Nothing died in mortality prior to 4,000 bc.

[_Quasimodo]

I, like most educated people...

Hilarious! Most educated don't subscribe to any of these horse biscuits.

[_just me]

If the date of The Fall is unimportant than why on Mother Earth would the church continue to publish timelines and use them in the curriculum?

I agree that it is unimportant, though. It all is. Luckily it does serve a purpose. It stands as a witness against the truthfulness of the LDS church.

[_DrW]

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.

Subgenius,

In other words, you still don't get it.

You are still talking about the date that Eve plucked the apple from the tree in the Garden of Eden.

Perhaps it would help if you stepped it up a notch and tried to answer the questions that have been put to BCSpace on this thread (questions which he has so far declined, or been unable, to answer).

If you believe that Garden of Eden myth, as you clearly do, can you come up with a natural history and populations genetics time line that fits Adam and Eve in with real world archeological and genetic data?

More importantly, do you really think that someone who believes in the Garden of Eden myth can really refer to themselves as educated?

And by the way, as I recall, you were one of the folks who had no clue about why rainbows would have been around before the time of the mythical global flood of Noah.

[_bcspace]

Sorry, but I just must ask you once again - where do you come up with this stuff? You must sit around all day drawing little diagrams on post-it notes, and then cherry-pick words and phrases and twist their normal meanings in your own special way to come up with some of the patently ridiculous things you say.

Where do I come up with it? Just LDS doctrine. All of it combined. Do you have any doctrinal statements to the contrary?

[_bcspace]

So...

In summary...

You shouldn't believe the institute manual and,
You should only believe the institute manual.

Got it...

Glad we got that cleared up.

Yes, there are people who have a vested interest in obscuring what LDS doctrine is. Usually they have an agenda opposed to LDS doctrine. The problem with that is they tend to speak over, around, or under, those who are actually LDS.......

[_bcspace]

BC. Two questions:

1) Death was suspended during the Garden State and then began again when Adam and Eve left the Garden?

Yes.

2) We're all descended from Adam and Eve of 6,000 years ago?

Depends on whether or not the Garden state was local. Yes there is doctrine assuming the state was global, but there is also doctrine implying the state was local. Such a conflict in interpretation though does nothing to my own overall hypothesis; it can handle either.

My own personal opinion is a local garden (because the way back to it was guarded), and therefore, we might not all be the literal physical descendents of Adam and Eve.

[_bcspace]

BC,

Have you taken even a minute to try to work out a natural history and hominid evolution timeline to go with your per-Adamite / evolutionary theory-friendly version of the Hebrew creation myth as found in the Old Testament and the analogous LDS creation myth as found in the Book of Abraham?

Yes.

If so, have you kept in mind while doing this that the LDS Church teaches the Garden of Eden was actually located in Daviss County, MO?

(Doctrine implying a local garden by the way.....)

I have questioned this doctrine because the two verses used to support it don't actually say this but rather they say this is where Adam gathered and spoke with his posterity before he died whcih is some 900 years after the fall. A lot of movement can take place in 900 years or 90 years if you're one of those who think the time frames are skewed long in the Bible.

But my hypothesis is also immune to any question as to the location of the garden. North America or Middle East.

Remember, in order to be competitive with the secular and scientific natural history and evolution narratives, your version of the Hebrew creation myth and LDS doctrine must account for at least as much archeological and population genetics data as does the mainstream scientific narrative.

I am not in competition with any science. My hypothesis embraces all science and doctrine on the issue.

If you have been able to accomplish this heroic apologetic feat, I would love to see the results

Done!

[_bcspace]

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.

The Church itself (Heber J Grant Presidency) issued a statement in 1931 in response to the arguments between the Talmadge/Roberts faction and JFS. To wit:

The statement made by Elder Smith that the existence of pre-Adamites is not a doctrine of the Church is true. It is just as true that the statement: "There were not pre-Adamites upon the earth", is not a doctrine of the Church. Neither side of the controversy has been accepted as a doctrine at all.

So to assume pre-Admite races of homo sapiens, and therefore death before the garden state, is not in conflict with any LDS doctrine. Therefore, as shown by my hypothesis, and those of others, an LDS person may freely accept all science on evolution without fear of coming into conflict with the Church.

[_Buffalo]

So to assume pre-Admite races of homo sapiens, and therefore death before the garden state, is not in conflict with any LDS doctrine. Therefore, as shown by my hypothesis, and those of others, an LDS person may freely accept all science on evolution without fear of coming into conflict with the Church.

You utterly failed to harmonize reality with theology. Not even a nice try.

“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.)

[_bcspace]

You utterly failed to harmonize reality with theology. Not even a nice try.

So how does my hypothesis conflict with what you just quoted?