D&C 77:6

[mfbukowski]

Rivers:

I believe the Garden was a real physical place here on this planet. But wherever it was it isn't there now.

That works too.

Since this is all unknowable anyway- does it matter what each of us believe?

[thesometimesaint]

Different context but still applicable.

"All I can say to that is that it is time disbelieving people repented and got in line and believed in a living, modern prophet. Forget everything that I have said, or what President Brigham Young or President George Q. Cannon or whomsoever has said in days past that is contrary to the present revelation. We spoke with a limited understanding and without the light and knowledge that now has come into the world. We get our truth and our light line upon line and precept upon precept. We have now had added a new flood of intelligence and light on this particular subject, and it erases all the darkness, and all the views and all the thoughts of the past".

[cinepro]

A common theme of yours in post after post and thread after thread on this issue is that you never explain how any of this is in conflict with what I said. How is this any sort of counter-point? I can even agree with the statement "There is no evolving from one species to another in any of this." because all the relevant evolution occured before any of that which BRM is speaking about. Indeed the initial condition of the created earth, when man was placed in the garden, was paradisiacal. But what were the conditions during the creative process? It doesn't say.

I'm not posting those quotes for your benefit, since it seems you find your theory to be entirely plausible. I'm posting them for those who might not be entirely clear about what, exactly, the Church has published on the matter. I'll leave it to each of us to figure out if your theory is compatible with what the Prophets and Apostles and Church publications teach about the paradisaical creation.

It should also be pointed out that if evolution is the tool for creation, than the creation hasn't actually finished since evolution has continued unabated, and therefore God should not have rested yet. We're still in the 6th day.

[BCSpace]

It should also be pointed out that if evolution is the tool for creation, than the creation hasn't actually finished since evolution has continued unabated, and therefore God should not have rested yet. We're still in the 6th day.

I would disagree in that at some point, the earth was considered ready for man. Once the Fall occured, what reason would there be to not continue the natural processes of evolution? Such is key to the survivial of life on earth. That evolution through natural and human selection occurs is a moot point and one will have to deal with it theologically.

[mfbukowski]

I have expressed this many times on this forum- but I will say it again briefly.

The "Fall" was caused by sin.

Animals don't sin. One animal killing the other is no sin, for us, it could be "murder" because we have a human context and human morality.

The "Fall" was caused by sin, so there could be no sin, or death, before there was a human context for these events.

There could be no sin, no fall until there was a human understanding- a human definition- of "sin". There was also no understanding of "death" before we gave that word a human context. Before that, organisms were recycling themselves, but it wasn't "death" in a human context.

I really don't want to argue the point- if it helps someone connect the dots, fine.

I am aware it presupposes a philosophical point of view most here do not share with me, I just wanted to throw out the notion that there are other ways of seeing all this if there is someone who is interested in pursuing that point of view.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

Mola Ram Suda Ram:

Yes JS believed the earth was 2 and 1/2 billions of years old. However his methodology for arriving at that figure was not scientific in any sense the word.

You are correct.

[Cherubbish]

I don't think that is in any of the scriptures. I wonder who it was that first taught this.

D&C 130:22 informs us the Father and the Son have bodies of flesh and bones - doesn't say anything about blood. Blood in the scriptures is so full of symbolism, it makes sense to me that it was "born" of the Fall.

[Rivers]

Although doubtless in the minority, I would tend to see this interpretation of the seven seals as meaning what John symbolically intended it to mean; the fulness of the earth's continuance through its temporal existence.

Because seven is the number representing fullness and completeness (and 1,000 as an enhancer of sorts), it would be natural for John the Revelator to typify the full and complete temporal existence of the earth as a period of seven thousand years.

To my mind, this has nothing to do with the actual time elapsed.

Similarly, the first Genesis account of creation is described as occuring in seven days; not because that is really how long it took, but because it was God doing the creating, and the fulness of God's creations would mandate the use of the number seven from an ancient Hebrew perspective.

At least, that's my take on it.

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

This makes sense. Jesus said to forgive our brother 70 X 7 times. I'm sure He didn't mean we can stop forgiving after 490 times. Taking the passage as symbolic is consistent with the scriptures.

[David T]

I don't think that is in any of the scriptures. I wonder who it was that first taught this.

Lucky for you, I have a blog post all about that! No Blood Before The Fall: Where'd THAT Come From?

HINT: His initials are O.P.

[cinepro]

I have expressed this many times on this forum- but I will say it again briefly.

The "Fall" was caused by sin.

Animals don't sin. One animal killing the other is no sin, for us, it could be "murder" because we have a human context and human morality.

The "Fall" was caused by sin, so there could be no sin, or death, before there was a human context for these events.

There could be no sin, no fall until there was a human understanding- a human definition- of "sin". There was also no understanding of "death" before we gave that word a human context. Before that, organisms were recycling themselves, but it wasn't "death" in a human context.

I really don't want to argue the point- if it helps someone connect the dots, fine.

I am aware it presupposes a philosophical point of view most here do not share with me, I just wanted to throw out the notion that there are other ways of seeing all this if there is someone who is interested in pursuing that point of view.

That would be a more convincing argument if the doctrine didn't distinguish between two kinds of "death": Physical Death and Spiritual Death.

"Physical Death" is defined simply as "the separation of the spirit from the mortal body." There are no provisions for context; if an animal's spirit leaves its mortal body, then it has physically died. If, on the first day of creation, God created the first living creature by placing a dog's spirit into a dog body, and then the second dog he created attacked the first dog and caused that dog's spirit to leave its body, then that would be "physical death".

At least by the definition the Church gives it.

And trying to spin doctrine by changing the definitions of the words is the same as just saying you don't believe in that doctrine.

[BCSpace]

Here Orson Pratt demonstrates the origin of this idea: his own suppositions and logical conclusions based on the concept of an immortal and perfect and undying initial creation.

I have been unable to find any way to trace this teaching back to Joseph Smith, or anyone of greater authority prior to this speculative presentation of theoretical logic in Orson Pratt's periodical.

Summary and Conclusion

In summary, the chain of promulgation of this teaching appears to be:

Speculation and expression of Orson Pratt's logic in 1853

Reading of this material by Church Historian Joseph Fielding Smith 100 years later, who finds this useful in his 1954 doctrinal arguments against organic evolution, publically teaches, writes, and passes this on this old and formerly buried-in-the-archives information to his current generation.

Bruce R. McConkie continues to teach, write about, and advocate this principle on the authority of Joseph Fielding Smith, and codifies it in the LDS Bible Dictionary, which, while specifically claiming not to be a revealed source of doctrine, is nonetheless viewed as authoritative by a great many Latter-day Saints.

While it may perhaps turn out in the end that this teaching is indeed in tune with reality, as of now, there have been no known claims to revelation on this subject, and it appears to be simply a passed on tradition of one man's well-thought-out speculations in a periodical that ended up being officially denounced by the First Presidency of its day.

Nevertheless, it is official doctrine. But yes the purported ultimate source of it may indeed mean it gets changed. However, I think it unlikely for there to be much of an impetus for such a change as science is unlikely to be in a position to verify the Garden state until it happens again.

While theoretically a powerful doctrinal obstacle for the ability for a member to accept principles of organic evolution as concerning the physical origins of man's body,

I don't see how this doctrine constitutes any obstacle at all for any member to accept evolution. If one (a member) also accepts the resurrection, then body composition changes are possible and part of the package.

[mfbukowski]

That would be a more convincing argument if the doctrine didn't distinguish between two kinds of "death": Physical Death and Spiritual Death.

"Physical Death" is defined simply as "the separation of the spirit from the mortal body." There are no provisions for context; if an animal's spirit leaves its mortal body, then it has physically died. If, on the first day of creation, God created the first living creature by placing a dog's spirit into a dog body, and then the second dog he created attacked the first dog and caused that dog's spirit to leave its body, then that would be "physical death".

At least by the definition the Church gives it.

And trying to spin doctrine by changing the definitions of the words is the same as just saying you don't believe in that doctrine.

But notice these are "definitions" which are in a language. I could simply argue back that the whole idea of a "spirit" or a "physical body" are themselves just definitions in language.

I could say that there were no "physical bodies" before the human concepts of physical, and bodies.

In fact I do say that.

There are no provisions for context;

The mere fact that those are words in a human language GIVES them the human context.

[Nathair/|\]

Just for fun: I didn't write it, but I thought you might enjoy it.

We Are the Other People

by Oberon (Otter) Zell

And I proceed to tell them the story, using their own book for reference: (Genesis 1:26) The [Elohim] said, "Let us make humanity in our own image, in the likeness of ourselves, and let them be masters of the fish of the sea, the birds of heaven, the cattle, all the wild beasts and all the reptiles that crawl upon the earth." Elohim is a plural word, including male and female, and should properly be translated "Gods" or "Pantheon." (1: 27) The Gods created humanity in the image of themselves, In the image of the Gods they created them, Male and female they created them. (1:28) The Gods blessed them, saying to them, "Be fruitful, multiply, fill the earth and conquer it. Be masters of the fish of the sea, the birds of heaven and all living animals on the earth." Now clearly, here we are talking about the original creation of the human species: male and female. All the animals, plants, etc. have all been created in previous verses. This is before the Garden of Eden, and Yahweh is not mentioned as the creator of these people.

The next chapter talks about how Yahweh, an individual member of the Pantheon, goes about assembling his own special little botanical and zoological Garden in Eden, and making his own little man to inhabit it: (Gen 2:7) Yahweh God fashioned a man of dust from the soil. Then he breathed into his nostrils a breath of life, and thus the man became a living being. (2:

Yahweh God planted a garden in Eden which is in the east, and there he put the man he had fashioned. (2:9) Yahweh God caused to spring up from the soil every kind of tree, enticing to look at and good to eat, with the tree of life and the tree of the knowledge of good and evil in the middle of the garden. (2:15) Yahweh God took the man and settled him in the garden of Eden to cultivate and take care of it. Now this next is crucial: note Yahweh's precise words: (2:16) Then Yahweh God gave the man this admonition, "You may eat indeed of all the trees in the garden. (2:17) Nevertheless of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you are not to eat, for on the day you eat of it you shall most surely die." Fateful words, those. We will refer back to this admonition later. Then Yahweh decides to make a woman to go with the man. Now, don't forget that the Pantheon had earlier created a whole population of people, "male and female," who are presumably doing just fine somewhere "outside the gates of Eden." But this set-up in Eden is Yahweh's own little experiment, and will unfold to its own separate destiny. (2:21) So Yahweh God made the man fall into a deep sleep. And while he slept, he took one of his ribs and enclosed it in flesh. (2:22) Yahweh God built the rib he had taken from the man into a woman, and brought her to the man. Right. Man gives birth to woman. Sure he does. But that's the way the story is told here. (2:25) Now both of them were naked, the man and his wife, but they felt no shame in front of each other. Well, of course not! Why should they? But take careful note of those words, as they also will prove to be significant... Now this next part is where it starts to get interesting. Enter the Serpent: (Gen. 3:1) The serpent was the most subtle of all the wild beasts that Yahweh God had made. It asked the woman, "Did God really say you were not to eat from any of the trees in the garden?" (3:2) The woman answered the serpent, "We may eat the fruit of the trees in the garden. (3:3) "But of the fruit of the tree in the middle of the garden God said, 'You must not eat it, nor touch it, under pain of death." (3:4) Then the serpent said to the woman, "No! You will not die! (3:5) "God knows in fact that on the day you eat it your eyes will be opened and you will be like gods, knowing good and evil." What a remarkable statement! "Your eyes will be opened and you will be like gods, knowing good and evil." The Serpent directly contradicts Yahweh. Obviously, one of them has to be lying. Which one, do you suppose? And, if the serpent speaks true, wouldn't you wish to eat of the magic fruit? Wouldn't it be a good thing, to become "like gods, knowing good and evil"? Or is it preferable to remain in ignorance?

(Gen. 3:6) The woman saw that the tree was good to eat and pleasing to the eye, and that it was desirable for the knowledge that it could give. So she took some of its fruit and ate it. She gave some also to her husband who was with her, and he ate it. (3:7) Then the eyes of both of them were opened and they realized that they were naked. So they sewed fig leaves together to make themselves loincloths. The author makes an interesting assumption here: that if you realize you are naked you will automatically want to cover yourself. Further implications will unfold shortly...

(Gen. 3:

The man and his wife heard the sound of Yahweh God walking in the garden in the cool of the day, and they hid from Yahweh God among the trees of the garden. (3:9) But Yahweh God called to the man. "Where are you?" he asked. (3:10) "I heard the sound of you in the garden," he replied. "I was afraid because I was naked, so I hid." (3:11) "Who told you that you were naked?" he asked. "Have you been eating of the tree I forbade you to eat?"

And so the sign of the Fall becomes modesty. Take note of this. The descendants of Adam and Eve will be distinguished throughout history from virtually all other peoples by their obsessive modesty taboos, wherein they will feel ashamed of being naked. It follows that those who feel no shame in being naked are, by definition, not carriers of this spiritual disease of original sin!

(Gen. 3:12) The man replied, "It was the woman you put with me; she gave me the fruit, and I ate it." Right. Blame the woman. What a turkey! (3:13) Then Yahweh God asked the woman, "What is this you have done?" The woman replied, "The serpent tempted me and I ate. "So of course she blames the serpent. But just what did the serpent do that was so evil? Why, he called Yahweh a liar! Was he wrong? Let's see... (3:21) Yahweh God made clothes out of skins for the man and his wife, and they put them on. Out of skins? This means that Yahweh had to kill some innocent animals to pander to Adam and Eve's new obsession with modesty!

And now we come to the crux of the Fall. Yahweh had said back there in chapter (2:17), regarding the fruit of the tree of knowledge, that "on the day you eat of it you shall most surely die." The Serpent, on the other hand, had contradicted Yahweh in chapter (3:4-5): "No! You will not die! God knows in fact that on the day you eat it your eyes will be opened and you will be like gods, knowing good and evil." So what actually happened? Who lied and who told the truth about this remarkable fruit? The answer is given in the next verse: (3:22) Then Yahweh God said, "See, the man has become like one of us, with his knowledge of good and evil. He must not be allowed to stretch his hand out next and pick from the tree of life also, and eat some and live forever."

Get that? Yahweh himself admits that he had lied! In fact, and in Yahweh's own words, the Serpent spoke the absolute truth! And moreover, Yahweh tells the rest of the Pantheon that he intends to evict Adam (and presumably Eve as well) to keep them from gaining immortality to go with their newly-acquired divine knowledge. To prevent them, in other words, from truly becoming gods! So who, in this story, comes off as a benefactor of humanity, and who comes off as a tyrant? THE SERPENT NEVER LIED!

This story, to digress slightly, bears a remarkable resemblance to a contemporary tale from ancient Greece. In that version, the Serpent (later identified as Lucifer, the Light-Bearer) may be equated with the heroic titan Prometheus, who championed humanity against the tyranny of Zeus, who wished for people to be mere slaves of the gods. Prometheus, whose name means "forethought," gave people wisdom, intelligence, and fire stolen from Olympus. Moreover, he ordained the portions of animal sacrifice so that humans got the best parts (the meat and hides) while the portion that was burned to the gods was the bones and fat. In punishment for this defiance of his divine authority, Zeus condemned Prometheus to a terrible punishment for an immortal: to be chained to a mountain in the Caucasus, where Zeus' gryphon/eagle (actually a Lammergier) would devour his liver each day. It would grow back each night. Zeus promised to relent if Prometheus would reveal his great secret knowledge: Who would succeed Zeus as supreme god? Prometheus refused to tell, but history has revealed the answer... The interesting thing about all this is that the Greeks properly regarded Prometheus as a noble hero in his defiance of unjust tyranny. One may wonder why the Serpent is not so well regarded. On the contrary, snakes are loathed throughout Christendom. (3:23) So Yahweh God expelled him from the garden of Eden, to till the soil from which he had been taken. (3:24) He banished the man, and in front of the garden of Eden he posted the cherubs, and the flame of a flashing sword, to guard the way to the tree of life. So that's it for the Fall. But the story of Adam and Eve doesn't end there. (Gen 4:1) The man had intercourse with his wife Eve, and she conceived and gave birth to Cain... (4:2) She gave birth to a second child, Abel, the brother of Cain. Now Abel became a shepherd and kept flocks, while Cain tilled the soil. (4:3) Time passed and Cain brought some of the produce of the soil as an offering for Yahweh, (4:4) while Abel, for his part, brought the first-born of his flock and some of their fat as well. Yahweh looked with favor on Abel and his offering. But he did not look with favor on Cain and his offering, and Cain was very angry and downcast. Well, why shouldn't he be? Both brothers had brought forth their first fruits as offerings, but Yahweh rejected the vegetables and only accepted the blood sacrifice. This was to set a gruesome precedent: (4:

Cain said to his brother Abel, "Let us go out;" and while they were in the open country, Cain set on his brother Abel and killed him.

Accursed and marked for fratricide, (4:16) Cain left the presence of Yahweh and settled in the land of Nod, east of Eden. We can assume that the phrase "left the presence of Yahweh" implies that Yahweh is a local deity, and not omnipresent. Now Eden, according to (Gen. 2:14-15), was situated at the source of the Tigris and Euphrates rivers, apparently right where Lake Van is now, in Turkey. "East of Eden," therefore, would probably be along the shores of the Caspian Sea, right in the Indo-European heartland. Cain settled in there, among the people of Nod, and married one of the women of that country. Here, for the first time, is specifically mentioned the "other people" who are not of the lineage of Adam and Eve, i.e., the Pagans. So let's look at this story from another viewpoint: There we were, around six thousand years ago, living in our little farming communities around the Caspian Sea, in the land of Nod, when this dude with a terrible scar comes stumbling in out of the sunset. He tells us this bizarre story, about how his mother and father had been created by some god named Yahweh, and put in charge of a beautiful garden somewhere out west, and how they had gotten thrown out for disobedience after eating some of the landlord's forbidden magic fruit of enlightenment. He tells us of murdering his brother, as the god of his parents would only accept blood sacrifice, and of receiving that scar as a mark so that all would know him as a fratricide.

The poor guy is really a mess psychologically, obsessed with guilt. He is also obsessively modest, insisting on wearing clothes even in the hottest summer, and he has a hard time with our penchant for skinny-dipping in the warm inland sea. He seems to believe that he is tainted by the "sin" of his parent's disobedience; that it is in his blood, somehow, and will continue to contaminate his children and his children's children.

One of our healing women takes pity on the poor sucker, and marries him... (4:17) Cain had intercourse with his wife, and she conceived and gave birth to Enoch. He became the builder of a town, and he gave the town the name of his son Enoch. With both of their first sons not turning out very well, Adam and Eve decided to try again: (4:25) Adam had intercourse with his wife, and she gave birth to a son whom she named Seth... (4:26) A son was also born to Seth, and he named him Enosh. This man was the first to invoke the name of Yahweh. Now it doesn't mention here where Seth's wife came from. Another woman from Nod, possibly, or maybe someone from another Neolithic community downstream in the Tigris-Euphrates valley. But her folks also, cannot be of the lineage of Adam and Eve, and must also be counted among "the other people." But whatever happened to Adam? After all, way back there in chapter Gen. 2:17, warning Adam about the magic fruit of knowledge, Yahweh had told him that "on the day you eat of it you shall most surely die." So, when did Adam die? (Gen. 5:4) Adam lived for eight hundred years after the birth of Seth and he became the father of sons and daughters. (5:5) In all, Adam lived for nine hundred and thirty years; then he died. Hey, that's pretty good! Nine hundred and some odd years isn't bad for a man who's been told he's gonna die the next day!

Well, the story goes on, and maybe next time the Witlesses come to visit I'll tell more of it. But suffice it to say that those of us who are not of Semitic descent (i.e., not of the lineage of Adam and Eve) cannot share in the Original Sin that comes with that lineage. Being that the Bible is the story of that lineage, of Adam and Eve's descendants and their special relationship with their particular god, Yahweh, it follows that this is not the story of the rest of us. We may have been Cain's wife's people, or Seth's wife's people, or some other people over the hill and far away, but whichever people the rest of us are, as far as the Bible is concerned, we are the Other People, and so we are continually referred to throughout.

Later books of the Bible are filled with admonitions to the followers of Yahweh to "learn not the ways of the Pagans..." (Jer 10:2) with detailed descriptions of exactly what it is we do, such as erect standing stones and sacred poles, worship in sacred groves and practice divination and magic. And worship the sun, moon, stars and the "Queen of Heaven." "You must not behave as they do in Egypt where once you lived; you must not behave as they do in Canaan where I am taking you. You must not follow their laws." (Lev 18:3) For Yahweh, as he so clearly emphasizes, is not the god of the Pagans. We have our own lineage and our own heritage, and our tale is not told in the Bible. We were not "made" like clay figurines by a male deity out of "dust from the soil." We were born of our Mother the Earth, and have evolved over eons in Her nurturing embrace. All of us, in our many and diverse tribes, have creation myths and legends of our origins and history; some of these tales may even be actually true.

Like the descendants of Adam and Eve, many of us also have stories of great floods, earthquakes, volcanic eruptions and other cataclysms that wiped out whole communities of our people, wherein "I alone survived to tell the tale." Nearly all of our ancestral tribes (and especially those of us who today are reclaiming our own Pagan heritage) lack that peculiar obsessive body modesty that seems to be a hallmark of the original sin alluded to in the story of the Fall. We can be naked and unashamed! Why, our Goddess even tells us, "as a sign that you are truly free, you shall be naked in your rites." Not being born into sin, we have no need of salvation, and no need of a Messiah to redeem our sinful souls.

Neither heaven nor hell is our destination in the afterlife; we have our own various arrangements with our own various deities. The Bible is not our story; we have our own stories to tell, and they are many and diverse. In a long life, you may get to hear many of them... May you live long and prosper!

[mfbukowski]

Just for fun: I didn't write it, but I thought you might enjoy it.

Never noticed that either- being ashamed of being "naked" is another totally human context- and our clothes are cultural icons. We literally "put on" our culture the way the savior "put on" his body in John 1 when he came here and "dwelt" ("tented" in Greek)among us.

Putting on clothes, and in so doing, taking our culture upon us, is one of the most human-defining activities we do.

Great observation- thanks!

Adam names the animals, he names Eve, he puts on clothes and he sins. All of those activities define him (us) within a human context; animals do none of those things.

[David T]

I don't see how this doctrine constitutes any obstacle at all for any member to accept evolution. If one (a member) also accepts the resurrection, then body composition changes are possible and part of the package.

It's fine to hold to one concept or the other. But trying to harmonize both is downright silly, and completely unnecessary. I know of no branches of Evolutionary science that posit that humanity and its direct biological ancestors at one point didn't have blood in their veins.

[Questing Beast]

...

Ever since the days of Joseph Smith, official Church publications have universally taught that "the age of the Earth" is undetermined and can be as old as many millions and billions of years (meaning, the six "days" of creation took that long), but that the "Temporal Age of the Earth" started around 4,000 BC, and before that time there was no physical death.

...

So all those fossils of dead dinosaurs and plants and prehistoric whatnot are from leftover material recycled to make up this earth? Because that's the ONLY explanation for the empirical evidence of death always existing on this planet, if Adam and Eve wrought death by "falling" c. 4,000 BCE. But then we have much more recent death; the "Ice Man" and literally countless artifacts appearing constantly that prove early mankind is far older than some mythical "garden of Eden" epoch: and all of prehistoric mankind was dying and even getting buried.

I do know that we over-think religion. Imho, it's best just to leave it as a metaphysical structure, and then it ceases to bear any connection to empirical, mortal life. Only when we insist on the scriptures teaching empirical truths do we have a conflict with the growing body of knowledge that science is giving us....

[cinepro]

So all those fossils of dead dinosaurs and plants and prehistoric whatnot are from leftover material recycled to make up this earth? Because that's the ONLY explanation for the empirical evidence of death always existing on this planet...

That's one possible solution, but as you can see from this thread, when people are committed to believing two apparently opposing theories, there is no limit to the creativity that may be brought to bear.

Interestingly, some people choose to get creative with the Church's teachings on the subject, while others chose to get creative with the science. I truly wonder why some people choose one over the other...?

[Rivers]

That's one possible solution, but as you can see from this thread, when people are committed to believing two apparently opposing theories, there is no limit to the creativity that may be brought to bear.

Interestingly, some people choose to get creative with the Church's teachings on the subject, while others chose to get creative with the science. I truly wonder why some people choose one over the other...?

So do you think we need to make a choice between the church and science?

The cognitive dissonance can really give a guy a headache.

[BCSpace]

Interestingly, some people choose to get creative with the Church's teachings on the subject, while others chose to get creative with the science. I truly wonder why some people choose one over the other...?

The best policy, imho, is to not get creative (hypothesize) except where there is no doctrine or details. But it certainly is fortuitous to have some doctrine and scripture on one's side as I do. And yes, others are also fortuitous.

So all those fossils of dead dinosaurs and plants and prehistoric whatnot are from leftover material recycled to make up this earth? Because that's the ONLY explanation for the empirical evidence of death always existing on this planet, if Adam and Eve wrought death by "falling" c. 4,000 BCE.

IIRC, actual cellulose (the material making up cell walls in plants and other living things) from 250 million years ago and more have been found in water in salt crystals. Much better than fossils since one can do actual biological chemistry analysis on such.

But then we have much more recent death; the "Ice Man" and literally countless artifacts appearing constantly that prove early mankind is far older than some mythical "garden of Eden" epoch: and all of prehistoric mankind was dying and even getting buried.

I prefer a hypothesis that has homo sapiens existing when science says they do and using the rise of civilization to put a date range on when they actually became spirit children of God and went through the process of the Fall.

[BCSpace]

Never noticed that either- being ashamed of being "naked" is another totally human context- and our clothes are cultural icons. We literally "put on" our culture the way the savior "put on" his body in John 1 when he came here and "dwelt" ("tented" in Greek)among us.

Putting on clothes, and in so doing, taking our culture upon us, is one of the most human-defining activities we do.

Great observation- thanks!

Adam names the animals, he names Eve, he puts on clothes and he sins. All of those activities define him (us) within a human context; animals do none of those things.

Yes, great examples. Besides civilization, these are also the marks of becomming spirit children of God as opposed to being animals who are merely intelligent.

[BCSpace]

I don't see how this doctrine constitutes any obstacle at all for any member to accept evolution. If one (a member) also accepts the resurrection, then body composition changes are possible and part of the package.

It's fine to hold to one concept or the other. But trying to harmonize both is downright silly, and completely unnecessary.

I don't think so. Especially when the harmonization is as easy as it is in this case. Some people vacillate between one concept or the other and run up against stumbling blocks to belief when they don't have to because of harmonization.

I know of no branches of Evolutionary science that posit that humanity and its direct biological ancestors at one point didn't have blood in their veins.

Non sequitur if the belief is that God did (and does) it.

[mfbukowski]

So do you think we need to make a choice between the church and science?

The cognitive dissonance can really give a guy a headache.

There are none so blind as those who refuse to see!

Let THEM bang their heads against the walls they invent for themselves!

[mfbukowski]

I prefer a hypothesis that has homo sapiens existing when science says they do and using the rise of civilization to put a date range on when they actually became spirit children of God and went through the process of the Fall.

Just for the record, I think BC's understanding is a good one also- I just take a different approach which incidentally is pretty compatible with what BC thinks.

Both views hinge on the idea that there was a time at which we became definably "human".

[David T]

Non sequitur if the belief is that God did (and does) it.

That's not Evolution, then. That's making up something new.

[mfbukowski]

That's not Evolution, then. That's making up something new.

I see it more as a kind of theistic, planned transformation of species, but no one knows what that means. I suppose I could use different words but then you have communication problems.

Oh well.

No one can understand Alfred North Whitehead, and that is what he believes, but because no one can understand him, his ideas have just kind of stagnated.

It's a problem.

I think the universe "naturally" proceeds from matter unorganized through stages of intelligence until it reaches what we call "exaltation" - the "sea of glass" etc for the earth, and godhood for those who make it.