The Theories of Two saints…

[brotherofJared]

This is just nonsense

Your argument is nonsense.

There is absolutely no rational in your argummet

I disagree. There is absolutely no rationale in your argument.

LDS theology teaches and I will go as far to say it demands, that exalted people are like HF.

See? You don't even know what the argument is. Those who are exalted ARE like HF. That has never been disputed by me or any other Mormon that I know of.

Angel are not like HF.

I did not say they were. Those that are resurrected beings living in the presence of God the Father have celestial bodies. PERIOD. It does not matter whether they are exalted or not.

God in LDS theology has a celestial body and as the heading description D&C 76 reads…”The glory and reward of exalted beings in the celestial kingdom is described;”

True, but where do you get the idea that ONLY exalted beings will dwell in the Celestial kingdom?

Section 76 reads that those that receive a celestial body are those that are just and true and of the “new covenant”

Nope. Read Section 76 again. What qualifies people who will dwell in the presence of the Father and his Christ? The requirements are quite simple, 51. "They are they who received the testimony of Jesus, and believed on his name and were baptized after the manner of his burial, being buried in the water in his name, and this according to the commandment which he has given—" And 53 "And who overcome by faith, and are sealed by the Holy Spirit of promise, which the Father sheds forth upon all those who are just and true."

Do you see anything in there about being exalted? Anything about eternal marriage? Anything about the true and everlasting covenant? No? You're basing your whole argument on one word in the section heading? As I explained, the new and everlasting covenant of marriage did not appear until several years after section 76 was recorded. In section 76, we learn about all those who qualify for the Celestial Kingdom which doesn't take much. All of those who qualify will have celestial bodies, but again, nothing in the passage excludes other beings from being in the Celestial kingdom. Angels dwell with God. We have to assume, they dwell with him in the Celestial kingdom and they are not gods and most of them do not have bodies, much less celestial bodies.

what do you mean there is no discussion of eternal marriage?

Exactly what I said. There is no discussion of eternal marriage in section 76.

again you have no idea what you are even saying…read verse 69 on the church website

Ok. "These are they who are just men made perfect through Jesus the mediator of the new covenant, who wrought out this perfect atonement through the shedding of his own blood."
I see the words "new covenant" but that isn't the new and everlasting covenant. I realize that reference in the verse points to the topical guide under "New and Everlasting Covenant," but these are two different things. The new covenant replaced the old covenant of blood sacrifice because of the great sacrifice offered on our behalf. The everlasting covenant simply refers to God's word as being unbreakable and eternal. It was used in reference to the promise not to wipe out the inhabitants of earth again through a flood. I was invoked in the promises made to Abraham and his seed. And again, it was invoked over the priesthood that God gave Aaron and his descendants, which according to you guys has been revoked -- which creates a problem for promises that God makes if he isn't going to keep them. We believe the Aaronic Priesthood exists, you all don't which continues to make me wonder how much of the Bible you all really believe... is there anything in it that you believe?

Anyway, the point is, at the time Section 76 was recorded the new and everlasting covenant of the priesthood was not yet revealed and therefore, cannot possibly be as the new covenant, which contextually refers to the atonement as Jesus is the mediator of it. So, no. No etermal marriage was mentioned at all in section 76.

D&C and when you see the blue letters that read “new covenant” click on those two words and tell me what pops up?

Done and explained.

 

[brotherofJared]

LOL noted…CFR

I've given the reference several times. Brigham Young, JD, JFS and JFieldingS and BRM - all in references to the AGT. If, as these references indicate, Adam and Eve were born and not clay statues, where did they grow up? Where were they nurtured, taught the gospel? What society did they live in. Hint: D&C 130:2 "that same sociality which exists among us here will exist among us there..." We will have children there, just like we have here.

Again, your idea of what we teach is not what we teach. You simply don't know LDS doctrine and, apparently, never have.

 

[brotherofJared]

No, JS, is older that JFS (his uncle)…so by yours and BoJ the new prophet trumps the older.

Again, I don't believe JFS taught anything that JS didn't teach. There are not such things as spirit babies, they are not produced through sexual relations. You have yet to produce a single quote by any authority that says that they are.

 

[brotherofJared]

I’ll give you one…I can walk you through it

You can try, but your class would be full of fallacies.

 

[brotherofJared]

Um, why does it have to be a "Mormon" Hermeneutics class?

Um, that's a no-brainer. Why would anyone study hermeneutics that is false?

 

[brotherofJared]

And as usual, Mormons RUN AWAY

As usual, our critics claim we are running away as they run away.

 

[Theo1689]

Um, that's a no-brainer. Why would anyone study hermeneutics that is false?

So "Mormon hermeneutics" is true, but "non-Mormon hermeneutics" is false?!

Does this transfer to other disciplines?

"Mormon math is true, but non-Mormon math is false"?
"Mormon science is true, but non-Mormon science is false"?

 

[brotherofJared]

This is what I first wrote about Adam Sr and Jr. Clearly in a context of nonsense.

Regardless, you offered it. I picked up on it.

This was in response to your writing this…

And your point is.... what?

A few posts later you doubled down and wrote…

Again, so what?

So this begs the question…are you now backing off and resigning your theory of two Adam’s?

What did I just say? Here, let me remind you.

Nope. My position is that there is a resurrected being who fathers physical offspring who will inhabit an earth after they fall by eating forbidden fruit. You're the one who posed the idea that there are two Adams, I just picked up on it. One of those is a resurrected being and he fathered offspring who inhabits the earth. That's my position and that's what Brigham Young taught.

Maybe you can't follow it because I didn't spell it out. So, I'll be explicit. There are two Adams in my OP. I'll highlight them. Now, it might confuse ou because there are many words highlighted there. I pray you'll be able to figure it out but I'm not hopeful.

 

[brotherofJared]

This is what I first wrote about Adam Sr and Jr. Clearly in a context of nonsense.

Regardless, you offered it. I picked up on it.

This was in response to your writing this…

And your point is.... what?

A few posts later you doubled down and wrote…

Again, so what?

So this begs the question…are you now backing off and resigning your theory of two Adam’s?

What did I just say? Here, let me remind you.

My point is pretty clear…that a glorified body and a celestial body is the same thing

No one is arguing that "point". Why don't you try making a point that we are arguing?

 

[brotherofJared]

The AGT, is a contradiction to current orthodox LDS thought

No. The Adam God theory isn't a contradiction of orthodox LDS thought. It clearly establishes the role of exalted beings in that, in its simplest terms, mortal man becomes gods that do what God the Father did. What did he do? He had children that he placed in a garden had gave them a commandment to multiply and replenish the earth and a warning that partaking of the forbidden fruit would have serious consequences. This is LDS orthodoxy regardless of what you think the Adam God theory taught, that is the message that Brigham Young delivered. That's the message I got. Your interpretation is way off base.

and it was only doctrine while BY was president, which can objectively be proven.

False. That doctrine has never changed. We don't teach it because most people aren't ready for it. What amazes me is the lame idea that we'll have spirit children through procreation has taken hold through our critics. They can accept that the wife will have 100 or more billion babies all by themselves, but not that their wife will have one or two children over the course of millions of years maybe even billions of years. It further amazes me that you, who don't believe any of this keep insisting procreation of spirits when you can't find a single quote that says what you claim we believe.

 

[brotherofJared]

You take (bits and pieces) what you need from LDS sources, whether in context or out, and then force them it to your preconceived ideology.

What's worse, taking bits and pieces or inserting your own words into what's there?

The KFS is a different story, it is a core doctrine in that progression and eternal laws demand that view

Again, your concept of eternal progression is not the same as the churches. Glory can always be added but knowledge and power can be absolute where nothing new can be added. Even the angels will have all things present before them, past, present, and future. I believe they will have all knowledge and power as well as the gods. They really can't be very good ministering angels, servants, or whatever without it. The difference between them and the gods is the ability to increase and that ability is the source of eternal progression. The KFD is very clear that the Lord's work will add to the glory of God and that the Lord will then take his place. In this way the work of God can continue on into eternity and not be stuck in a single stint - 7000 years and it's over never to occur again. That seems rather insignificant for such an all-power eternal God who creates worlds without end. One would get the impression that God's work is creating worlds. Man was an incidental byproduct. Perhaps it was planets that were created in God's image and not man.

The only way God's plan will work is for resurrected beings to create bodies for an endless supply of spirits who can become resurrected beings That is Orthodox LDS Doctrine. If you don't know that, then you were never really a Mormon. All topics about our doctrine lead back to the nature of God and the KFD clearly teaches was we believe the nature of God is. It is the doctrine that Brigham Young taught in his Adam God theory. God, the Father is a man who once dwelt on an earth like us and is now an exalted being who sits in yonder heavens and has given us an opportunity to become like him. That is LDS doctrine.

 

[brotherofJared]

“The glory we receive is contingent upon our righteousness.”

This

The glory one receives is based on merit and duty

and This. Are not the same. the first statement applies to the resurrection and it is both Biblical and LDS doctrine, that the glory one is resurrected to varies, but there is only one glory that is celestial. All celestial beings are of the same exact glory. There is no differing degrees of glory there. The same is true of the terrestrial glory. The Telestial, however, varies in glory as one star varies from another.

The second statement is based on whether one obeys the gospel laws and principles in this life. It coincides with the idea that we are all on a path. either one that leads to salvation or ones that lead elsewhere. Those who have a duty are responsible for carrying out their duties. They will be held accountable for what they did while they had a duty to perform. Merit is simply based on accepting Christ and striving to remain reconciled to Him. On this path, we are all at different and varying points (or rungs of the ladder). Merit obtained here simply advances us along that path. There is not a certain threshold that anyone has to maintain in order to be saved or a certain number of merits we failed to obtain that will exclude us from the promised blessings. It is simply a point of origin so to speak and the closer one is to their destination it will be better for them than those whose point of origin are still on the bottom rung of the ladder. Everyone who is on that path will eventually arrive at the same place and obtain the same glory. No one who is there will be any different in terms of glory, body, power, or knowledge.

And, let me be clear... there is a limit to knowledge and power. These two things cannot eternally increase. 1 + 1 will always equal 2 and it will never change. Once you know, you know and what you know cannot be unlearned.

“All must repent to be free. All must obey to gain gospel blessings. All must keep the commandments to merit mercy. (Bruce R. McConkie, The Promised Messiah: The First Coming of Christ, p.242).

Nothing wrong with this statement. I don't see how it lines up with your obtuse interpretation. Did Bruce say when all this needed to be done? Do you honestly believe that anyone who doesn't repent can be saved? Can you say you've repented if you don't keep the commandments?

“We believe in individual merit as a means of gaining salvation” – Lowell L. Bennion, Introduction to the Gospel (1955; LDS sunday school material), chapter 20, “The Way of Salvation”

Again. No issues here. How much merit do you think he's talking about? Any? or all? What's the deadline for obtaining this merit?

Salvation, however, isbased on merit and obedience to divine law and therefore is onlyobtained through compliance with divine commandments.”

bad copy job, but again this isn't a question of whether we can be saved or not. It's a matter of when we will be saved if we want to be saved. Eternity is a long time.

“Very gladly would the Lord give to everyone eternal life, but since that blessing can come only on merit-through the faithful performance of duty-only those who are worthy shall receive it.”

Same as above.

“The gospel of Jesus Christ has always been essentially a planfor living more abundantly. To do so requires righteous, worthwhileeffort and application. If we are to pattern our lives in accordancewith the divine example set for us by the Savior, we must attain tothat stature by releasing and developing our capacities to the fullestthrough devoted service. Only in this way may we become worthy examplesof the kingdom of God on earth and merit consideration for membershipin the kingdom of God in heaven. (“Power Through Service,” MillennialStar 118 [9 October 1956]: 298.) – Ezra Taft Benson, The Teachings of Ezra Taft Benson, p.330

There is a huge difference between meriting something on our own and meriting consideration for something we want. One does not get into college because he already has the degree. One gains admittance because they merit consideration to be admitted. They do this by preparing themselves before they apply for entrance. Can you guess what one must do to prepare for entrance into the Celestial kingdom in LDS theology? Hint: Section 76 of the Doctrine and Covenants.

 

[Theo1689]

and This. Are not the same. the first statement applies to the resurrection and it is both Biblical and LDS doctrine, that the glory one is resurrected to varies, but there is only one glory that is celestial. All celestial beings are of the same exact glory. There is no differing degrees of glory there. The same is true of the terrestrial glory. The Telestial, however, varies in glory as one star varies from another.

This doctrine comes from a gross misinterpretation of a passage in 1 Cor. 15. It depends on a multiple meaning of the Greek term, "ouranos", which can variously mean:

(1) sky; "Look at the birds of the air [ouranos] ..." (Matt. 6:26)
(2) outer space; "... and the stars will fall from heaven [ouranos], ..." (Matt. 24:29)
(3) heaven as God's abode; "... Our Father in heaven [ouranos], ..." (Matt. 6;9)


Now, with that background understanding, let's look at 1 Cor. 15:

1Cor. 15:40 There are heavenly bodies and earthly bodies, but the glory of the heavenly is of one kind, and the glory of the earthly is of another. (ESV)

I'm quoting from the ESV, which correctly translates "heavenly" and "earthly", where the KJV has "celestial" and "terrestrial" respectively. "Celestial" comes from the Latin, "caelum", meaning "heaven", and has given us the term "celestial", referring to stars in the sky. "Terrestrial" comes from the Latin name for "Earth", "Terra".

This isn't referring to future "heavens", it is contrasting our present ("earthly") body with our future ("heavenly") body.

Notice there is no mention or equivalent for "telestial", which is something Smith invented out of whole cloth and INSERTED into the passage.

So let's back up a couple of verses:

1Cor. 15:38 But God gives it a body as he has chosen, and to each kind of seed its own body. 39 For not all flesh is the same, but there is one kind for humans, another for animals, another for birds, and another for fish.

Notice Paul is referring to (current) bodies we find on Earth. And there is no magical number "three", he simply mentions several, namely (1) humans, (2) animals, (3) birds, and (4) fish.

1Cor. 15:40 There are heavenly bodies and earthly bodies, but the glory of the heavenly is of one kind, and the glory of the earthly is of another. 41 There is one glory of the sun, and another glory of the moon, and another glory of the stars; for star differs from star in glory.

Then he contrasts earthly bodies with "heavenly" bodies, depending on the play on words of "ouranos" meaning both "outer space", and "God's heaven". Again, there is no magical number "three", but he simply mentions different glories found in space, namely (1) sun, (2) moon, (3) star, and (4) differing star. All these glories are found in the "heavenly" (or "celestial") realm, not one for "celestial", one for "terrestrial", and one for "telestial".

Again, to summarize:

Earthly/terrestrial: humans, animals, birds, fish.
Heavenly/celestial: Sun, moon, stars, other stars.
"Telestial": <doesn't exist>


Everything in this passage is BINARY. It is a binary CONTRAST between our present Earth and future heaven:

1Cor. 15:42 So is it with the resurrection of the dead.
What is sown is perishable; what is raised is imperishable.
1Cor. 15:43 It is sown in dishonor; it is raised in glory.
It is sown in weakness; it is raised in power.
1Cor. 15:44 It is sown a natural body; it is raised a spiritual body.
If there is a natural body, there is also a spiritual body.
1Cor. 15:45 Thus it is written, “The first man Adam became a living being”;
the last Adam became a life-giving spirit.
1Cor. 15:46 But it is not the spiritual that is first but the natural, and then the spiritual.
1Cor. 15:47 The first man was from the earth, a man of dust;
the second man is from heaven.
1Cor. 15:48 As was the man of dust, so also are those who are of the dust,
and as is the man of heaven, so also are those who are of heaven.
1Cor. 15:49 Just as we have borne the image of the man of dust,
we shall also bear the image of the man of heaven.
1Cor. 15:50 I tell you this, brothers: flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God,
nor does the perishable inherit the imperishable.
1Cor. 15:51 Behold! I tell you a mystery. We shall not all sleep,
but we shall all be changed,
1Cor. 15:52 in a moment, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trumpet.
For the trumpet will sound, and the dead will be raised imperishable,
and we shall be changed.
1Cor. 15:53 For this perishable body must put on the imperishable,
and this mortal body must put on immortality.
1Cor. 15:54 When the perishable puts on the imperishable,
and the mortal puts on immortality,
then shall come to pass the saying that is written:
“Death is swallowed up in victory.”
1Cor. 15:55 “O death, where is your victory?
O death, where is your sting?”


It's all "binary" contrast:

earth-----------> heaven
terrestrial------> celestial
perishable-----> imperishable
dishonour------> honour
weakness------> power
natural---------> spiritual
first Adam-----> last Adam
man of dust---> man of heaven
mortal----------> immortal
death-----------> victory

 

[brotherofJared]

No not even…How can one have the same power, knowledge, glory, and dominion as God, do everything HF and Jesus does

No one can do what Jesus did. However, the Bible is clear that those who enter into his glory will share the throne with Him. The me, that says that whatever he can do, we can do.

Also, remember power, knowledge, and dominion can be shared without losing any of it. Glory can be shared but it can also be increased whereas the other attributes cannot be. You can't have more than all power or more than all knowledge or more than all dominion.

be like HF and Jesus, who are Gods…and not be a God capital G.

I don't know that that distinction is important. Obviously, there is one who deserves a capital G in the title and everyone else there that is there because of Him probably don't. Nevertheless, the scriptures D&C 132:20 that defines who and what these gods are is written with a little "g". I think the argument is moot.

This is a perfect example of softening LDS doctrine.

It's a perfect example of a critic getting a hernia over nothing.

all glory is all glory

Care to provide a reference for glory being used in this context?

 

[brotherofJared]

Being a God with a capital G implies we do things for our own glory and self-aggrandizement.

That looks like a very low opinion of God. I'm not sure how to take it any other way.

 

[brotherofJared]

No, my point is that angels don’t have celestial bodies.

Some Angels do or can. These would be beings who have already been resurrected if and when they are sent to intervene with man under the direction of God. That's what angels are. Until they have a reason to intervene, they are simply beings who dwell in the celestial kingdom, some with Celestial bodies and some without celestial bodies.

They can’t reproduce.

Where does it say that only those who can reproduce will have celestial bodies? Of course, they will have celestial bodies, but you seem to think that ONLY they will have them. I don't know where you get that idea.

BY said that Adam and some other men had a celestial bodies

so?

BoJ becasue of the position he was married to with two Adams, that ironically now he denies, he had to take the position that a celestial body can be one that is not a exalted body or God, otherwise the Adam who procreated man in mortality would have be less that a God, becasue he died and Gods can’t die. It gets deep than this but this is a general view of this.

Sounds like flatulence to me. I have not abandoned the idea that Brigham Young taught that the exalted man is Father Adam, or God the father, produced an Adam who could die through sexual relations. There are still two Adams using Brigham Young's vernacular. And in your vernacular, Father Adam would be Adam Sr and the Adam who could die would be Adam Jr. You came up with the terms, not me. For those who need a syllabus to follow this:

Father Adam = Adam Sr = resurrected and exalted man who once lived on an earth a mortal like us.
Adam = Adam Jr = the physical offspring of Adam Sr a being who could die if he so chose to.

The names are roles, they are not necessarily the actual names of the beings involved. This clearly falls within LDS doctrine. And it is what Brigham Young was teaching.

You pretend that I've been forced into a position about celestial bodies when it's been my position all along. It is easy to demonstrate through the scriptures that there are other beings who are not exalted who will dwell in the presence of God. The scriptures clearly state that baptism by water and the spirit is all that is necessary to enter that kingdom. All who dwell in the Celestial Kingdom will have celestial bodies. It's that simple. And, in accordance with our doctrines, those who are exalted will produce physical children. These children can die if they so choose. They will also have celestial bodies which is the light they lost when they partook of the forbidden fruit.

The only thing deep here is your lack of understanding.

 

[brotherofJared]

Would it make you feel better if they both had celestial bodies, but that celestial bodies are all different?

No.

 

[brotherofJared]

This doctrine comes from a gross misinterpretation of a passage in 1 Cor. 15. It depends on a multiple meaning of the Greek term, "ouranos", which can variously mean:

(1) sky; "Look at the birds of the air [ouranos] ..." (Matt. 6:26)
(2) outer space; "... and the stars will fall from heaven [ouranos], ..." (Matt. 24:29)
(3) heaven as God's abode; "... Our Father in heaven [ouranos], ..." (Matt. 6;9)

I sense a pretzel bending effort coming. And again, if you want to disagree with the English translations we have, perhaps you should take your issues up with the scholars who provided those translations.

Now, with that background understanding, let's look at 1 Cor. 15:

1Cor. 15:40 There are heavenly bodies and earthly bodies, but the glory of the heavenly is of one kind, and the glory of the earthly is of another. (ESV)

I'm quoting from the ESV, which correctly translates "heavenly" and "earthly", where the KJV has "celestial" and "terrestrial" respectively. "Celestial" comes from the Latin, "caelum", meaning "heaven", and has given us the term "celestial", referring to stars in the sky. "Terrestrial" comes from the Latin name for "Earth", "Terra".

Irrelevant. At this point, Paul is simply stating the obvious fact in preparation for a discussion about the differences in the body of the resurrected person.

This isn't referring to future "heavens", it is contrasting our present ("earthly") body with our future ("heavenly") body.

Who said it was?

Notice there is no mention or equivalent for "telestial", which is something Smith invented out of whole cloth and INSERTED into the passage.

Nope. No such insertion was made.

So let's back up a couple of verses:

Why?

1Cor. 15:38 But God gives it a body as he has chosen, and to each kind of seed its own body. 39 For not all flesh is the same, but there is one kind for humans, another for animals, another for birds, and another for fish.

Notice Paul is referring to (current) bodies we find on Earth. And there is no magical number "three", he simply mentions several, namely (1) humans, (2) animals, (3) birds, and (4) fish.

Again, So what?

Then he contrasts earthly bodies with "heavenly" bodies, depending on the play on words of "ouranos" meaning both "outer space", and "God's heaven".

Again, there is no magical number "three", but he simply mentions different glories found in space, namely (1) sun, (2) moon, (3) star,

Hmmm. here we have the magical number 3.

and (4) differing star.

And then a fantastic pretzeling effort to make the word stars not mean stars so we can have 4 instead of three.

All these glories are found in the "heavenly"

Duh! Of course, these three glories are heavenly. He is talking about the resurrection, is he not?

(or "celestial") realm, not one for "celestial"

more pretzeling. Let's see what the verse actually says: "There is one glory of the sun"

So sorry, but it is ONE glory like that of the sun, which we call the Celestial. It doesn't really matter what you call it. There is only one Sun from our perspective (I'm pretty share wasn't talking about other worlds that might have 2 suns or many moons.)

one for "terrestrial", and one for "telestial

well, for the glory of the stars, he is clearly referring to more than one and that in that realm of the heavens or in the resurrection, there will be many different glories just as there are different intensities of light emanating between one star and another.

Again, to summarize:

Earthly/terrestrial: humans, animals, birds, fish.
Heavenly/celestial: Sun, moon, stars, other stars.
"Telestial": <doesn't exist>

Again, I laugh at your summary.

It is a self-serving summary as most of our critics' attempts to exegete the scriptures.

Everything in this passage is BINARY.

Irrelevant.

 

[brotherofJared]

So if someone said, "My cat is not a dog

Going with the dog analogy again?

 

[brotherofJared]

LOL…you have insulted your own intelligence BoJ.

And again, you continue with the insults. You must be running out of ideas. Reverting to insults is usually the last resort before physical harm starts.

You have dug yourself in such a deep hole in regards to the AGT

No Markk. You have dug the hole. I'm just telling you what's there and that it is perfectly aligned with orthodox LDS doctrine.

among other theories, you even went so far to say I brought up the theory of two Adam’s

No. I didn't. I said you introduced the terms Adam Sr and Adam Jr into this discussion. I didn't. You did.

You claim spirits have to ask heavenly parents for help to become mortal.

Again, wrong. That is not what I said. They asked for help to become like him. Do you know anyone in the universe who has the power to do that? Can they do it on their own? You know that we teach that spirits are co-eternal with God. That they cannot be made nor created. How would you suggest that beings who already exist go about becoming like God? Didn't God say that with Him, all things are possible? If you believed that, wouldn't you go to him and ask for His help? I would.

The alternative is that we are created to be the beings that we are. All that we are or all that we aren't is the pure manufacture of God. So, He built us for destruction or exaltation. We have no choice in the matter. I don't accept that.

And you state I have a poor understanding of LDS theology?

That's what you've demonstrated so far. You clearly don't understand eternal progression. You have no clue how spirits are formed and keep insisting that it's through sexual relations when you haven't produced any statement to that effect. It seems that the more you talk, the less you appear to know.

This is one of your wacky theories… The decayed fruit theory.

That's not my theory. That's Brigham Young's and it's quite good even though I disagree with it. I personally don't believe we need to eat any fruit to make children, but the idea is sound in that it explains how we are made from the dust of the earth. Again, not my theory.