a "tale". Let's look at it again: Gen. 9:8 Then God said to Noah and to his sons with him: 9 “I now establish my covenant with you and with your descendants after you 10 and with every living creature that was with you—the birds, the livestock and all the wild animals, all those that came out of the ark with you—every living creature on earth. 11 I establish my covenant with you: Never again will all life be destroyed by the waters of a flood; never again will there be a flood to destroy the earth.”12 And God said, “This is the sign of the covenant I am making between me and you and every living creature with you, a covenant for all generations to come: 13 I have set my rainbow in the clouds, and it will be the sign of the covenant between me and the earth. 14 Whenever I bring clouds over the earth and the rainbow appears in the clouds, 15 I will remember my covenant between me and you and all living creatures of every kind. Never again will the waters become a flood to destroy all life. 16 Whenever the rainbow appears in the clouds, I will see it and remember the everlasting covenant between God and all living creatures of every kind on the earth.”17 So God said to Noah, “This is the sign of the covenant I have established between me and all life on the earth.” So, one can say that we are running the risk of Bibliolatry, but realize what you are saying, that God has broken his promise since there have been many local floods that have killed people since this event supposedly took place. In my mind the greater risk is calling something that God calls truth, false. Edited July 24, 2014 by danielwoods
MormonFreeThinker Posted July 24, 2014 Author Posted July 24, 2014 (edited) If the flood was local, then God has broken his promise many times. No he didn't, see http://www.oldearth.org/broken_promise.htmhttp://www.oldearth.org/floodlist.htm Edited July 24, 2014 by MormonFreeThinker
thesometimesaint Posted July 24, 2014 Posted July 24, 2014 The event wasn't just killing using water. It was killing using a flood. If the flood was local, then God has broken his promise many times. Second, it's a covenant, not just a "tale". Let's look at it again: Gen. 9:8 Then God said to Noah and to his sons with him: 9 “I now establish my covenant with you and with your descendants after you 10 and with every living creature that was with you—the birds, the livestock and all the wild animals, all those that came out of the ark with you—every living creature on earth. 11 I establish my covenant with you: Never again will all life be destroyed by the waters of a flood; never again will there be a flood to destroy the earth.”12 And God said, “This is the sign of the covenant I am making between me and you and every living creature with you, a covenant for all generations to come: 13 I have set my rainbow in the clouds, and it will be the sign of the covenant between me and the earth. 14 Whenever I bring clouds over the earth and the rainbow appears in the clouds, 15 I will remember my covenant between me and you and all living creatures of every kind. Never again will the waters become a flood to destroy all life. 16 Whenever the rainbow appears in the clouds, I will see it and remember the everlasting covenant between God and all living creatures of every kind on the earth.”17 So God said to Noah, “This is the sign of the covenant I have established between me and all life on the earth.” So, one can say that we are running the risk of Bibliolatry, but realize what you are saying, that God has broken his promise since there have been many local floods that have killed people since this event supposedly took place. In my mind the greater risk is calling something that God calls truth, false. Millions of people have died because of floods. Just maybe it your understanding of what the Scriptures say that is the problem.
ERayR Posted July 24, 2014 Posted July 24, 2014 Millions of people have died because of floods. Just maybe it your understanding of what the Scriptures say that is the problem. Or maybe it is your understanding of what the Scriptures say that is the problem.
thesometimesaint Posted July 24, 2014 Posted July 24, 2014 (edited) Or maybe it is your understanding of what the Scriptures say that is the problem. Always possible. But as we are not Scripture literalists we need outside information in order to judge. I'm content to leave Noah a Prophet of God, who did what God told him to do. Try and save what he could. He built a boat. He accurately reported on what he saw. A massive regional flood. Edited July 24, 2014 by thesometimesaint
ERayR Posted July 24, 2014 Posted July 24, 2014 Always possible. But as we are not Scripture literalists we need outside information in order to judge. I'm content to leave Noah a Prophet of God, who did what God told him to do. Try and save what he could. He built a boat. He accurately reported on what he saw. A massive regional flood. If it works for you.
thesometimesaint Posted July 24, 2014 Posted July 24, 2014 If it works for you. I don't insist anyone must believe as I do.
MormonFreeThinker Posted July 24, 2014 Author Posted July 24, 2014 Or maybe it is your understanding of what the Scriptures say that is the problem. Haven't you read the new gospel topics? People think that the scriptures are clear about certain topics, but in fact they are not clear. We need to be open minded about other possibilities.
ERayR Posted July 24, 2014 Posted July 24, 2014 (edited) Haven't you read the new gospel topics? People think that the scriptures are clear about certain topics, but in fact they are not clear. We need to be open minded about other possibilities. Great advice. I actually agree with it. Now look in the mirror and repeat the bolded part of your post ten times. If you don't get the message repeat exercise for as long as it takes. Edited July 24, 2014 by ERayR
MormonFreeThinker Posted July 24, 2014 Author Posted July 24, 2014 (edited) Great advice. I actually agree with it. Now look in the mirror and repeat the bolded part of your post ten times. If you don't get the message repeat exercise for as long as it takes. I am open minded, but for the moment I see that the evidence strongly points to Evolution and death before the Fall. I used to be believe in ID Creationism, No Death before the Fall, and a Global Flood, but I changed by mind because of the evidence. What about you? Did you once believe in Evolution? Edited July 24, 2014 by MormonFreeThinker
ERayR Posted July 24, 2014 Posted July 24, 2014 (edited) I am open minded, but for the moment I see that the evidence strongly points to Evolution and death before the Fall. I used to be believe in ID Creationism, No Death before the Fall, and a Global Flood, but I changed by mind because of the evidence. What about you? Did you once believe in Evolution? Yes. I still believe in micro-evolution. Edited July 24, 2014 by ERayR
MormonFreeThinker Posted July 24, 2014 Author Posted July 24, 2014 Yes. I still believe in micro-evolution. That is not my question, you know I am talking about macro-evolution.
ERayR Posted July 24, 2014 Posted July 24, 2014 (edited) That is not my question, you know I am talking about macro-evolution. yes. Edited July 24, 2014 by ERayR
MormonFreeThinker Posted July 25, 2014 Author Posted July 25, 2014 Yes. I still believe in micro-evolution. Define micro-evolution, every ID creationist has his own definition. What do you mean by small changes? How do you define "kind"? Do you believe in evolutionary change at or above the level of species?
thesometimesaint Posted July 25, 2014 Posted July 25, 2014 (edited) Creationists are a "kind" of pseudoscience believer.http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2014/07/21/creationist-ken-ham-calls-to-end-space-program-because-aliens-are-going-to-hell-anyway/ Edited July 25, 2014 by thesometimesaint
ERayR Posted July 25, 2014 Posted July 25, 2014 Define micro-evolution, every ID creationist has his own definition. What do you mean by small changes? How do you define "kind"? Do you believe in evolutionary change at or above the level of species? Define obtuse. Now look in a mirror. Repeat from above.Haven't you read the new gospel topics? People think that the scriptures are clear about certain topics, but in fact they are not clear. We need to be open minded about other possibilities. Great advice. I actually agree with it. Now look in the mirror and repeat the bolded part of your post ten times. If you don't get the message repeat exercise for as long as it takes. 1
Recommended Posts