Ex Nihilo Creation - Problems

[_CameronMO]

Can we have another example from the Bible of a commandment by God that we know he intended to be disobeyed?

"Thou shalt not kill"

"And it came to pass that the Spirit said unto me again: Slay him, for the Lord hath delivered him into thy hands;"

From the Bible. Not a rock.

[_subgenius]

Can we have another example from the Bible of a commandment by God that we know he intended to be disobeyed?

why? the presence of another or the absence would neither prove nor disprove either position. In fact the absence may prove the LDS position further, because this event was significant and singular in purpose...after that His "intention" no longer exists because of free-will.

I believe Christian minded LGBT consider the "go forth and multiply" and 1 Timothy 9-11...etc. to be commandments that were not "intended" to be obeyed.

[_subgenius]

Can we have another example from the Bible of a commandment by God that we know he intended to be disobeyed?

"Thou shalt not kill"

"And it came to pass that the Spirit said unto me again: Slay him, for the Lord hath delivered him into thy hands;"

what an excellent display of not having even a cursory knowledge of the scriptures....well done!

[_seven7up]

Elder Talmage, FAIRMORMON and 7up, don't seem to know what the Church doctrine on the subject is....let me help.

Talmage was just commenting about what the First Presidency wrote to the general authorities, which was this:

"Both parties [i.e., Elders Smith and Roberts] make the scripture and the statements of men who have been prominent in the affairs of the Church the basis of their contention; neither has produced definite proof in support of his views…
Upon the fundamental doctrines of the Church we are all agreed. Our mission is to bear the message of the restored Gospel to the people of the world. Leave geology, biology, archaeology and anthropology, no one of which has to do with the salvation of the souls of mankind, to scientific research, while we magnify our calling in the realm of the Church.
We can see no advantage to be gained by a continuation of the discussion to which reference is here made, but on the contrary are certain that it would lead to confusion, division and misunderstanding if carried further. Upon one thing we should all be able to agree namely, that presidents Joseph F. Smith, John Winder and Anthon Lund were right when they said: "Adam is the primal parent of our race."

So, who decides what church doctrine is? It isn't that Talmage, FAIR, and 7UP disagree with the Church. The First Presidency decided that there is no doctrine on this matter, as it remains an open question.

-7up

[_seven7up]

This says nothing about what God wanted from the situation.

It isn't that simple.

Perhaps God would like us to be perfectly obedient, and perfectly knowledgeable/wise by nature. However, we are not perfect spirits by nature. God gave commands based on the divine standard, knowing that we cannot live that divine standard.

In the video series, I believe I give an example of a piano being out of tune. God doesn't want the piano out of tune, but God knows that it is out of tune, and therefore God sets up to fix it.

The garden was a demonstration of a spiritual reality, that we were out of harmony with God and God knew it (and in LDS theology, we ourselves recognized that we were out of tune, which is why we agreed to God's plan.) For example, we were immature, ignorant and disobedient by nature, and therefore, we needed mortality in order to bring us into harmony with God.

So, while God perhaps would prefer/want a piano that is naturally complete and in tune, since that was not reality (except for Jesus), then he wanted to go about tuning the keys.

-7up

P.S. I covered this in the video series :

Part 1 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dHMuWB2xrvo
Part 2 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4ozuVPRKwp4
Part 3 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ga55WgUhQkc

[_Bazooka]

Elder Talmage, FAIRMORMON and 7up, don't seem to know what the Church doctrine on the subject is....let me help.

Talmage was just commenting about what the First Presidency wrote to the general authorities, which was this:

"Both parties [i.e., Elders Smith and Roberts] make the scripture and the statements of men who have been prominent in the affairs of the Church the basis of their contention; neither has produced definite proof in support of his views…
Upon the fundamental doctrines of the Church we are all agreed. Our mission is to bear the message of the restored Gospel to the people of the world. Leave geology, biology, archaeology and anthropology, no one of which has to do with the salvation of the souls of mankind, to scientific research, while we magnify our calling in the realm of the Church.
We can see no advantage to be gained by a continuation of the discussion to which reference is here made, but on the contrary are certain that it would lead to confusion, division and misunderstanding if carried further. Upon one thing we should all be able to agree namely, that presidents Joseph F. Smith, John Winder and Anthon Lund were right when they said: "Adam is the primal parent of our race."

So, who decides what church doctrine is? It isn't that Talmage, FAIR, and 7UP disagree with the Church. The First Presidency decided that there is no doctrine on this matter, as it remains an open question.

-7up

Here is the current Church doctrine on the subject:

The process by which mankind became mortal on this earth. The event is recorded in Gen. 2–4 and Moses 3–4. The Fall of Adam and Eve is one of the most important occurrences in the history of man. Before the Fall, there were no sin, no death, and no children. With the eating of the “forbidden fruit,” Adam and Eve became mortal, sin entered, and death became a part of life. Adam became the “first flesh” upon the earth (Moses 3:7), meaning that he and Eve were the first to become mortal. After Adam fell, the whole creation fell and became mortal. Adam’s Fall brought both physical and spiritual death into the world upon all mankind (Hel. 14:16–17).

http://www.LDS.org/scriptures/bd/fall-o ... e?lang=eng

That's very clear.
So now we have you, Talmage, FAIR and the First Presidency you referenced, all out of step with the current official position of the Church. Awesome.

[_seven7up]

Elder Talmage, FAIRMORMON and 7up, don't seem to know what the Church doctrine on the subject is....let me help.

Talmage was just commenting about what the First Presidency wrote to the general authorities, which was this:

"Both parties [i.e., Elders Smith and Roberts] make the scripture and the statements of men who have been prominent in the affairs of the Church the basis of their contention; neither has produced definite proof in support of his views…
Upon the fundamental doctrines of the Church we are all agreed. Our mission is to bear the message of the restored Gospel to the people of the world. Leave geology, biology, archaeology and anthropology, no one of which has to do with the salvation of the souls of mankind, to scientific research, while we magnify our calling in the realm of the Church.
We can see no advantage to be gained by a continuation of the discussion to which reference is here made, but on the contrary are certain that it would lead to confusion, division and misunderstanding if carried further. Upon one thing we should all be able to agree namely, that presidents Joseph F. Smith, John Winder and Anthon Lund were right when they said: "Adam is the primal parent of our race."

So, who decides what church doctrine is? It isn't that Talmage, FAIR, and 7UP disagree with the Church. The First Presidency decided that there is no doctrine on this matter, as it remains an open question.

Here is the current Church doctrine on the subject:
The process by which mankind became mortal on this earth. The event is recorded in Gen. 2–4 and Moses 3–4. The Fall of Adam and Eve is one of the most important occurrences in the history of man. Before the Fall, there were no sin, no death, and no children. With the eating of the “forbidden fruit,” Adam and Eve became mortal, sin entered, and death became a part of life. Adam became the “first flesh” upon the earth (Moses 3:7), meaning that he and Eve were the first to become mortal. After Adam fell, the whole creation fell and became mortal. Adam’s Fall brought both physical and spiritual death into the world upon all mankind (Hel. 14:16–17).

That's very clear.
So now we have you, Talmage, FAIR and the First Presidency you referenced, all out of step with the current official position of the Church. Awesome.

But it isn't clear. You have to get rid of all previous assumptions. Evolution is a similar issue.

Let's say that God took billions of years to create the Earth (and even possibly create through evolution), then the Earth arrives at the point in progression whereby God decides He is ready to place his spiritual children into physical bodies. Then let's say that at that point God ordains a paradisaical state where there is no death, because only then was the creation considered "very good" and habitable in order for God to enact His plan. Perhaps that point is when the History of the Earth begins concerning "how mankind became mortal on this Earth" and when Adam became the "primal parent of our race".

Now, I don't know if this is really how it all went down. This is just an example of dissolving our assumptions.

-7up

[_Bazooka]

I'm not assuming anything.

I'm simply quoting the doctrine, which clearly states that prior to Adam "the whole of creation" did not experience spuritual or physical death.

[_huckelberry]

A few days back I was coming down with the flue and feeling grumpy and made a broad dismissal of some Christian statement about salvation, Feeling better now I find I feel a bit guilty about the oversimplified dismissal. Though I do not like Chic comics I have a little common belief there. I do believe we the human family, are in bondage to evil in this life and most grow away from that trap or become condemned by it. I believe that Jesus and his atonement is the necessary foundation for humanity to successfully do that and fulfill the purpose God created us for.

Our Faith and salvation is not a simple statement of I believe but is a turning of our life so that with God we become that desired combination of free choice and a capability to love and care about others. The idea that faith is a life not a statement of believing (or saying you believe when your action say you do not) is a longstanding broad based view of Christian faith.

I also believe that though conscious belief along with prayer and worship is a central aspect of Gods dealing with humans I do not believe that peoples connection to God and the atonement is limited to conscious believers. I think the church has a role of helping connect all sorts of people to the hope of God. I may wish that in the long run all are saved. I think the idea of purgatory represents part of that hope. However I respect evil enough to believe there are people who build lives deeply enough at odds with God that hell or destruction is the result.

[_subgenius]

I'm not assuming anything.

I'm simply quoting the doctrine, which clearly states that prior to Adam "the whole of creation" did not experience spuritual or physical death.

not true...and not doctrine.
Officially the church does not take a position on this matter - ergo - not doctrine.

Some leaders have taught what you claim here but others have not and have even debated the issue with each other, by teaching that the "death" of plants and animals is compatible with LDS doctrine. See also the debate between Elder Roberts and then-Elder Smith

Gospel Principles manual clarifies what you may try to imply from 2 Nephi 2:22.
http://www.LDS.org/manual/gospel-princi ... e?lang=eng

Besides, since it is clear that Adam and Eve were eating "freely of every tree" before the Fall.....

In fact the first Presidency issued a statement in order to end the above mentioned debate:
"Elders Smith and Roberts make the scripture and the statements of men who have been prominent in the affairs of the Church the basis of their contention; neither has produced definite proof in support of his views…
Upon the fundamental doctrines of the Church we are all agreed. Our mission is to bear the message of the restored Gospel to the people of the world. Leave geology, biology, archaeology and anthropology, no one of which has to do with the salvation of the souls of mankind, to scientific research, while we magnify our calling in the realm of the Church.
We can see no advantage to be gained by a continuation of the discussion to which reference is here made, but on the contrary are certain that it would lead to confusion, division and misunderstanding if carried further." - April 1931

Clearly it is your desire here, as well as in many other places, to lead discussions into confusion and contention because that is the primary tool of he who has lead you into confusion and contention....and somehow.....has convinced you that confusion and contention is better than not.