Nofear

No I didn't miss it. There is indeed a difference between a [T/T/C] glory and [T/T/C] kingdom. At least for me, the former is physics. The latter is a social scenario built upon/with/around that physics. Consequently, I can believe the Garden of Eden abided a Terrestrial glory but it is not the Terrestrial Kingdom. Even setting all that aside, that's a different question than whether an entire planet must be the same thing or whether or not there can be localized variations.

Ooh. A pun (when advocating precursor planets)! "the entire planet" -> I reject this assertion. Individuals with different states of glory are able to interact with environments of different states of glory ... that's scriptural (coupled with modern LDS interpretation). Nothing says that two environments of different states of glory can't be spatially adjacent.

No death before the Fall can't be understood literally. When the First Parents ate fruit, the fruit "died". There is a good chance they stepped on a bug at some point and squished it. Without death and recycling, no biome can long persist. I personally think of it as being a statement about the condition of physical mortality not existing for some undefined threshold of more advanced life contained in the Garden. I have some more tenuously held speculations about the purpose of the Garden, but they aren't all that germane to the question at hand.

Technically, there isn't any doctrine that says the Garden of Eden was terrestrial. That said, I actually conceptualize it as thus myself. But, I don't think the entire planet was the terrestrial, just a localized segment, a "garden" as it were. Not sure what you intended to convey by this point. On a more general note, I think the plurality of worlds is one of the most under appreciated doctrines of the Church. I think the fragment of other worlds was an idea held by Pres. Joseph Fielding Smith. I don't give it an credence though. Doesn't fit any of the observational data. There are uncertainties in every dating method, but none will be so dramatic as to invalidate the basic geological timeline. With the exception of the second point, which I didn't understand, I don't see them as being a rejection of pre-Adamites. While I thoroughly reject the third and fourth point as severely anti-scientific and thus out of harmony with Mormonism, I won't be burning anybody at the stake for it.

From Nibley's talk: "Do not begrudge existence to creatures that looked like men long, long ago, nor deny them a place in God’s affection or even a right to exaltation—for our scriptures allow them such. Nor am I overly concerned as to just when they might have lived, for their world is not our world. They have all gone away long before our people ever appeared. God assigned them their proper times and functions, as he has given me mine—a full-time job that admonishes me to remember his words to the overly eager Moses: “For mine own purpose have I made these things. Here is wisdom and it remaineth in me.” (Moses 1:31.) It is Adam as my own parent who concerns me. When he walks onto the stage, then and only then the play begins. He opens a book and starts calling out names. They are the sons of Adam, who also qualify as sons of God, Adam himself being a son of God." I do not deny the Garden of Eden as a real place. Neither do I deny the reality of hominids*. I can even entertain the idea that the children of Adam and Eve interbred with such. In Nibley's account the defining feature of being a son or daughter of God is not biology but of covenant relationship for "until a man with a book walks onto the stage there is no story, no play". Understanding the earth's evolutionary history, geology, etc. is a great and worthy endeavor (though I personally inclined my interested to cosmology), from the perspective of spiritual progression the history that matters the most is that of the sons and daughters of Adam and Eve**. * There is a very interesting question asked during the presentation of the endowment that many overlook. ** I hold that Adam and Eve are historical and presently real, resurrected individuals.

I doubt the scriptures gave Lucifer's presentation a "fair" shake -- the winners write history and all that. I'm ok with that, having sided with Christ myself (then and now). But he was persuasive enough to sway a third of the host of heaven. Better to over estimate Satan than underestimate him (and this coming from somebody who has long held the irrelevance of Satan to the Plan of Salvation).

I personally find Hugh Nibley's position in his article Before Adam useful.

There is definitely the one Christ for all worlds or the a Christ for each world theories. I haven't heard so much the much this is the only world needing a Christ idea. Doesn't quite jive with my understanding of the Atonement, but I can see how some scriptural language could be interpreted that way. /shrug

My working "timeline": Part I: Heavenly Parents call a grand council of those ready to progress to the next stage (mortality). Plan of Salvation -- implemented on other worlds is presented by Heavenly Father Christ accepts plan Lucifer presents alternate plan which destroys agency for "safety"(not tried before on other worlds, while Father's plan had been done so countless times before) Lucifer's alternate plan rejected, Lucifer greatly annoyed (but no punishment so far, discussion was perfectly acceptable) Down but not defeated Lucifer goes for consolation prize, plan B, and vies for the position of Adam Jesus Christ picks Michael instead (not exactly trusting Lucifer, despite him having seniority to Michael) Plans A and B defeated, Lucifer rebels and incites many to boycott this earth as they picket the courts of heaven with signs saying things like "Earth no, we won't go!", "No Lucifer, no morning!", or "Agency is Dangerous. Choose Lucifer!" For this insurrection Lucifer and followers cast out (part of the whole point was that we and they couldn't stay home forever, but had to move on after all -- in some sense were were all to be "cast out") Part II: Adam and Eve placed on newly created world They receive instruction (and two commandments) and told to get acclimated to the new world and that further instruction was coming Lucifer intervenes before the promised further instruction and persuades Adam and Eve to initiate the Fall before they were properly prepared For this sabotage Lucifer becomes Satan and has his travel rights revoked (bound to this world, to eat the dust of this world only) Adam and Eve leave garden; history proceeds

I see this assertion as self-contradictory. Lucifer, one of the great ones, is able to convince a third of the hosts of heaven with his rhetoric but too stupid to see a simple strategic ploy that would frustrate God's plans? Naw. Completely illogical. Moreover, it is just one (the weakest) of multiple arguments against the necessity of Satan. Certainly a good position, relying on the scriptures and not on the arm of flesh. No where do the scriptures say that a Satan is necessary. That is a fleshy interpretation.

Grant Arnold wrote an article: War a Good Warfare Understanding Agency in the Plan of Salvation (https://scholarsarchive.byu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2001&context=re, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vp47GOvBSBI). The Keystone youtube video adds some details only mentioned briefly in the article. Makes many of the arguments that I have made in the past on this board about the non-necessity of a Satan to the Plan of Salvation. But he added a new one that I think I'll add to my personal arguments. Assume the position that 1) A Satan is necessary for the Plan to tempt Adam and Eve and 2) that Satan wants to frustrate God's plans. If 1) and 2) than 3) the smart thing for Satan to really destroy God's plan is to not tempt Adam and Eve (or barring that, just sit out the rest of the earth's history and not be the negative influence). I think Arnold has a good point.

Linguistically faith has a fair bit of subtlety. In the KJV the word faith is only used twice (other versions have more instances). The concept of trust, loyalty, belief, confidence, etc. are ideas that are trying to be captured. I personally don't see "faith" as some mystical cosmic energy or anything like that. I usually conceptualize it closest to trust. (Gemini commentary on this.) If my trust is in a belief that correlates to reality or truth, then my faith in that thing is efficacious. If my trust is in a belief that correlates to that which is not reality or true, then my faith in that thing is not efficacious. Faith in God that He will respect my moral agency and support me in righteous endeavors = really good. "Faith" in God that He will solve all my problems without effort from my part = vanity and false. I put quotes in the second line because culturally we like to say that only "faith" that is in that which is true is faith and all other instances are not really faith. The scriptures (e.g. Alma) or the Lectures on Faith tend towards that approach and it has pedagogical merit. But pedagogical merit does not make faith a cosmic, primal force. That's God. And (correct) faith in God can bring His power into our lives.

Jacob Hansen presents an alternative or modified narrative of the Great Apostasy. Loss of priesthood authority, sure. But he points to something deeper: the Hellenization of Christianity.

The three dissenting judges disagreed with the sex reasoning but also sided that the stautory claims of the cases failed to meet title iX protections.