Nothing died in mortality prior to 4,000 bc.

[_subgenius]

Mormon doctrine (actively, consistently and officially taught) is that mortal death did not exist prior to the fall of Adam which, as taught by Mormonism, took place circa 4,000bc. Adam was the first flesh and therefore the first mortal person.

All the scientific evidence that dates animals and people dying to before 4,000bc must simply be wrong...

more disingenuous posting.
Your posts are more myopic and "selective" than any TBM i have ever read.

Elder Talmage:
I cannot agree with your conception that there was no death of plants and animals anywhere upon this earth prior to the transgression of Adam, unless we assume that the history of Adam and Eve dates back many hundreds of thousands of years. The trouble with some theologians—even including many of our own good people—is that they undertake to fix the date of Adam's transgression as being approximately 4000 years before Christ and therefore about 5932 years ago. If Adam was placed upon the earth only that comparatively short time ago the rocks clearly demonstrated that life and death have been in existence and operative in this earth for ages prior to that time

In the wake of the Smith / Roberts debate which spoke to this issue,The First Presidency, way back in 1931, had the wisdom to forsee that weaker minds would attempt what you attempt with your post:
[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
your obvious motivation to confuse and divide has, once again, been revealed and has been found, once again, to have little substance.

Given the recent mention of gnat-straining, I am reminded how Aesop's fable about the gnat and the lion, and how you have yet to see the spider.

[_subgenius]

Drifting,
You must know the drill by now. Simply pick one or more responses from the following list. Be sure to select those that make you feel better about this issue. (Remember, there are no wrong answers.)....

actually there are just no answers with any consequence or that anyone beyond the cynic cares about.

Some LDS leaders have interpreted LDS scripture to teach that there was no death prior to the Fall of Adam for all plants and animals. Others have seen pre-Fall death of plants and/or animals as compatible with LDS doctrine, with the doctrine of "no death" applying only to Adam and Eve within the garden, and not the wider physical creation.
There is no official doctrine on the matter, and members in good standing have held both positions.

not sure why you did not specifically mention this part in your "FAIR" posting, but likely it was, once again, because it does not suit your obvious cause.

[_Buffalo]

Mormon doctrine (actively, consistently and officially taught) is that mortal death did not exist prior to the fall of Adam which, as taught by Mormonism, took place circa 4,000bc. Adam was the first flesh and therefore the first mortal person.

All the scientific evidence that dates animals and people dying to before 4,000bc must simply be wrong...

It is true that the doctrine is that there is no death before the Fall. But it is also equally true that one can have death before the garden state and still say there was no death before the Fall because the garden state (of no death) was directly before the Fall.

So no, LDS doctrine does not preclude evolution or pre Adamite races of homo sapiens etc. and one can accept all science on the issue without being in conflict with LDS doctrine.

I never had sex before marriage. Because in the two years immediately before marriage, I didn't have sex with anyone. Of course, in college, I did have sex with someone, but in the two years immediately before marriage, I didn't have sex with someone. Ergo, I didn't have sex before marriage.

Gotta love twisted, dishonest apologetics.

[_DrW]

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. "

Well subgenius, looks as if you have done it again. How does the First Presidency statement above, which you provided in support of your position, not support the statement in the OP that Adam was the first flesh and therefore the first mortal person (member of the human race)?

The First Presidency statement that you cite is nothing more than a dodge by folks who know that the traditional teachings regarding the creation, as contained in the Old Testament, and from the doctrine of the LDS Church, as contained in the Book of Abraham, are wrong. Rather than step up and admit it, these men of God simply dodge the issues and state that the science involved (which provides an fairly completed evidence- based narrative) is not important to one's salvation (see the apologists' standard response to tough questions answer option #1 in my post above).

The problem is that back in 1931 they still felt safe in claiming that Adam was to primal parent of our (the human) race. Since this bit of LDS doctrine, as confirmed by the First Presidency in 1931, has been shown to be absolutely and completely wrong, how can you claim anything the Church says on this issue to be true?

The First Presidency dodges the question of death before the fall, but maintains that Adam was the primal parent of humankind. Then the one thing that they all agree on, and are willing to state in writing, turns out not to be true.

Do you never tire of trying the defend the indefensible?

[_subgenius]

.....The First Presidency dodges the question of death before the fall, but maintains that Adam was the primal parent of humankind. Then the one thing that they all agree on, and are willing to state in writing, turns out not to be true.

I am not sure why you insist that imperfection be the enemy of good but surely you have your reasons. However, nothing in your reply here has relevance to the issue at hand nor does it even lead one to the conclusions you would insist upon everyone making.
this issue has been addressed already, your continued avoidance of that simple fact does not give credence to your ill-conceived argument.
response re-posted here:
Some LDS leaders have interpreted LDS scripture to teach that there was no death prior to the Fall of Adam for all plants and animals. Others have seen pre-Fall death of plants and/or animals as compatible with LDS doctrine, with the doctrine of "no death" applying only to Adam and Eve within the garden, and not the wider physical creation.
There is no official doctrine on the matter, and members in good standing have held both positions.

So, as you try to throw the baby out with the bath water, we simply see that all you insist upon is that the baby be thrown out....for some reason you despise the baby.

Do you never tire of trying the defend the indefensible?

do you ever tire of trying to offend the un-offendable?

[_just me]

There is no baby.

[_Morley]

There is no baby.

Best rebuttal ever.

[_DrW]

Some LDS leaders have interpreted LDS scripture to teach that there was no death prior to the Fall of Adam for all plants and animals. Others have seen pre-Fall death of plants and/or animals as compatible with LDS doctrine, with the doctrine of "no death" applying only to Adam and Eve within the garden, and not the wider physical creation.
There is no official doctrine on the matter, and members in good standing have held both positions.

subgenius,

Have you stopped to consider the irony of the situation you are defending?

Here we have a group of Church leaders who continue to insist that they are privy to the will of God and that the highest among them will never (can never) lead the Church astray. Yet these leaders are unable interpret the very scriptures they claim to be the word of God. These scriptures that they claim not to understand are those that they are to use as a guide for leading the Church.

How can they claim these scriptures to be true when they can not even say what these scriptures mean?

Have you ever considered that fact that these men of God choose to remain confused and even ignorant (or at least claim to be confused and ignorant) when it comes to much of the basic general knowledge and wisdom possessed by a good high school student?

[_Drifting]

Mormon doctrine (actively, consistently and officially taught) is that mortal death did not exist prior to the fall of Adam which, as taught by Mormonism, took place circa 4,000bc. Adam was the first flesh and therefore the first mortal person.

All the scientific evidence that dates animals and people dying to before 4,000bc must simply be wrong...

more disingenuous posting.
Your posts are more myopic and "selective" than any TBM i have ever read.

Elder Talmage:
I cannot agree with your conception that there was no death of plants and animals anywhere upon this earth prior to the transgression of Adam, unless we assume that the history of Adam and Eve dates back many hundreds of thousands of years. The trouble with some theologians—even including many of our own good people—is that they undertake to fix the date of Adam's transgression as being approximately 4000 years before Christ and therefore about 5932 years ago. If Adam was placed upon the earth only that comparatively short time ago the rocks clearly demonstrated that life and death have been in existence and operative in this earth for ages prior to that time

In the wake of the Smith / Roberts debate which spoke to this issue,The First Presidency, way back in 1931, had the wisdom to forsee that weaker minds would attempt what you attempt with your post:
[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
your obvious motivation to confuse and divide has, once again, been revealed and has been found, once again, to have little substance.

Given the recent mention of gnat-straining, I am reminded how Aesop's fable about the gnat and the lion, and how you have yet to see the spider.

subgenius, You claim my posts as disingenuous, when all my posts do is quote the official position that the Church is currently proclaiming - you might want to sit down with a cold mild barley drink and contemplate that whilst researching the facts of what the Church teaches on LDS.org.

For further reference:
“So, Adam was the first man upon the earth, according to the Lord’s statement, and the first flesh also. That needs a little explanation.

“Adam did not come to this earth until it was prepared for him. The animals were here. Plants were here. The Lord did not bring him here to a desolate world, and then bring other creatures. It was all prepared for him, just according to the order that is written in our scriptures, and when it was all ready for Adam he was placed upon the earth.

“Then what is meant by the ‘first flesh’? It is simple when you understand it. Adam was the first of all creatures to fall and become flesh, and flesh in this sense means mortality, and all through our scriptures the Lord speaks of this life as flesh, while we are here in the flesh, so Adam became the first flesh. There was no other mortal creature before him, and there was no mortal death until he brought it, and the scriptures tell you that. It is here written, and that is the gospel of Jesus Christ.” ( Seek Ye Earnestly, pp. 280–81.)
Quoted from the online institute manual...

[_subgenius]

subgenius,

Have you stopped to consider the irony of the situation you are defending?

Here we have a group of Church leaders who continue to insist that they are privy to the will of God and that the highest among them will never (can never) lead the Church astray. Yet these leaders are unable interpret the very scriptures they claim to be the word of God. These scriptures that they claim not to understand are those that they are to use as a guide for leading the Church.

How can they claim these scriptures to be true when they can not even say what these scriptures mean?

Have you ever considered that fact that these men of God choose to remain confused and even ignorant (or at least claim to be confused and ignorant) when it comes to much of the basic general knowledge and wisdom possessed by a good high school student?

I, like most educated people and even more so with sincere religious folk, do not consider the exact fixed date of when Eve plucked the fruit from the tree as significant to the teachings, translations, or meaning of the scriptures.
To hang your hat on the idea that any one man has, or that a group of men have not, been able to obsess, fixate, and become distracted by the notion of what day of the month the rain started is all but laughable due to the sadness that is evoked by such a misguided application of intellect.
Sure it is a fun and often entertaining diversion, but ultimately it becomes tedious and worthless to a sincere and inquiring mind when one endeavors to explore and thoughtfully critique actual theology, doctrine, and belief.
So, when your post levies a claims about what "scriptures mean" it just brings to light the notion that you seemingly do not even know what scriptures are, let alone what they mean...and that distinction is often the cause for your own bewilderment.