D&C 77:6

[thesometimesaint]

Rivers:

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

I don't believe we know near enough to make that false dichotomy. In the mean time I think it is best to allow science to explain the how of something, and the Church to explain the why.

[BCSpace]

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

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

I never claimed it was part of evolution. In my own hypothesis, the garden state is more of a nirvana where little or nothing is going on until the Fall. All processes stop to await Adam and Eve's choice and then proceed apace when they choose. If this state lasts a hundred or even a thousand years, it's unliklely to show up in any scientific record especially if the garden state is localized.

If, as part of this state, no blood is required, then God will accomplish it. A pure scientist may hate such a notion, but the bottom line if you want a scenario in which God exists, there will be some faith involved, especially in a Christian faith where we believe the death of a God and belief and obedience in him satisfies the payment of sin debt. Not to mention the notion of resurrection.....

My personal opinion is that the garden state didn't last more than a few years to a decade.

[cinepro]

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.

When it comes to things like "no death before the fall" and the scope of Noah's flood, what the Church teaches is totally contradictory to what science teaches. So yes, we have to either spin the Church teachings, or spin the science. We can't accept both at face value.

But after a point, spinning the doctrine gets a little surreal. Because eventually, you have to believe that when the scriptures were written (revealed?) and latter day Apostles and Prophets spoke, they didn't actually mean anything. Meaning, their words are just a pattern of letters with no greater meaning on which we can hang whatever theory we like. So when Bruce R. McConkie stands in conference and says:

In Eden we will see all things created in a paradisiacal state—without death, without procreation, without probationary experiences.

We will come to know that such a creation, now unknown to man, was the only way to provide for the Fall.

We will then see Adam and Eve, the first man and the first woman, step down from their state of immortal and paradisiacal glory to become the first mortal flesh on earth.

He is using certain words but we can give those words whatever meaning we would like; we shouldn't consider what meaning he meant to give them. When he said that Adam and Eve became "the first mortal flesh on earth", we can say that those words really mean that Adam and Eve were the first to wear clothes, or give each other proper names, or to use hygiene. And if our explanation makes sense to us, then we can pretend that that's probably what they meant.

This is a good example of two very different approaches to the scriptures and prophets among Church members. Some LDS hear the words of our leaders and ask themselves "What are they trying to say?", while others listen and ask "How can I interpret the words they have used in a way that supports what I want to believe in?" There are good examples of both approaches in this thread.

[BCSpace]

He is using certain words but we can give those words whatever meaning we would like; we shouldn't consider what meaning he meant to give them. When he said that Adam and Eve became "the first mortal flesh on earth", we can say that those words really mean that Adam and Eve were the first to wear clothes, or give each other proper names, or to use hygiene. And if our explanation makes sense to us, then we can pretend that that's probably what they meant.

It's much less of a strain and not unreasonable at all to ask what earth? The one that was finished being created. In that case, the rest just falls into place without strain.

Of course I would agree that often times what they want to mean is complete opposition to evolution etc. But because of actual doctrine (no details) and prior statements, it is virtually impossible for them to express it in a way that precludes evolution or preAdamite races. They are being restrained and it's only by going out and publishing on their own can they express their opposition fully, But in that case, it's not doctrine because they are publishing outside the auspices of the Church.

[thesometimesaint]

cinepro:

The scope of The Flood is not part of LDS doctrine, though it certainly was part of Bruce R's. Same with no death before The Fall.

http://en.fairmormon.org/Mormonism_and_science/Global_or_local_Flood

http://www.fairwiki.org/Mormonism_and_science/Death_before_the_Fall

[BCSpace]

The scope of The Flood is not part of LDS doctrine

It is and the scope is world-wide.

Flood at Noah’s Time

See also Ark; Noah, Bible Patriarch; Rainbow.

During Noah’s time the earth was completely covered with water. This was the baptism of the earth and symbolized a cleansing (1 Pet. 3:20–21).

God will bring a flood of waters upon the earth to destroy all flesh, Gen. 6:17 (Moses 7:34, 43, 50–52; Moses 8:17, 30).

The waters of the flood were upon the earth, Gen. 7:10

God set a bow in the cloud as a token of the covenant, Gen. 9:9–17

After the waters had receded, the land of America became a choice land, Ether 13:2

The wicked shall perish in the flood, Moses 7:38, Moses 8:24.

GS - Flood at Noah’s Time

I freely admit I disagree with the official LDS doctrine that the Flood was world-wide. But I would never state it's not LDS doctrine. The "sloshing" theory is probably about as far away as one can get without coming into conflict with LDS doctrine, but I don't think sloshing occured either.

[thesometimesaint]

BCSpace:

I think you'll find that Hugh Nibley had differing ideas. Further that according to Fairmormon it is not a doctrine that I or anyone else in the church is required to believe.

http://en.fairmormon.org/Mormonism_and_science/Global_or_local_Flood

[mfbukowski]

For the record, I believe there was no death before the fall because death is a result of sin and it took the atonement of Jesus Christ to reverse the effects of the fall so we could return again to our Father

I also believe in a world wide flood.

Is that OK with you Cinepro? Or will you excommunicate me for believing that?

The meaning of words depend on the context in which they are used.

[mfbukowski]

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

I have another comment about that.

I was going to come back and say "the universe unfolds itself like a plant, knowing what it is to be from the beginning" but then I thought about it and realized that I was wrong.

It's the plant that unfolds itself, like the universe, knowing what it is to be from the beginning.

Definitely mo' bettah!

[cinepro]

cinepro:

The scope of The Flood is not part of LDS doctrine, though it certainly was part of Bruce R's. Same with no death before The Fall.

http://en.fairmormon.org/Mormonism_and_science/Global_or_local_Flood

http://www.fairwiki.org/Mormonism_and_science/Death_before_the_Fall

Just so I'm clear, you're talking about what is and isn't "LDS Doctrine", but neither reference is from LDS.org?

[BCSpace]

I think you'll find that Hugh Nibley had differing ideas. Further that according to Fairmormon it is not a doctrine

Neither source is considered to be doctrinal by the Church unless published by the Church. The reference I gave is published by the Church.

that I or anyone else in the church is required to believe.

There are indeed less important doctrines, but ultimately, you are required to believe all true doctrines before entering the Celestial Kingdom. I take a risk in saying I don't believe the official LDS doctrine of the world-wide Flood. I believe it's one that can change because it's only a traditional christian/hebrew doctrine. But I don't feel it's much of a risk.

For the record, I believe there was no death before the fall because death is a result of sin and it took the atonement of Jesus Christ to reverse the effects of the fall so we could return again to our Father

I believe that too. But I also believe that there was death and evolution prior to the garden state and don't see any conflict between the two.

[cinepro]

Is that OK with you Cinepro? Or will you excommunicate me for believing that?

You'd have to check with TSS. He's the resident expert on which doctrines are optional and which are required...

[Rivers]

I also believe in a world wide flood.

I used to believe that too. Then I went to school.

[Rivers]

For the record, I believe there was no death before the fall because death is a result of sin and it took the atonement of Jesus Christ to reverse the effects of the fall so we could return again to our Father

The atonement reverses the effects of sin and death. Yes. But a traditional view of the creation and fall are not necessary for there to be a need for an atonement. We all sin. We all die. An ancient story that tells us why we all sin and die is irrelevant to the fact that everybody sins, dies, and pays taxes.

[mfbukowski]

I used to believe that too. Then I went to school.

Ah, but the world was much smaller then, but it WAS the whole world.

[LeSellers]

I used to believe [in a world wide flood,] too. Then I went to school.

Meaning that those who believe differently are ignorant, unintelligent, and naïve, right?

Lehi

[Rivers]

Meaning that those who believe differently are ignorant, unintelligent, and naïve, right?

Lehi

Not necessarily. They simply have an unwavering faith in the reality of scriptural accounts. My views of the scriptures have been altered a bit.

[thesometimesaint]

cinepro:

Know we the truth, and the truth shall make you free.

[cdowis]

For the record, I believe there was no death before the fall because death is a result of sin and it took the atonement of Jesus Christ to reverse the effects of the fall so we could return again to our Father

How long ago were plants and animals placed on the earth. Thousands of years, or millions of years.

[cdowis]

As a counterpoint, I suppose we can turn to what the Church has published on the subject:

Actualy this was not the church, but from Bruce R. "I was wrong about blacks and the priesthood" McConkie published in the Ensign.

And here's how Robert Millet (not an apostle, but it is published by the Church) summarizes the doctrine...

This is beginning to sound like the discussion on one vs two Hill Cumorah.

[livy111us]

Here are some interesting quotes which may be useful in this discussion:

“Time is the ocean of existence, filled with elements and life for improvement by man. The presence and absence of the sun give days and nights--and the journey of the earth in her circuit, multiplies seasons and years; and years and ages make eternity; and eternity enlarges the scope of universal pleasure amid the glory of Gods. again it is revealed, that one of our Father’s days in Kolob, is 1,000 years. It is also revealed, that his year is, as we count, 365,000 years. Then a week of his years, by the count of heaven, is 2,555,000,000 years. Two billions, five hundred and fifty five millions of years! Just the length of eternity, as the martyred prophet said” William W. Phelps, Deseret Almanac, For the Year of our Lord, 1852’ pg. 47

--In regarding this concept Elder McConkie wrote: “How long did Adam Abraham and Jeremiah spend in preparing to take the test of a mortal probation? What ages and eons and eternities passed away while Christ dwelt in the Eternal presence and did the work then assigned to him? How can we measure infinite duration in finite terms? To such questions we have no definite answers. Suffice it to say, the passage of time was infinite from man’s viewpoint. We have an authentic account, which can be accepted as true, that life has been going on in this system for almost 2,555,000,000 years. Presumably this system is the universe created by the Father through the instrumentality of the Son.” Mortal Messiah, 1:29

-- Eternity, agreeable to the records found in the catacombs of Egypt, has been going on in this system, (not this world) almost two billion five hundred and fifty five millions of years” Letter from W.W. Phelps to William Smith, dated 25 Dec. 1844, Times and Seasons 5 (1 Jan. 1845), 758 “I remember once being in the office in Nauvoo where President Joseph Smith and some other brethren got to talking about the length of an eternity. One of the brethren went to work and managed to get number of years that composed an eternity. It was somewhere in the neighborhood of 250,000,000 years. President Smith said that was correct. The number of years are vast and can scarcely be counted. Eternities have a beginning and an end. One eternity commences and that has an end, and so on. Eternities upon eternities.” Lorenzo Snow papers, 16 June 1901, LDS Church Archives.

Kolob time Earth time 1 day 1,000 years 1 hour 41.67 years 1 minute 253 days 1 second 4.22 days .25 seconds 1.1 days .01 second 1 hour We are immortal beings. That which dwells in this body of ours is immortal, and will always exist. Our individuality will always continue. Eternities may begin, eternities may end, and still we shall have our individuality. Our identity is insured. We will be ourselves, and nobody else. Whatever changes may arise, whatever worlds may be made or pass away, our identity will always remain the same; and we will continue on improving, advancing and increasing in wisdom, intelligence, power and dominion, worlds without end. -Lorenzo Snow, Conference Reports, p. 2, April, 1901I for more detailed account, see ‘Eternities to Come and Go’ by Stephen Robinson, in the Religious Studies Center Newsletter, vol. 8 no. 3 (May 1994)

[mfbukowski]

How old is the earth? More specifically, how long ago were plants and animals placed on the earth. Thousands of years, or millions of years.

Have you read my previous replies?

It's irrelevant how long it took.

[cinepro]

cinepro:

Know we the truth, and the truth shall make you free.

[thesometimesaint]

cinepro:

:rofl:

[Stargazer]

So essentially, death was introduced to the earth approximately 6000-7000 years ago? Before that, death did not occur on earth and man is "no older than 6-7 thousand years old"?

No, Adam and Eve were in the Garden, and there was no death there. Genesis in fact speaks only of the Garden, not what was outside it, until Adam and Eve were driven out. It's clear that death was going on outside of the Garden for a long time before the Garden was created as a separate zone just so mankind, as God's creation, could be brought into being on the earth. I know it sounds like I'm making it up as I go along. There's a reason for it, however: I am making it up as I go along. (Don't hit me!) Makes sense to me, though.

The fact is, I don't know how much of Genesis is to be accepted as literal, and how much is to be accepted as allegorical. I have faith that all will be explained at some point, and it will make sense.

Wow, then our current scientific understanding of the age of the world and humanity is a gigantic conspiracy heaped upon us by the world's scientific community?

No, the scientific community is discovering physical facts that help us explain our existence here on earth from a purely physical standpoint. What was and is going on in the mind of God as the moving force behind all this isn't even a matter for consideration by the scientific community. That community is not equipped to deal with the matters behind the curtain, because the Ultimate Wizard isn't letting that little dog discover Him. They only find what He intends them to find. The rest is not discoverable by the means the scientists can bring to bear -- except insofar as their willingness to suspend disbelief permits them to listen to the still, small voice on an individual basis.

Hmmm, a gigantic conspiracy perpetrated by the world's scientific community to bury the "truth" about the actual age of mankind.....yes, suddenly it is plain and simple.

You'd like to believe that, wouldn't you? But no.