Teancum Posted April 6, 2015 Posted April 6, 2015 I disagree. The Atonement does not work without a Fall of some kind and in scripture all the best doctrinal preaching about the Atonement ties it to the Fall. That is because you are totally indoctrinated with a literalistic view. Others may not be shackled by this.
cinepro Posted April 6, 2015 Posted April 6, 2015 Not to rain on anyone's parade, but before we get too excited about what Elder Holland may or may not have been saying, let's keep in mind what he has said...
JLHPROF Posted April 6, 2015 Posted April 6, 2015 That is because you are totally indoctrinated with a literalistic view. Others may not be shackled by this. Which is a fancy way of saying we believe in our religion, others do not.So what? Which is your belief. Scripture may or may not be accurate. One's canon is another heresy. Yes, but as a MORMON, I believe that MORMON scripture and MORMON teachings are accurate. If I didn't I wouldn't be a MORMON.How else am I supposed to view things? As a Catholic? I'm not Catholic. Mormonism requires a fall to have happened. Mormonism requires an atonement to redeem us. Both these events are described as literal events in scripture. Believe them or don't, but they are part of Mormonism. Why should I doubt my own faith?
cinepro Posted April 6, 2015 Posted April 6, 2015 Suppose for a second that there was no Adam or Eve. Would humanity still need saving from sin, based on your observations? The other option would be for God to have just created a world in a "fallen" state. He creates plants, animals and humans that are mortal, and can physically die (and the humans can sin). This may not go along with LDS teachings, but it's certainly the logical destination for those who are more scientifically inclined.
Teancum Posted April 6, 2015 Posted April 6, 2015 No, because I wouldn't exist or be a person at all. If there is a redemption there must be something to be redeemed from and some reason I fell. Either that or God created a fallen being in which case He is kind of a jerk. Think this through. You call God a jerk if he created a fallen being. Yet in the Adam and Eve scenario he created beings that he knew would fall, and in LDS thought HAD TO FALL. How come this God is not a jerk as well. But yea you would exist because if Adam and Eve were real and your agreeing with others that non spirit children of God humans existed for a long time some of us had to descend from them. Given both our ornery natures you and I likely came from them.
Teancum Posted April 6, 2015 Posted April 6, 2015 Which is a fancy way of saying we believe in our religion, others do not.So what? Yes, but as a MORMON, I believe that MORMON scripture and MORMON teachings are accurate. If I didn't I wouldn't be a MORMON.How else am I supposed to view things? As a Catholic? I'm not Catholic. Mormonism requires a fall to have happened. Mormonism requires an atonement to redeem us. Both these events are described as literal events in scripture. Believe them or don't, but they are part of Mormonism. Why should I doubt my own faith? It is always good to examine indoctrinated beliefs with a rational mind. Are you afraid where that might lead you? 1
mfbukowski Posted April 6, 2015 Posted April 6, 2015 Thanks But this still does not answer my question about current humans. Are they all descended from this special creation 6-8 thousand years ago. Or are many descended from the non special humanoid animals? Those without spirits from God? If not then what happened to all their descendants?A believer in this view could easily postulate that God caused all of the older lines to cease to exist.One could also postulate that since these creatures were not able to become civilized, they were not acceptable mates for more modern humans, and so naturally died off.I did not mean they did not have spirits, just a different kind of spirit. The bible speaks of some differentiation between the sons of God and the sons of men, so perhaps this view even arguably has scriptural support. Gen 6:2Arguably one could say that this was one of the causes of the flood- to kill off the remaining tribes which were not descendants of Adam.Remember, this is not my personal view. 1
Calm Posted April 6, 2015 Posted April 6, 2015 (edited) Human nature is sufficient to make all of us Adams and Eves to fall eventually. As a metaphor, it's really quite eloquent. As a literal story, not so much. But animal nature is not sinful so at some point in evolving, mankind must have moved from a not accountable for their actions state to an accountable one or whatever else causes the same actions that would have in the past been seen as amoral/sinless to become immoral/sinful. I know of those who see this time of evolution as being metaphorically represented by Adam and Eve's Fall at a particular time, but there had to be specific individuals at some point. Edited April 6, 2015 by calmoriah 1
Gray Posted April 6, 2015 Posted April 6, 2015 (edited) But animal nature is not sinful so at some point in evolving, mankind must have moved from a not accountable for their actions state to an accountable one or whatever else causes the same actions that would have in the past been seen as amoral/sinless to become immoral/sinful. I know of those who see this time of evolution as being metaphorically represented by Adam and Eve's Fall at a particular time, but there had to be specific individuals at some point. Arguably accountability is a factor of intelligence and self awareness. Agressive/violent animal behavior is quite similar to bad human behavior in most aspects (animals rape, kill, abuse, steal, etc). But most animals lack that degree of self-awareness, even while displaying some forms of morality and social policing, particularly among animals that live in groups. The thing about how evolution works is there can be no first two members of any species. The transition is much more gradual. And we're really not that different from the other human-like species that we competed with hundreds of thousands of years ago. The lines are too blurry to point to any specific Homo Sapiens Model 1.0. And there have been more "people" on this earth than just our species. Edited April 6, 2015 by Gray
JLHPROF Posted April 6, 2015 Posted April 6, 2015 It is always good to examine indoctrinated beliefs with a rational mind. Are you afraid where that might lead you? Oh, I know exactly where THAT leads. I prefer: Proverbs 3:5Proverbs 28:26D&C 1:19-202 Nephi 28:31"The best way to obtain truth and wisdom is not to ask from books, but to go to God in prayer, and obtain divine teaching." Joseph Smith Revelation, not my limited understanding, reason, or the wisdom of any man. 1
ERayR Posted April 6, 2015 Posted April 6, 2015 Interesting. I would like to read it. Listen to it here: https://www.lds.org/general-conference/watch/2015/04?lang=eng&vid=4154894180001&cid=10 From about 6:45 to about 7:30
ERayR Posted April 6, 2015 Posted April 6, 2015 It is always good to examine indoctrinated beliefs with a rational mind. Are you afraid where that might lead you? Whose rational mind? Mine or yours? While I have no doubt that both are rational we come at the problem form very different points of view. So what may sound rational to you can seem to be not so rational from my pov.
ERayR Posted April 6, 2015 Posted April 6, 2015 But animal nature is not sinful so at some point in evolving, mankind must have moved from a not accountable for their actions state to an accountable one or whatever else causes the same actions that would have in the past been seen as amoral/sinless to become immoral/sinful. I know of those who see this time of evolution as being metaphorically represented by Adam and Eve's Fall at a particular time, but there had to be specific individuals at some point. Or else somewhere in macro-evolution 101 there were some erroneous assumptions made.
Gray Posted April 6, 2015 Posted April 6, 2015 (edited) Whose rational mind? Mine or yours? While I have no doubt that both are rational we come at the problem form very different points of view. So what may sound rational to you can seem to be not so rational from my pov. Good point. And rational decision making isn't always about "correct" beliefs, anyway. Cost/benefit analysis is rational too, from a certain point of view. /Obiwan Kenobe Edited April 6, 2015 by Gray
The Nehor Posted April 6, 2015 Posted April 6, 2015 (edited) That is because you are totally indoctrinated with a literalistic view. Others may not be shackled by this.I am not sure if you are being insulting or complimentary. Crass literalism is one of the hallmarks of the LDS faith. There is a real heaven, a real tangible God, real gold plates, real Angels, and a real physical resurrection. And, as was said with great fervor yesterday, a real Second Coming with people caught up into the clouds. Worrying about a garden story would be straining at a gnat. Edited April 6, 2015 by The Nehor 4
The Nehor Posted April 6, 2015 Posted April 6, 2015 It is always good to examine indoctrinated beliefs with a rational mind. Are you afraid where that might lead you?It is if you add in revelation. Of course if all you have is a hammer then everything takes on the appearance of a nail. 1
mnn727 Posted April 6, 2015 Posted April 6, 2015 No, that's scripture.Again, thats YOUR belief -- we do not believe in the inerrancy of scripture or the inerrancy of Prophets either - and thats been repeated by numerous prophets from Nephi down to President Monson. However I find many Mormons believe both are inerrant. 1
ERayR Posted April 6, 2015 Posted April 6, 2015 Again, thats YOUR belief -- we do not believe in the inerrancy of scripture or the inerrancy of Prophets either - and thats been repeated by numerous prophets from Nephi down to President Monson. However I find many Mormons believe both are inerrant. You are correct in saying that. It should be noted that we believe in the inerrancy of scripture or the inerrancy of Prophets as long as they agree with us.
Teancum Posted April 6, 2015 Posted April 6, 2015 Listen to it here: https://www.lds.org/general-conference/watch/2015/04?lang=eng&vid=4154894180001&cid=10 From about 6:45 to about 7:30 Just listened to the whole talk. Got it. Thanks
Teancum Posted April 6, 2015 Posted April 6, 2015 Whose rational mind? Mine or yours? While I have no doubt that both are rational we come at the problem form very different points of view. So what may sound rational to you can seem to be not so rational from my pov. Not mine or yours. Just the principles of rational and critical thinking.
ERayR Posted April 6, 2015 Posted April 6, 2015 Not mine or yours. Just the principles of rational and critical thinking. These principles still have to be applied from the pov of the observer and that is different from person to person.
Teancum Posted April 6, 2015 Posted April 6, 2015 These principles still have to be applied from the pov of the observer and that is different from person to person. Of course. Can you do it without out preconceived notions, doctrine or dogma? Can you ask what if what I have believed is in error? These are tough things to do... I understand that.
Calm Posted April 6, 2015 Posted April 6, 2015 Or else somewhere in macro-evolution 101 there were some erroneous assumptions made.I am focusing on implications if evolution of mankind is true, not if it is true.
JLHPROF Posted April 6, 2015 Posted April 6, 2015 Again, thats YOUR belief -- we do not believe in the inerrancy of scripture or the inerrancy of Prophets either - and thats been repeated by numerous prophets from Nephi down to President Monson. However I find many Mormons believe both are inerrant. This is not an issue of inerrancy.Whether I believe in Adam & Eve as literal people is part of my religion. According to Elder Holland it is part of the Mormon religion.So yes, my belief is in a literal Adam & Eve and Fall.And as an authorized representative of the Church who declared them literal in General Conference, it is also the belief of the Church. So do YOU have the right to a different belief. Of course you do. Just don't pretend that it's in keeping with Mormonism or authorized doctrine.I certainly have many beliefs that aren't in keeping with the Church. But I don't claim my beliefs to be in line with the Church. Members that don't believe in a literal Adam and Eve are likewise, not in harmony with the gospel as the Church believes. 1
Calm Posted April 6, 2015 Posted April 6, 2015 (edited) Arguably accountability is a factor of intelligence and self awareness. Agressive/violent animal behavior is quite similar to bad human behavior in most aspects (animals rape, kill, abuse, steal, etc). But most animals lack that degree of self-awareness, even while displaying some forms of morality and social policing, particularly among animals that live in groups. The thing about how evolution works is there can be no first two members of any species. The transition is much more gradual. And we're really not that different from the other human-like species that we competed with hundreds of thousands of years ago. The lines are too blurry to point to any specific Homo Sapiens Model 1.0. And there have been more "people" on this earth than just our species.This reminds me of the paradox of whether or not a person can ever reach a certain distance as he moves half the distance, then half of that, etc. etc. Is there a specific point in development where one could point to and say this is the first human who can commit sin or is it only possible to point to a time period and say within these years humans were born where they weren't fully accountable, but only partly and gradually got more and more accountable. Or during this time period most humans might be able to sense some sort of wrongness in their action, but would not be able to reason why and afterwards they could or some such thing.In some ways postulating a distinct creation for mankind makes for easier reasoning. PS: Zeno's Paradox (I am pretty impressed with myself as I remembered it as Zenock's but was certain that was wrong...over halfway right though ). Edited April 6, 2015 by calmoriah
Recommended Posts