LDS Freedom Forum

Thomas wrote:Then mankind cannot conceive the origins of life. The debate over evolution vs creationism is meaningless.

From some perspectives perhaps and I am in general agreement. However, I think that the conditions provided within the Various creation narratives are not there so much to tell you what creation is but to point in the direction of what creation is not. Thus anytime I see a statement which I believe is origined from God such as the creation accounts, I expect to find Satan somewhere in the wings with some sort of confusion to put individuals at odds with what God states is the case. Literally, I do expect that to be the case.

Thus what little I do know from these narratives I consider adequate to foundate a position of faith from so that I can recognize Satan's efforts at deception and take a stance against them; if nothing more than on a personal level.

Thus I have focused on the species issue. I do not believe there is any credence in any theory that would promulgate this particular theory and require that death occurred before Adam's fall. On those two points I can assuredly say that all theories that require those conditions are false. Thus for me the debate is not meaningless, but will surely produce no definitive answers in terms of where God came from but they can provide fodder for individuals to define the degree of faith that they may or may not possess.

Muerte Rosa wrote:What's an Ajax?

An Ajax? well...it's just another lower life form that some think may have been the evolutionary source of higher life forms such as monkeys.

brlenox wrote:

Thomas wrote:Then mankind cannot conceive the origins of life. The debate over evolution vs creationism is meaningless.

From some perspectives perhaps and I am in general agreement. However, I think that the conditions provided within the Various creation narratives are not there so much to tell you what creation is but to point in the direction of what creation is not. Thus anytime I see a statement which I believe is origined from God such as the creation accounts, I expect to find Satan somewhere in the wings with some sort of confusion to put individuals at odds with what God states is the case. Literally, I do expect that to be the case.

Thus what little I do know from these narratives I consider adequate to foundate a position of faith from so that I can recognize Satan's efforts at deception and take a stance against them; if nothing more than on a personal level.

Thus I have focused on the species issue. I do not believe there is any credence in any theory that would promulgate this particular theory and require that death occurred before Adam's fall. On those two points I can assuredly say that all theories that require those conditions are false. Thus for me the debate is not meaningless, but will surely produce no definitive answers in terms of where God came from but they can provide fodder for individuals to define the degree of faith that they may or may not possess.

Satan is involved at just about every level. Truth is a rare commodity.

Do you agree or disagree with Pres. McKay that evolution could be the way God created mans bodies?

I know that Bruce R. McKonkie and some other GAs have been strongly against this idea but that opinion has not been universally shared among the GAs

They won't make an official statement on it.

Muerte Rosa wrote:Are you just shooting for punch points???

Yeah well, I've been reduced to personal insinuations to hopefully regain my standing in the polls.

Thomas wrote:

brlenox wrote:

Thomas wrote:Then mankind cannot conceive the origins of life. The debate over evolution vs creationism is meaningless.

From some perspectives perhaps and I am in general agreement. However, I think that the conditions provided within the Various creation narratives are not there so much to tell you what creation is but to point in the direction of what creation is not. Thus anytime I see a statement which I believe is origined from God such as the creation accounts, I expect to find Satan somewhere in the wings with some sort of confusion to put individuals at odds with what God states is the case. Literally, I do expect that to be the case.

Thus what little I do know from these narratives I consider adequate to foundate a position of faith from so that I can recognize Satan's efforts at deception and take a stance against them; if nothing more than on a personal level.

Thus I have focused on the species issue. I do not believe there is any credence in any theory that would promulgate this particular theory and require that death occurred before Adam's fall. On those two points I can assuredly say that all theories that require those conditions are false. Thus for me the debate is not meaningless, but will surely produce no definitive answers in terms of where God came from but they can provide fodder for individuals to define the degree of faith that they may or may not possess.

Satan is involved at just about every level. Truth is a rare commodity.

Do you agree or disagree with Pres. McKay that evolution could be the way God created mans bodies?

I know that Bruce R. McKonkie and some other GAs have been strongly against this idea but that opinion has not been universally shared among the GAs

They won't make an official statement on it.

It has been years since I have read President McKay's material on evolution. If he in anyway embraces a cross species or death before fall paradigm then at this time I find myself unable to sanction such a perspective for myself.

I think you don't understand how species evolve into other species. It really doesn't matter anyway because we are not discussing the orgins of life at this point anyway.

The question about death before the fall is meaningless as well. Adam was not the first man. He may have been the first man on this planet but mankind existed before him. As man is God once was. That statement is church doctrine and can be found in the Lorenzo Snow manual.

Think about the e!ndowmemt and what has been done on other worlds. Did mankind exist before Adam or not?

Thomas wrote:I think you don't understand how species evolve into other species. It really doesn't matter anyway because we are not discussing the orgins of life at this point anyway.

Thus far I would guess that no one understands how species evolve. I have read research on the Madeira group of mice populations supposedly descended from a group introduced about 600 years ago and that research answers none of the cross species issues but it is a favorite of evolutionists.

Thomas wrote:The question about death before the fall is meaningless as well. Adam was not the first man. He may have been the first man on this planet but mankind existed before him. As man is God once was. That statement is church doctrine and can be found in the Lorenzo Snow manual.

Think about the e!ndowmemt and what has been done on other worlds. Did mankind exist before Adam or not?

Of course but the answer that appeals to me is that Adam is in no way an evolutionary product but is instead a product of two eternal celestial beings and those beings where once as Adam was, in that they were born of celestial beings etc.

brlenox wrote:

Thomas wrote:The question about death before the fall is meaningless as well. Adam was not the first man. He may have been the first man on this planet but mankind existed before him. As man is God once was. That statement is church doctrine and can be found in the Lorenzo Snow manual.

Think about the e!ndowmemt and what has been done on other worlds. Did mankind exist before Adam or not?

Of course but the answer that appeals to me is that Adam is in no way an evolutionary product but is instead a product of two eternal celestial beings and those beings where once as Adam was, in that they were born of celestial beings etc.

And where did those Celestial beings come from? The story of Adam and Eve and the fall and no death before the fall havenothkng to do with the origins of man.

Thomas wrote:

brlenox wrote:

Thomas wrote:The question about death before the fall is meaningless as well. Adam was not the first man. He may have been the first man on this planet but mankind existed before him. As man is God once was. That statement is church doctrine and can be found in the Lorenzo Snow manual.

Think about the e!ndowmemt and what has been done on other worlds. Did mankind exist before Adam or not?

Of course but the answer that appeals to me is that Adam is in no way an evolutionary product but is instead a product of two eternal celestial beings and those beings where once as Adam was, in that they were born of celestial beings etc.

And where did those Celestial beings come from? The story of Adam and Eve and the fall and no death before the fall havenothkng to do with the origins of man.

For myself, they have everything to do with creation and represent a pattern repeated over and over for eons of time. Now if you are inquiring concerning how are new animals species created I can even entertain the ideology that the "continuation of the seeds" implies far more that simply having the keys to the ongoing perpetuation of a single species of Gods, but in fact could be the keys to the creation of other eternal life forms. God creates nothing that in it's origins is mortal but all things of an eternal being are created to be eternal. Falls occur as a part of a process of maturation of which Adam and Eve and all animals and other lifeforms are involved.

I don't think "falls" are part of the normal process of creation. Think about he endowment some more. Do you think God would have commanded Adam and Eve to partake of the fruit at some point in time?

Why was God upset with Satan's interference and why did Satan complain about being condemned for what had been done in other worlds.

You and I may have been on some of those other worlds.

brlenox wrote:
Do you ever wonder jbalm, what these verses in scripture could imply:

Isaiah 29:14

14 Therefore, behold, I will proceed to do a marvellous work among this people, even a marvellous work and a wonder: for the wisdom of their wise men shall perish, and the understanding of their prudent men shall be hid.

1 Corinthians 1:19

19 For it is written, I will destroy the wisdom of the wise, and will bring to nothing the understanding of the prudent.

1 Corinthians 3:19
For the wisdom of this world is foolishness with God. For it is written, He taketh the wise in their own craftiness.

This theme pops often enough I consider it very probable that it is referring to those whom the world considers wise. Be it doctors, or lawyers, or scientists etc. it refers to those people that mankind has elevated to positions of wisdom in the eyes of mankind but that God will reveal in the end times as certainly not wise in the things of God...including creation, laws of physics etc.

Another scripture that has meaning for me is D & C 93 which describes the conditions of truth - Things as they WERE, things as they ARE, and Things as they WILL BE. Just as I think that most of Gods children are wrong for even judging themselves, as we only know who we are in the present, lacking knowledge of who we were in the preexistence and our future state of will be means we cannot make informed judgments such as God can without his insight; so it is with science. We can only know the laws of physics that apply to a world in a fallen state. Although in must be clear that an entirely different set of laws were operating prior to the fall. Thus while there are remnants of that earlier state from an entirely different eternal sphere of existance, it might be imprudent to evaluate them from the rules of this currect temporal state of the earth's sphere.

All truth being independent in the sphere (D & C 93) in which it is placed could imply that the eternal sphere of the earth would have an entirely different range of true principles that differ greatly from the present sphere of existence and will be different again when this sphere transitions to a terrestrial then celestial state. Just saying there are compelling reasons to leave the jury out on this matter. Science cannot be right in my mind with only 1/3 of the equation within their grasp, independent from the revelations of God which tehy tend to ignore.

Those scriptures, like most scriptures, can have many implications.

One of those implications is that if we lived our lives based solely on what religious leaders say, we'd still be living in the Stone Age, quaking in fear, every time the local shaman proclaimed that every solar eclipse, earthquake, flood, or drought meant that God was really pissed at us. Then we'd have to sacrifice animals and/or people so that God wouldn't be pissed anymore.

Let's say evolution was the way we came about.

Some from animals like deer who Have 1 stud of a male to 100 female. Polygamy.

And others from geese. 1 male 1 female and mate for life.

I would have to say Im a stud. The lady's like me. But as God has commanded me to mate like a goose I have.

If he commanded me to be myself I would.


But I don't belive in evolution as there are to many evidences that disprove the theory and timeline as they currently have it.

So I think it's just human nature to want monogamy or polygamy.
I think that just as in nature the animals who practice either are doing gods will.
And I think that if our own situation was correct God would ask it of us to practice polygamy again. A lack of males. Or lack of worthy males. Or to modivate unworthy males into stepping up their game.

As both deer and geese are not evil neither is one or the other ways of reproduction.

If asked of us to do it one way other other. To oppose gods will would make it evil or not.

Ezra wrote:Let's say evolution was the way we came about.

Some from animals like deer who Have 1 stud of a male to 100 female. Polygamy.

And others from geese. 1 male 1 female and mate for life.

I would have to say Im a stud. The lady's like me. But as God has commanded me to mate like a goose I have.

If he commanded me to be myself I would.


But I don't belive in evolution as there are to many evidences that disprove the theory and timeline as they currently have it.

So I think it's just human nature to want monogamy or polygamy.
I think that just as in nature the animals who practice either are doing gods will.
And I think that if our own situation was correct God would ask it of us to practice polygamy again. A lack of males. Or lack of worthy males. Or to modivate unworthy males into stepping up their game.

As both deer and geese are not evil neither is one or the other ways of reproduction.

If asked of us to do it one way other other. To oppose gods will would make it evil or not.

Evolution takes place when a certain trait fosters survival. For instance giraffes are horses with long necks. The long necks become a advantage for survival. Over time when drought hits, the shorter neck horses die and the longer neck ones breed. This happens over many thousands of generations and can be,seen in differing eviroments throughput the earth. Species adapt over time to there eviroment. Shorter necks are an advantage in grass lands and longer necks don't help.

The situation is fluid though. As eviroments change, a trait that helped in survival can become a hindrance and all the animals with the trait could die off.

Alll life forms on the earth experience mutations. Some can be advantageous and some may be disadvantageous. When eviroments change suddenly, then those with the advanteous trait reproduce while those others die off.

We can observe evolution take place in short amount of time with pesticides. Bed bugs were thought to be mostly erradicated. They have been treated with pesticides for about one hundred years. What has happened though is by mutation a small percentage of the bugs are immune to the pesticide so they survive and reproduce. Now after one humdred years of this sifting, all the bed bugs have this trait. That is only one hundred years.think about what can happen over billions of years.

When world wide changes in envirment occur that is when the greatest die off of species takes place.

One way this can happen to humans is during extreme drought. Some humans have intestines that are twice as long as others. They can survive on less food. If extreme drought hits they would be survivors while the others die off. The new trait is passed on to all survivors.

Mutation is constant and is a survival mechanism for life on this planet.

But

The long neck horse giraffes and the short neck both exist in the same place. So did the thousand year drought that created one somehow not happen for the other?

Look up coriolis effect.

It's the heating and cooling of the planet surface. Which determines the wind speed.
Earths rotation slows down at a very calculated rate. Due to the moons gravitational pull.
The moon is also moving farther from the earth. You can run the clock backwards with all this info and find in no way is the plants and animals on this earth as old as our all knowing scientist say.
They put there heads in the sand when there are facts that counter there theory.
coriolis effect
When they speak of millions of years ago we had constant wind speeds of 1000 miles an hour not to mention storm speed of 5000-10000 miles an hour. Good luck sustaining life on that planet,

Now back to my previous post on polygamy and me being a stud.

Ezra wrote:But

The long neck horse giraffes and the short neck both exist in the same place. So did the thousand year drought that created one somehow not happen for the other?

Look up coriolis effect.

It's the heating and cooling of the planet surface. Which determines the wind speed.
Earths rotation slows down at a very calculated rate. Due to the moons gravitational pull.
The moon is also moving farther from the earth. You can run the clock backwards with all this info and find in no way is the plants and animals on this earth as old as our all knowing scientist say.
They put there heads in the sand when there are facts that counter there theory.

When they speak of millions of years ago we had constant wind speeds of 1000 miles an hour not to mention storm speed of 5000-10000 miles an hour. Good luck sustaining life on that planet,

The long neck and short neck did not evolve in the same area.,the short necked zebras migrated back to the giraffe habitats when the drought subsided and grass was available. By the same princple, bed bugs that are not resistant to pesticide may exist as the dominate species in many parts of the world but pesticide resistant ones are dominant in the US and Europe.

The earth is not the only planet and we don't really know the age of it. In any case there is much that is unknown. Whether God controls the motion of the planet or if he set his hand once and let things devolope.

And the head gets Buried in the sand. coriolis effect. Dose that to the best of them.

By the way I'm open to either way as I don't know one way or the other.

I however lean towards creationism. As this require more faith in God. Which is a good thing.
And most atheists belive in evolution. They can't be wrong right?

:ymsick: s

Ezra wrote:By the way I'm open to either way as I don't know one way or the other.

I however lean towards creationism. As this require more faith in God. Which is a good thing.
And most atheists belive in evolution. They can't be wrong right?

How did God create himself? He was once a man.

Thomas wrote:I don't think "falls" are part of the normal process of creation. Think about he endowment some more. Do you think God would have commanded Adam and Eve to partake of the fruit at some point in time?

Why was God upset with Satan's interference and why did Satan complain about being condemned for what had been done in other worlds.

You and I may have been on some of those other worlds.

For myself I see continuity with Satan's complaint in verse 6 of Moses 4:

Moses 4:6
6 And Satan put it into the heart of the serpent, (for he had drawn away many after him,) and he sought also to beguile Eve, for he knew not the mind of God, wherefore he sought to destroy the world.

Satan was uninformed of what God the Fathers plans were as "he knew not the mind of God". His deference to what had been done on other words simply an effort to excuse his wrongful behavior by pointing out that the fruit had been given to other world prior.

I also think God knew what was going to occur and he was counting on Satan performing exactly as he did.

IF an atonement is required for all of the creations of God, which we are taught were redeemed as a result of the atonement, then clearly in my mind there is of necessity a fall. It is not necessary to redemm that which does not fall. The Fathers choice to offer up his Son and Christ choice to accept were not made lightly but indeed it was the only way whereby all the works of God's hand could be redeemed.

Finally, I do not believe that God would ever have commanded them to partake of the fruit. The whole principle of agency requires a knowledge of Good and Evil. The only way to gain that knowledge is to experiment upon the process of choosing. Thus agency must be exercised in partaking of the fruit. Were God to compel them to partake the fruit then he cannot hold them liable for their exercise of agency. In every creation there are spirit children who will not hear the voice of the Savior and the only way to sort those who cannot abide a celestial law out from the mix is to condemn all the spirit children as a whole and then to provide a means which those that hear his voice can accept and thus be selected back into the exalted fold of God's children. Thus by their own choice they are denied exaltation and God is exhonerated from any blame for any individuals fall.

These are my thoughts on the matter.

this quote is very peculiar:

"I had not been married scarcely five minutes, and made one proclamation of the Gospel, before it was reported that I had seven wives.... I am innocent of all these charges.... What a thing it is for a man to be accused of committing adultery, and having seven wives, when I can only find one. I am the same man, and as innocent as I was fourteen years ago; and I can prove them all perjurers."

—Joseph Smith, Jr., History of the Church


Why would Joseph have had occasion to claim that he had been accused of polygamy from the time that he had married Emma in January 1827? That was three years before the church was even officially established.

There are many things umkown to us. It can be fun to speculate on them and I believe is part of our growth to do so.

For all we know the world and all we can observe is like a giant holodeck for those familiar with the star trek series.

God may control the appearance of all matter and life and it could all be 6,000 years since it started running. He could make it appear as if it is billions of years old. Just another one the possibilities.

Chip wrote:this quote is very peculiar:

"I had not been married scarcely five minutes, and made one proclamation of the Gospel, before it was reported that I had seven wives.... I am innocent of all these charges.... What a thing it is for a man to be accused of committing adultery, and having seven wives, when I can only find one. I am the same man, and as innocent as I was fourteen years ago; and I can prove them all perjurers."

—Joseph Smith, Jr., History of the Church


Why would Joseph have had occasion to claim that he had been accused of polygamy from the time that he had married Emma in January 1827? That was three years before the church was even officially established.

Probably just a little bit of an exagration to signify how prolific the accusations had been against him.

Perhaps it was literal though as Joseph was persecuted from a young age when he told of his visions, before the church was ever organized.

jbalm wrote:
Those scriptures, like most scriptures, can have many implications.

One of those implications is that if we lived our lives based solely on what religious leaders say, we'd still be living in the Stone Age, quaking in fear, every time the local shaman proclaimed that every solar eclipse, earthquake, flood, or drought meant that God was really pissed at us. Then we'd have to sacrifice animals and/or people so that God wouldn't be pissed anymore.

It is interesting that you should see religious leaders as Neanderthalian in their ability to contribute to the exaltation of God's children. Of course I must agree with you when you include such uninspired sorts as shamans’ and witch doctors and such as are only exalted of men. However, it is into this same category that I must include Scientists, Doctors and Lawyers. These hold the exact same status, within reason, to the witch doctors and shamans of other societies being looked up to and revered after a fashion which is beyond the faith levels that these same people may choose to revere God.

However, ahead of this entire mix and sundry assortment of leaders of false principles is a set which make greater efforts to applying and teaching others concerning the proper forms of worship and advancement in the good graces of God. This group, the apostles and prophets and other servants of God are requisite with Christ's plan to make the atonement as efficacious as possible in the lives of all those who will abide his word. Thus the reason I see these verses as referencing a particular sort of leadership which is not inclusive of apostles and prophets from my perspectives.