Science VS Religion

[_Fortigurn]

Yes, point well-taken. However, for Mormons, I think they have to first take Adam and Eve as the literal parents of all the humans on this planet at this time. They also believe that Adam and Eve existed in North America, even Missouri, for that matter.

Yes, point taken.

What is your interpretation of Adam and Eve, Fortigurn? I know you are a Christian. I would be very interested. Were they real people, living together in a state of bliss before the Fall?

Yes, for a given value of 'bliss'.

Are they the (physical) parents of the whole human race, literally?

No. In fact the text of Genesis 4 demonstrates that they could not have been. It's ironic that the marriage of Cain has been identified for centuries by non-believers as a clear Biblical statement that Adam and Eve and their immediate family were not the only human inhabitants of the planet (and therefore not the first humans), and that believers have historically attempted to explain this very clear statement away.

It wasn't until the late 19th century that science demonstrated that the Biblical text as it stands is accurate - if Adam and Eve existed during the timeframe indicated in the Bible, they most certainly were not the only human inhabitants of the planet, and were not the first humans.

Being a christian, where does your faith conflict with today's science, if at all?

I would say that it contradicts where it appeals to the supernatural. That, of course, is for a given value of 'contradicts', and 'supernatural'.

[_Fortigurn]

i lol'ed when i first heard about where Joseph Smith prophecied where adam and eve where created. and likewise the location of the garden of eden.

I wonder how you prophesy something which happened over 5,000 years ago?

[_gramps]

Yes, point well-taken. However, for Mormons, I think they have to first take Adam and Eve as the literal parents of all the humans on this planet at this time. They also believe that Adam and Eve existed in North America, even Missouri, for that matter.

Yes, point taken.

What is your interpretation of Adam and Eve, Fortigurn? I know you are a Christian. I would be very interested. Were they real people, living together in a state of bliss before the Fall?

Yes, for a given value of 'bliss'.

Are they the (physical) parents of the whole human race, literally?

No. In fact the text of Genesis 4 demonstrates that they could not have been. It's ironic that the marriage of Cain has been identified for centuries by non-believers as a clear Biblical statement that Adam and Eve and their immediate family were not the only human inhabitants of the planet (and therefore not the first humans), and that believers have historically attempted to explain this very clear statement away.

It wasn't until the late 19th century that science demonstrated that the Biblical text as it stands is accurate - if Adam and Eve existed during the timeframe indicated in the Bible, they most certainly were not the only human inhabitants of the planet, and were not the first humans.

Being a christian, where does your faith conflict with today's science, if at all?

I would say that it contradicts where it appeals to the supernatural. That, of course, is for a given value of 'contradicts', and 'supernatural'.

Thank you. Were the other humans then living alongside Adam and Eve subject to death? Were Adam and Eve at one time of their existence in the Garden, not subject to death? Need one be the literal offspring of Adam and Eve to be called the children of God, in some literal sense? (that's probably not clear, but maybe you can figure out what I'm getting at, or I can try again).

Again, I am glad you are being patient with me. I am hampered a little bit by coming from a Mormon background with certain words, concepts and phrases already understood within a Mormon framework.

Maybe you could lay out your idea of the creation story, the fall, the need for a savior, etc. I hope you also can sense that I in no way want to fight with you. I am very interested however in how a Christian works through all this confusing stuff. I'm happy to be taught.

Cheers.

[_gramps]

i lol'ed when i first heard about where Joseph Smith prophecied where adam and eve where created. and likewise the location of the garden of eden.

You might like this. I found it in my files recently. Copies in my possession.

Letter to Eugene Thompson from Joseph Anderson, Secretary to the First Presidency
Dated: August 24, 1971

“Referring to the quotation you submit relative to a discussion between President Joseph Fielding Smith and Dr. James E. Talmage, it would seem that this is hearsay. However, under direction of the brethren, I am pleased to send you herewith a statement by the First Presidency of the Church, at that time Presidents Joseph F. Smith, John R. Winder, and Anthon H. Lund, which appeared in the Improvement, volume 13, pages 75 to 81, on this very question of the origin of man. This will give you the position of the Church as of that time, and there has been no change.”

(the quotation submitted)
Oral History of BYU, #17
Harvey Fletcher, p. 11

You know they’re not always agreeing in the Twelve on some of these things, particularly when it deals with science. He (now referring to Brother Widtsoe) said brother Joseph Fielding Smith and brother Talmage used to have it pretty hot sometimes, and he said that brother Talmage, see he talked about fossils and that was part of his subject as a geologist, went down to Adam-ondi-aman where the alter of Adam is supposed to be and he had a pick and picked around through it and finally found a fossil right in the cement of this altar. He found two or three of them and brought them up and put them in a bag and brought them home. He said he came back at (sic) one of the meetings of the Twelve, and he said, “Now brother Joseph, I understand that you thoroughly believe and are very sure that the first man on earth was Adam, the first life was Adam.” He said, “I certainly do believe that.” He said, “Well, what about these?” Then he handed out the fossils, and said, I found these in the altar.”

Funny story, anyway, whether hearsay, or not.

[_Fortigurn]

Thank you. Were the other humans then living alongside Adam and Eve subject to death?

Sure.

Were Adam and Eve at one time of their existence in the Garden, not subject to death?

I believe so.

Need one be the literal offspring of Adam and Eve to be called the children of God, in some literal sense? (that's probably not clear, but maybe you can figure out what I'm getting at, or I can try again).

No.

Again, I am glad you are being patient with me. I am hampered a little bit by coming from a Mormon background with certain words, concepts and phrases already understood within a Mormon framework.

Any time.

Maybe you could lay out your idea of the creation story, the fall, the need for a savior, etc. I hope you also can sense that I in no way want to fight with you. I am very interested however in how a Christian works through all this confusing stuff. I'm happy to be taught.

Thanks, I appreciate that. Feel free to pick a fight if you want one though. I'll see what I can do about writing up my understanding of Genesis 1-4. I'll preface all this by saying that it's the Biblical pattern that God deals with representative communities (Adam and Eve and their family, the faith community called 'the sons of God' in Genesis 6, Noah and his family, Abraham and his family, the Israelite nation, etc), not with the entire population of the earth. That's an important part of the framework.

[_Roger Morrison]

I've always considered science to be the friend of religion, at least as far as the LDS Church is concerned. What many believers do unfortunately, is confuse nonscience presented as science with actual science.

Hi BC-S, i remember that idea expressed 50+ years ago by some LDS noteable as: "Mormonism is the ground upon which true religion & true science meet..." or some such prose. To a 20 something inexperienced, impressionable convert that was a "WOW!" revelation. Later i debated/discussed that idea with a Regional Rep who considered himself a 'scientist'. His concluding rejoinder was something to the affect, "...obviously you (I) don't have THE faith to understand....."

That LDSism claims to embrace "all truth" is another statement made to impress the ignorant--and it does so, impress that is. Only a fool would claim their church embraced "lies"... LDSism may not be all it claims, or pretends, but it does influence, and manipulate well with half-truths and innuendo. As do most other theologically based 'religions'.

BC, will you please list several "scientific truths" that are exclusively LDS? Or, that base their "Faith" differently than other sects? Seems they all, well most, subscribe to "The Fall", "Atonement", "Resurection", "Life-after-death in Heaven" as well as seeing humankind in need of redemption outside of their own ability to 'reform'. What "science" bases, or supports in the slightest any of those suppositions?

"The way, the truth and the light," is not found in Judeo-Christianism. It is gained line upon line, precept upon precept. Whenever and wherever humanoids use their "God" given faculties to seek, they will find.

Might inspiration, or revelation, play a role in discovery? Quite likely, but not as generally understood in religious circles of blind faith and misplaced belief... Warm regards, Roger