Jump to content

The Origin Of (Our) Species


Coreyb

Recommended Posts

I've never claimed it was genetic, as I have no idea as to the genetics of any omnipotent, omnipresent, omniscient, immortal, indestructible, being.

At what point does man call man a man, and at what point does God call a man a man?

The more I discuss LDS theology, the harder it is to buy in to the concept that Mormonism view of diety is that He is omnipotent or indestructible. There are several exceptions to his all-powerfulness... things that God "can't" do without ceasing to be God. That belief surely seems to nullify his omniscience and indestructibility.

Link to post

The more I discuss LDS theology, the harder it is to buy in to the concept that Mormonism view of diety is that He is omnipotent or indestructible. There are several exceptions to his all-powerfulness... things that God "can't" do without ceasing to be God. That belief surely seems to nullify his omniscience and indestructibility.

 

Omnipotent does not mean indestructible.  It means that he can do anything that can be done, including breaking laws that would would nullify his Godhood.  Everything has consequences so he chooses not to do everything but it's not because he "can't" do everything. 

Edited by pogi
  • Upvote 1
Link to post

The church official teachings-1. Adam was the first man on the earth. There could have been no pre-adamites as they would have been classified as "man"(see 1909 Origin of man and reprinted in 2002 Ensign by the first presidency as official doctrine)2. There was no death on the earth before the fall of Adam and Eve. (see Gospel Principles)3. The temporal age of the earth is 7,000 years. This is the age of the earth since the fall till the end of the millennium. Because there was no death on the earth before the fall then none ofour earths life is older than the 6,000 years approximately.Those three points represent the official doctrine of the church.

Well then there is a major problem for the LDS church .

1: Adam and Eve as the original humans whonoriginated all humans some 6000 years ago with no others before them is demonstrably false

2: death on planet earth clearly has been going on for billions of years.

3: the earth is at least about 4 billion years old. Science has proven this beyond dispute. Life and death on this globe has been going on for a very long time. Homosapiens very much like us have been around for hundreds of thousands of years. Civilizations started springing up about 11,000 years ago.

Edited by Teancum
Link to post

Well then there is a major problem for the LDS church .

1: Adam and Eve as the original humans whonoriginated all humans some 6000 years ago with no others before them is demonstrably false

2: death on planet earth clearly has been going on for billions of years.

3: the earth is at least about 4 billion years old. Science has proven this beyond dispute. Life and death on this globe has been going on for a very long time. Homosapiens very much like us have been around for hundreds of thousands of years. Civilizations started springing up about 11,000 years ago.

Your points are all conjecture unprovable by science.

Link to post

Omnipotent does not mean indestructible. It means that he can do anything that can be done, including breaking laws that would would nullify his Godhood. Everything has consequences so he chooses not to do everything but it's not because he "can't" do everything.

And that explanation proves my point: God is not "all powerful" if God cannot do everything and/or anything without subsequently losing His alleged all-powerfulness.

I mean... I'm familiar with the BoM passages about this subject, but they are rather vague on the specifics. What type of act is there that God could commit that would possibly justify his losing his power?

The scripture says He cannot let Mercy rob Justice, or vice versa... but given that the Atonement is "infinite and eternal," Jesus's sacrifice ALREADY covers the human collateral damage on this world that results from ANYTHING heinous God could possibly do... Absolutely the worst crimes I could possibly imagine would be gratification of rampant lust (offering alleged men called as His prophets numerous women to marry and 'know,' numbering anywhere from handfuls to hundreds), OR the slaughter of entire populations of men, women, children, and cattle, OR even almost complete genocide of virtually the entire planet (save eight souls out of millions or billions), and still come out looking justifiable on the other side of it (they "were too wicked" and "deserved God's wrath," etc).

Nope... none of those count. God really can't do anything wrong, even when it violates the most sacred laws He's given us (at the minimun worst: to avoid killing or murdering others; at maximum best: to cleave unto one's spouse and forsake all others, to do unto others as we would have be done unto us, and to love one another as we love ourselves).

Unless, of course, you don't count slaughtering babies, children, women, and animals as killing, or somehow spin such acts of genocide into a compassionate act of 'love' or a warrented act of punishment (despite any age of accountability).

God's position is depicted as a no-lose scenario, since the scriptures rationalize horrific actions that He's ordered, because Mormons believe that "whatever God requires is right." When we try to visualize something so terrible that it could warrent God violating some ultimate law so bad it would merit Him losing all His power, it seems He's pretty much already done about the worst I can think of, yet we dismiss it because The Atonement ALREADY covers the enormous loss of life from extensive acts of genocide or the virtues of some men having numerous sexual partnersin simultaneous relationships. God literally gets away with murder.

So really... what could God not do that would be so horrible?

I know one answer that has been given in another thread, where it's alleged that God couldn't procreate in a certain way... that a male and a female would be absolutely required in the act of procreation of the human race (which, of course, is the topic of this thread).

So, apparently, if God cannot create children on His own, either he is a) not all-powerful, or b) we have to redefine the term "God" to include more than one entity--one that would include at least two people... There is some precident for that--after all, "God" can sometimes be used to refer to at least three entities (Father, Son, and Holy Ghost).

Problematically, the Godhead excludes a female corporeal figure... so if the term "God" includes at least one or more divine females, then "God" isn't a person at all... He/It is a cluster of people, some male, some female... some of whom are married to one another and who's couplings are procreative, and some who aren't married to one another and therefore aren't procreative... and then we're left with a very diluted version of what/whom the personage of "God" is, and who's "all-powerfulness" depends on the inclusion of at least four individuals (Father, Son, Holy Spirit, and Mother)--none of which would be all-powerful on his/her own.

Dunno if ANYONE could follow this rambling... lol. It's 3:20 a.m. and I can't sleep, so maybe I'll wake up and laugh at how incoherent I was typing on MD &D... maybe it will put you all to sleep as I'm hoping it does me! ;)

Edited by Daniel2
Link to post

Also: I find it so usual that some people are repulsed by the idea that God could have created the corporeal bodies of people through the process of evolving in and through the rich tapestry of all of God's living creation.

Why do we view then flora and fauna of our shared home as something "beneath" or "lower" than us? While we have typically interpreted Biblical passages to suggest that animals and plants are "lesser" forms of life in terms of intelligence or subservience, aren't they created from the same lifesource--the spark if creation, the power of the divinity--that binds and sustain all things? Is the "light/power of God" (whatever that animating force is) that imbues animals and plants any "less light" than that which animates our own crude bodies?

I wonder if God chuckles that humanity has misinterpreted the concept that "Man has dominion" to somehow mean we are so much different or better than the rest of his creation.

Instead of debasing the human race, what if acknowledging our mutual divine source with the rest of the universe elevates all of and everything into one cosmic and divine creation, of which we are God's crowning and most personal achievement?

Couldn't it be that we should celebrate and marvel at the intricate pattern and marvels of DNA, genetic "mutation" as an act of creation, a divine force that ingeniously unfolded as each new life advanced in its proper and appropriate time, as the earth and air and water and temperature and energy and light increased, and God's creation brightened, line upon line, precept on precept, here a little, there a little, a cultivating, tilling, budding, flowing, growing, birthing into existence the beauty and majesty and interconnectedness of ALL of his creation?

Now, excuse me... I have to go tend to the creative beauty of my 'evolving' town in Clash of Clans.... :D

Edited by Daniel2
  • Upvote 1
Link to post

Another nail in the coffin of Irreducible Complexity.

SEE http://news.sciencemag.org/biology/2015/03/researchers-may-have-solved-origin-life-conundrum

 

I know it isn't proof and not even if it crawled out of the test tube and shook Creationists hands they still wouldn't accept it.

Edited by thesometimesaint
Link to post

And that explanation proves my point: God is not "all powerful" if God cannot do everything and/or anything without subsequently losing His alleged all-powerfulness.

 

God cannot do the intrinsically impossible.  This does not imply any imperfection on his part, since a power that extends to every possibility must be perfect.  The intrinsically impossible is self-contradictory, and its mutually exclusive elements could only result in nothingness.

 

Let me make this clear.  To break certain laws and remain God is an intrinsic impossibility.  What you are saying is in effect the same as saying that God is not omnipotent because he cannot lift a rock so heavy that he cannot lift it.  The intrinsically impossible does not take away from the omnipotence of God.

 

You can judge the Almighty God for his actions that you pretend to understand from Biblical stories, but I would caution against it.  There are too many unknowns about those stories, and our perspectives are far too limited to make any sound judgment on the matter.  Trust that God's actions are ALWAYS perfectly merciful and perfectly just.  Our limited mortal perspectives might not always understand how, but his omniscience does.  You can trust, that in the eternal perspective, every living soul will get a square deal and fair shot and is perfectly loved by God.  You cannot make eternal judgements of justice and mercy from a mortal perspective.     

Edited by pogi
Link to post

Also: I find it so usual that some people are repulsed by the idea that God could have created the corporeal bodies of people through the process of evolving in and through the rich tapestry of all of God's living creation.

Why do we view then flora and fauna of our shared home as something "beneath" or "lower" than us? While we have typically interpreted Biblical passages to suggest that animals and plants are "lesser" forms of life in terms of intelligence or subservience, aren't they created from the same lifesource--the spark if creation, the power of the divinity--that binds and sustain all things? Is the "light/power of God" (whatever that animating force is) that imbues animals and plants any "less light" than that which animates our own crude bodies?

I wonder if God chuckles that humanity has misinterpreted the concept that "Man has dominion" to somehow mean we are so much different or better than the rest of his creation.

Instead of debasing the human race, what if acknowledging our mutual divine source with the rest of the universe elevates all of and everything into one cosmic and divine creation, of which we are gods crowning and most personal achievement?

Couldn't it be that we should celebrate and marvel at the intricate pattern and marvels of DNA, genetic "mutation" as an act of creation, a divine force that ingeniously unfolded as each new life advanced in its proper and appropriate time, as the earth and air and water and temperature and energy and light increased, and God's creation brightened, line upon line, precept on precept, here a little, there a little, a cultivating, tilling, budding, flowing, growing, birthing into existence the beauty and majesty and interconnectedness of ALL of his creation?

 

Now this I like

Link to post

Another nail in the coffin of Irreducible Complexity.

SEE http://news.sciencemag.org/biology/2015/03/researchers-may-have-solved-origin-life-conundrum

 

I know it isn't proof and not even if it crawled out of the test tube and shook Creationists hands they still wouldn't accept it.

Read your link. Not very impressive. I wouldnt call it nail in any coffin- your science hasnt even begun to answer how life inteligently assembles. All of the research right now is in creating scenarios that they think happened to create the common building blocks required for life to then assemble.

Call me when you guys actually do something truly novel.

Link to post

Atheism has been creeping into the church for some time. The teaching of Darwinian evolution has been just one of those atheistic teachings creeping into the church. One thing we can rely upon is the actual prophets and apostles to set us straight and tell us the lies of evolution and even print those beliefs in church publications making it out doctrine. The problem is that LDS continue to accept mans teaching over Gods.

How is the empirical evidence of the physical world man's teaching? As Thomas Paine said

"THE WORD OF GOD IS THE CREATION WE BEHOLD: And it is in this word, which no human invention can counterfeit or alter, that God speaketh universally to man."

Link to post

I am not sure why you keep posting videos about YEC. I am not a young earth creationist. I believe the universe is extremely old, perhaps even endlessly old.

 

This universe is not infinitely old. This universe came into being some 14 billion years ago. A long time to be sure, but not infinite. Our planet is some 4.5 billion years old.

SEE http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Age_of_the_Earth

Link to post

How is the empirical evidence of the physical world man's teaching? As Thomas Paine said"THE WORD OF GOD IS THE CREATION WE BEHOLD: And it is in this word, which no human invention can counterfeit or alter, that God speaketh universally to man."

"Empirical evidence" can indeed be nothing more than a well established series of tales, fairytales and fables.

Link to post

That which consistently gets published by the church.

 

I asked you for a useful definition. What is "consistently gets published"?

 

The "no blood before the Fall" is no longer published in new church manuals. 

"Global Flood" is not mentioned by any general authority. 

 

What is official church doctrine?

Link to post

I asked you for a useful definition. What is "consistently gets published"?

 

The "no blood before the Fall" is no longer published in new church manuals. 

"Global Flood" is not mentioned by any general authority. 

 

What is official church doctrine?

Manuals, scriptures, first presidency statements, etc. (consistently published,,,)

Link to post

Believe what you want, I already know that matter is eternal and cannot be created nor destroyed.

 

Just what I am observing with you, not to focus on you, but to point out what I see about you, and others like you.

It seems that in order to be faithful, you think that you need to be in lockstep with every teaching that every proceeded forth out of the mouth of prophets and apostles.  The problem with that is, on unsettled issues like these, they are constantly changing their positions, and the Church as a whole is never really taking a position on such things.  I recognized this a long time ago, and decided to formulate opinions of unsettled issues on my own based on my own research and the research of others, yet have those opinions be things that can be let go of in an instant when better information comes my way, or when the brethren take some very solid position on something.  Just because Joseph Fielding Smith made a statement here, or Bruce R. McConkie there, it makes those things well thought out opinions by people that we admire and revere, and that such things out to be taken very seriously and not dismissed out of hand.  In the end of the day, however, since those statements were made on unsettled topics, they do not hold the kind of authority that means that we are going to be banished from the Church or have our temple recommends taken away if we do not have those things as our beliefs.  The exception to this is where local, untrained or opinionated authorities take action against you for beliefs that go against those statements from authorities on unsettled doctrine, and that is a problem where local authorities go beyond their bounds, but is an exception.  And in cases of exceptions, you can deal with that simply by submitting to whatever their demands are to maintain your membership and not going against them while they are in office.  It is true that that could be called "unrighteous dominion" but you can never go wrong by submitting to authority until such time that the person is released from the office he was abusing.

Edited by DragonLancer
  • Upvote 1
Link to post

Believe what you want, I already know that matter is eternal and cannot be created nor destroyed.

 

Matter is not eternal. Though it is very longed lived. This universe is some 14 billion years old. Before then it was just an infinitely small and infinitely hot dot of energy. Some 100,000 Trillion, Trillion, Trillion, Trillion, Trillion years from now entropy will have won and this universe will dissolve to uniformly diffuse enegy.

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

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • Similar Content

    • By mfbukowski
      Mormons believe that the fall of Adam was "fortunate" and actually part of God's plan, since it gave us choice between good and evil and therefore able to merit praise for our actions and to overcome evil in our lives, or alternately follow a sinful path and cut ourselves off from our Father and make repentance harder, if not impossible in some cases.
      Without the choice to overcome temptation, we cannot overcome the "natural" or "carnal" tendencies within ourselves and attempt to become Christlike- many scriptures speak of "overcoming the world", and that is not possible without fully experiencing both the good and the bad within the world.
      The follower of Christ is to be IN the world but not OF the world.
      It appears that this idea varies from the view of Pope Francis in a recent interview.
      https://www.firstthings.com/web-exclusives/2018/01/deliver-us-from-dynamic-equivalence
      And at least from this article, it seems some scholars would come down more on the idea that we should be proactive in overcoming temptation rather than avoiding it.
      What do you think?
      Are there any defenders of Pope Francis here?
       
    • By Chrysblack2017
      The Daughters of MOTHER EVE
      of Latter-Day Saints
       
       
       
      1. We believe that God is a title that denotes more than one personage. Those personages are our Father and Mother in Heaven.
       
      2. We believe Jesus Christ is the Savior of Mankind and Mother Eve the Comforter of mankind.
       
      3. We believe that we were given the Sarahic1 Priestesshood in the pre-existence through Mother Eve.
       
      4. We believe that the Miriamic1 Priestesshood is to help prepare women to take on the duties of the Sarahic1Priestesshood.
       
      5. We believe that women should lead side by side and hand in hand with our brothers, husbands, and fathers.
       
      6. We believe that our duty and calling is separate and complimentary to the church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints.
       
      7. We believe that there should be no poor among us. To help the poor build a secure life with love and understanding. 
       
      8. We believe that poverty is instability in home ownership, food availability and job security.
       
      9. We believe that through personal accountability and community support we can achieve the fullest measure of our creation.
       
      10. We believe that holy script has been changed by false priests and evil transcribers to exclude and persecute those who were a different gender, race, nationality, and sexuality.
       
      11. We believe through objective thought and careful prayer we will be able to strip prejudice from ourselves and our beliefs.
       
      12. We believe that we are saved through Jesus Christ and we are here Because of the sacrifice of Mother Eve.
       
       
             1 These names were chosen in the same manner that The Melchizedek and the Aaronic Priesthood names were chosen.  Namely by calling them after Women that faithful to the Priestesshood, otherwise known as the Priestesshood after the Order of the Daughter of God.  
    • By Cold Steel
      Ordinarily I enjoy presentations by FairLDS, but recently I've been trying to make sense of Darwinian evolution and found this address by Stephen Peck. Entitled Why Evolution and LDS Thought are Fully Compatible, I thought there might be some relation between the title and the content. But if there is, I'm afraid I'm missing it. I'd hoped it might help me in some discussions with some atheists, also my understanding of the topic. On the one hand we LDS have a pronounced view of Adam, the Prince, the Ancient of Days, Michael the Archangel, Eve's Main Squeeze. The first man, who brought sin into the world and head of the first dispensation. 
      On the other, we have man existing supposedly for millions of years. Neanderthals, Lucy and the Taung Child. Completely indisputable, you can't argue with science! Only I didn't find anything useful in his address. Is evolution a cold, hard fact? If so, where does Adam come in? How old is the oldest writing extant? How do we know man has been here for millions of years? And how do we know Lucy and the Taung Child are related to man and not just some unrelated creatures? 
      Can anyone help me out?
       
       
       
    • By Analytics
      Several people have noticed a pattern—when the tension between mainstream society and the Church becomes too large, the Church modifies to ease the tension.  The two most obvious examples are polygamy and the racial priesthood ban.  Many people think that society will continue to become more and more accepting of same-sex families as a normal, healthy variation of families, leading to more and more tension between mainstream society and the Church.  Several predict this tension will be resolved by the Church updating its position on same-sex families.  Others say this will never happen and anybody who thinks in might doesn’t understand the clear doctrine behind the Church’s current position.
       
      I’d like to discuss a counter-argument to this: the theory of evolution.  Apparently, a BYU professor and 84.26% of the participants on this message board think that faithful members of the Church can believe in evolution.  On the one hand, I agree—faithful Mormons can believe anything they want—as long as they pay their tithing, don’t smoke or drink, attend church, and don’t make waves, they can believe pretty-much anything they want about anything and still get a temple recommend.  But on the other hand, that doesn’t mean their beliefs are consistent with doctrine.
       
      The doctrinal point in question has been called by Bruce R. McConkie "The Three Pillars of Eternity."  In his own words:
       
      The three pillars of eternity, the three events, preeminent and transcendent above all others, are the creation, the fall, and the atonement. These three are the foundations upon which all things rest. Without any one of them all things would lose their purpose and meaning, and the plans and designs of Deity would come to naught.
       
      If there had been no creation, we would not be, neither the earth, nor any form of life upon its face. All things, all the primal elements, would be without form and void. God would have no spirit children; there would be no mortal probation; and none of us would be on the way to immortality and eternal life.
       
      If there had been no fall of man, there would not be a mortal probation. Mortal man would not be, nor would there be animals or fowls or fishes or life of any sort upon the earth. And, we repeat, none of us would be on the way to immortality and eternal life.
       
      If there had been no atonement of Christ, all things would be lost. The purposes of creation would vanish away. Lucifer would triumph over men and become the captain of their souls. And, we say it again, none of us would be on the way to immortality and eternal life.
       
      https://speeches.byu.edu/talks/bruce-r-mcconkie_three-pillars-eternity/
       
      That’s classic Mormon doctrine and is absolutely central.
       
      Here is a quote from the book Straight Answers to Tough Gospel Questions by Joseph Fielding McConkie:
       
      Q: Is the theory of evolution compatible with the doctrine of the Fall?

      A: No. We can tug, twist, contort, and sell our birthright, but we cannot overcome the irreconcilable differences between the theory of organic evolution and the doctrine of the Fall.
       
      This is of course true, and is supported by multiple books of scripture, the temple ceremony, and multiple generations of latter-day Prophets.  Despite all of that, thanks to our modern sensibilities 84.26% agree that Mormons can believe in evolution.
       
      So if Mormon doctrine can evolve enough to make room for organic evolution, why can’t it evolve in a way that makes room for same-sex families?  The change to the core doctrine to make room for evolution is by far the more drastic.
    • By stephenpurdy
      I am quite on board with just about everything that LDS church leaders are teaching in terms of doctrine at this time .... except maybe one thing.
       
      It may surprise you what it is. 
       
      I have often seen among Latter-Day-Saints this idea that Adam and Eve (particularly Eve) was quite aware of why her decision to eat the fruit of the knowledge of good and evil was necessary.  I don't know if I agree with this concept that she had it all figured out.
       
      Of course, I agree that the fall was what I call an, "unfortunate necessity", however, I do not agree that either Adam or Eve understood exactly why this was the case. 
       
      Is there any scripture that points to the idea that they acted out of wisdom in that situation they were placed in?
       
      -Stephen
×
×
  • Create New...