No Death Before the Fall?

[Calm]

1 hour ago, JLHPROF said:

I HATE that hypothesis.
The idea that Adam had a biological father but he had no spirit is abhorrent, and in my opinion contradicts the scriptures which categorically state that ALL things were created spiritually before they were created physically.
There is no such thing as a creature without a spirit.

Would you have a problem with a shared spirit?  For example, what if all the bees in a hive colony were the same spiritual being?

We human are a colony of individual cells, that live and die in the trillions every day.  Are those cells part of the spiritual being that is us?  If so, why not see the world as a greater being with the rocks and water, plants and lesser animals as cells that live and die all within the spirit mass that is earth?

[clarkgoble]

5 minutes ago, Calm said:

Would you have a problem with a shared spirit?  For example, what if all the bees in a hive colony were the same spiritual being?

I think the main view of spirits prior to the revelation on spirits as matter was a kind of shared spirit with God. This was a common neoplatonic view and was popularized at the general time by Emerson. Many saints believed it and Parley P. Pratt wrote of it. The exact relationship of Spirit and individual spirits isn't clear to me. I know over at BCC right now J. Stapley has an interesting post on the models of the plan of salvation. He tends to take the view that Joseph held that each individual was an independent spirit and there was no spirit birth. My own view is that the situation is a bit more complex and vague than he suggests because of the ambiguity between common spirit and individual spirits. (I've not replied to the latest comments there yet and probably won't until tonight)

[JAHS]

1 hour ago, JLHPROF said:

I HATE that  hypothesis.
The idea that Adam had a biological father but he had no spirit is abhorrent, and in my opinion contradicts the scriptures which categorically state that ALL things were created spiritually before they were created physically.
There is no such thing as a creature without a spirit.

That's not really what I said. I did not say Adam had a biological father and no spirit; only that animals or creatures living before him did not have spirits. According to Joseph Smith and Brigham young Adam was created by God the Father somewhere else and brought to this planet along with Eve.  
He also said.
"And I, the Lord God, had created all the children of men; and not yet a man to till the ground; for in heaven created I them; and there was not yet flesh upon the earth, neither in the water, neither in the air;..
and man became a living soul, the first flesh upon the earth, the first man also; nevertheless, all things were before created; but spiritually were they created and made according to my word."

God does specify Adam as becoming a "living soul" (body plus spirit) and that he was the first on the earth and then all things were created after him which were created spiritually first. That still might leave room for other creatures that were created without spirits before Adam. I know it's a long shot and not a popular idea.
 

[JLHPROF]

6 minutes ago, JAHS said:

That's not really what I said. I did not say Adam had a biological father and no spirit; only that animals or creatures living before him did not have spirits. According to Joseph Smith and Brigham young Adam was created by God the Father somewhere else and brought to this planet along with Eve.  
He also said.
"And I, the Lord God, had created all the children of men; and not yet a man to till the ground; for in heaven created I them; and there was not yet flesh upon the earth, neither in the water, neither in the air;..
and man became a living soul, the first flesh upon the earth, the first man also; nevertheless, all things were before created; but spiritually were they created and made according to my word."

God does specify Adam as becoming a "living soul" (body plus spirit) and that he was the first on the earth and then all things were created after him which were created spiritually first. That still might leave room for other creatures that were created without spirits before Adam. I know it's a long shot and not a popular idea.
 

Brigham also taught that plants and animals were brought from another world to this earth with Adam and Eve.
If a soul is physical and spiritual combined, then whether we are speaking of men or creatures, all things have souls because all things have spirit and body.

[clarkgoble]

12 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

Brigham also taught that plants and animals were brought from another world to this earth with Adam and Eve.
If a soul is physical and spiritual combined, then whether we are speaking of men or creatures, all things have souls because all things have spirit and body.

Brigham held to a cataclysm model. That is that this world was made from prior earths that had been utterly destroyed. So any fossils would be from those prior worlds. The problem with his view is that it contradicts the idea that the earth becomes the celestial kingdom for its inhabitants. Wouldn't that have been true for the other worlds as well?

It's not exactly clear where Brigham's cataclysm model comes from. I've not done any research but given how he adopted protestant apologetics of many things such as institutional racism, I wouldn't be surprised to learn these were anti-Darwinian apologetics that Brigham picked up. So far as I am aware he doesn't appeal to either Joseph nor revelation for his notions here. The alternative view is that he's picked up on the idea of multiple Adams with Adam being the first one in a land. By that reasoning Noah was an Adam as was Lehi. Thus the idea of other earths would have been just prior creations here. Not a lot of textual support in Young for that though.

Brigham also thought that when Adam is made from the dust of the earth in Genesis 1 it wasn't this planet.

Edited May 25, 2017 by clarkgoble

[RevTestament]

53 minutes ago, clarkgoble said:

They're all second hand but it appears to have been widely discussed by people and was in a variety of journals. The main references are the following:

Now it is a pleasant thing to think of and to know where the Garden of Eden was. Did you ever think of it? I do not think many do, for in Jackson County was the Garden of Eden. Joseph has declared this, and I am as much bound to believe that as to believe that Joseph was a prophet of God. (Brigham Young, Journal History, March 15, 1857)

The spot chosen for the garden of Eden was Jackson County, in the State of Missouri, where [the city of] Independence now stands; it was occupied in the morn of creation by Adam. (Heber C Kimball, Journal of Discourses, 10:235)

Again Presdet [sic] Young said Joseph the Prophet told me that the garden of Eden was in Jackson Co Missouri, & when Adam was driven out of the garden of Eden He went about 40 miles to the Place which we Named Adam Ondi Ahman, & there built an Altar of Stone & offered Sacrifize [sic]. That Altar remains to this day. I saw it as Adam left it as did many others, & through all the revolutions of the world that Altar had not been disturbed. (Wilford Woodruff’s Journal, 9 vols., ed., Scott G. Kenny (Salt Lake City: Signature Books, 1985), 7:129 (journal entry dated 30 March 1879)

The Newsroom has backed off from the view we know where the Garden of Eden is. 

Thank you. I have never seen a first hand quote from Joseph Smith, so just thought I'd ask. To me BY saying Joseph taught that, and Joseph actually teaching it are two different things. People often remember their interpretation of what someone said rather than what they actually said. 

Quote

I think we should be cautious with these second hand claims of Joseph. First off we don't have the original revelation Joseph used. So we're dealing with Joseph's memory and understanding of a revelation we don't have as mangled through tertiary (often late) memories by other people. However there's so much to Adam being in America that I think that Adam most likely was cast somewhere in the mid-east after leaving Eden. While just a guess, I suspect the equating of Eden to Missouri is more likely an inference since Adam's altar was there.

I haven't heard of the Adam's altar thing. I agree that the second hand claims made about what JS said should be taken with a grain of salt. I seem to entirely disagree with them. I believe JS taught Adam-ondi-Ahman is in America, and so that got interpreted as him saying Eden was here. I find scripture much more reliable than the interpretations and memory of other persons.

Quote

It's worth noting for the young earth people that the altar Joseph said Adam used when cast out of Eden has fossils in it. I always found that funny. Talmage wrote about the fossils to his son who was a geologist saying, "if those stones be part of the first altar, Adam built it of stones containing corpses, and therefore death must have prevailed in the earth before Adam's time." (James E. Talmage to Sterling B. Talmage, 21 May 1931, cited by Jeffrey E. Keller, “Discussion Continued: The Sequel to the Roberts/Smith/Talmage Affair,” Dialogue: A Journal of Mormon Thought 15 [Spring 1982]: 83; reprinted in Sherlock and Keller, “The B. H. Roberts/Joseph Fielding Smith/James E. Talmage Affair,” Search for Harmony, 99)

I suppose JS called some rock Adam's throne and that got interpreted as meaning when Adam was on the earth? Couldn't that be his throne for when he returns?

Quote

(BTW - is there a way to change the text "Quote" in quote blocks to the person I'm quoting? I know if you press the quote button it generates one for you but if you want to use multiple boxes to reply to different parts it gets confusing quick)

Not that I know of. I have enough trouble getting the plain Quote thingy to work at all. You might try copying and pasting the personalized quote block, and see if that works for you. It doesn't for me.

Quote

I am not willing to say the scriptures are primary. I think they are very important but I find the OT to be fairly problematic due to corruption as the Book of Mormon notes. I think the scriptures are very important of course, but I also think claims of non-scriptural revelation by prophets to be of nearly equal weight. Balancing multiple versions can be tricky though. 

I acknowledge that the Masoretic Text from which our OT is taken is not perfect. However, with few exceptions I believe most of the mistakes in it are not purposeful, but scribal errors. I tend to agree with you that the JST should mostly be looked at as inspired interpretation rather than authorized changes, but the text of Moses itself indicates it's an exception.

The main issue I see is that another certain church made changes to its Bible which is what the BoM says. However, the English Bible avoided most of these changes and errors by retranslating the Bible from the original Hebrew and Greek. Therefore, the KJV is fairly reliable, although I have a mounting list of changes which I feel should be made.

Edited May 25, 2017 by RevTestament

[Robert F. Smith]

4 hours ago, snowflake said:

O, you have a couple of options here to make this fit into your worldview.

1. As a young earth creationist (I know call me crazy), the "scientists" are simply wrong on their timeline. When reading the Bible, the more literal and rigid that one reads the Bible, the more one is forced into the young earth view. When I say "I believe the Bible to be the word of God", one must accept what it says as truth, and if a 4 billion year old earth is presented, the Biblical worldview would reject that number as incorrect.   When we take the genealogies in the Bible and trace them back then yes you end up with creation around 4000B.C. or so. Defenders of this view are Ken Hamm and the "answers in genesis" types.  https://answersingenesis.org/ and http://creation.com/

2.  I see many Mormons and Christians with the view that yes the earth is billions of years old.  To get to this position they take the word "day" from the creation account in Genesis and spin it into "creation periods" which can mean basically whatever you want and length of times however you want them to be too. They will also abuse the scripture from Peter that says a day to God is like a thousand years (2 Peter 3:8).  This view typically accepts macroevolution as fact, denies a global flood and accepts death before the fall as well. Often you will hear that there was death before the fall but not the death of Man with this view.  Anyway you cut it, this worldview basically forces modern day "scientific views" of geology and evolution onto the Bible, instead of taking what the Biblical text says about creation and death before the fall. Hugh Ross has an excellent website basically defending this particular worldview. http://www.reasons.org/ 

3. The third option is you throw the Bible out as irrelevant, throw the BOM out as irrelevant and place "scientism" as your worldview. This worldview accepts abiogenesis, big bang, universe billions of years old, macroevolution of species, stellar evolution, chemical evolution as "fact".  I personally find this world view as much of a "religion" as Christianity or Mormonism.

All three of your narrow alternatives are false and misleading, because they are (1) not based on an actual reading of Scripture, (2) misrepresent science, and (3) are constrained by silly and irrational debates within the non-Mormon community.  There is in fact no conflict between science and Scripture, and modern-day revelation does not require that we follow apostate Judeo-Christian theological norms.

[thesometimesaint]

If you have to posit any God or Godlike force onto science to make it work it is religion, but it isn't science.

[Robert F. Smith]

11 hours ago, Ouagadougou said:

Why then does the Bible dictionary say:

"Latter-day revelation teaches..."

It's latter-day revelation, but at the same time not an official endorsement?

So I take it you agree that no death before the fall is pure nonsense? 

I can preface any statement with the claim that "latter-day revelation teaches . . .," but that does not make it so. Nor does that make it an official position of the LDS Church.  This concept always comes hard for you.  Why?

Apostle Dallin Oaks says that there are three sources of knowledge about the universe:  "science, the scriptures, and continuing revelation."  http://www.mormonnewsroom.org/article/fundamental-premises-of-our-faith-talk-given-by-elder-dallin-h-oaks-at-harvard-law-school .

Pres. Harold B. Lee:

Quote

If anyone, regardless of his position in the Church, were to advance a doctrine that is not substantiated by the standard Church works, meaning the Bible, the Book of Mormon, the Doctrine and Covenants, and the Pearl of Great Price, you may know that his statement is merely his private opinion. The only one authorized to bring forth any new doctrine is the President of the Church, who, when he does, will declare it as revelation from God, and it will be so accepted by the Council of the Twelve and sustained by the body of the Church. And if any man speak a doctrine which contradicts what is in the standard Church works, you may know by that same token that it is false and you are not bound to accept it as truth. (The First Area General Conference for Germany, Austria, Holland, Italy, Switzerland, France, Belgium, and Spain of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, held in Munich Germany, August 24–26, 1973, Reports and Discourses, p.69)

 

[snowflake]

22 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said:

All three of your narrow alternatives are false and misleading, because they are (1) not based on an actual reading of Scripture, (2) misrepresent science, and (3) are constrained by silly and irrational debates within the non-Mormon community.  There is in fact no conflict between science and Scripture, and modern-day revelation does not require that we follow apostate Judeo-Christian theological norms.

Your take fits perfectly into category #2.

How long is a "day" in Genesis?

[Robert F. Smith]

12 hours ago, Ouagadougou said:

The LDS church states that:

"Latter-day revelation teaches that there was no death on this earth before the Fall of Adam. Indeed, death entered the world as a direct result of the Fall (2 Ne. 2:22; Moses 6:48)."

https://www.lds.org/scriptures/bd/death.html?lang=eng&letter=D

So, Adam and Eve lived in Missouri; the fall occurred ~ 4,000 B.C.; and before that time there was no death on Earth?  

IMO, this is absolutely ridiculous to believe that death only occurred after the fall.  For example, scientific evidence shows that humans and animals died well before 4,000 B.C. 

I see nothing wrong with the standard scientific understanding of billions of years of Earth history, or of long human and hominid history, and they do not conflict with the so-called "Fall," which comes at the end of very long creative periods (designated "times" rather than "days" in Abraham 4 & 5).  The notion that a sacred rite (such as we now regularly conduct in out temples) was conducted in a garden-temple (a discrete place eastward in the Eden "Plain") which  formally introduced covenants and death to the entire human race, seems not to be problematic.  Death had been with us all along, but now was placed in a meaningful, dispensational context.

12 hours ago, Ouagadougou said:

"Archaeologists say they have unearthed the earliest evidence of warfare between hunter-gatherers to be scientifically dated, at a remote site in northern Kenya.

The 10,000-year-old remains of 27 people found west of Lake Turkana show that they met violent deaths."

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-africa-35370374 .

I don't see what this has to do with your comments about the Fall.  We already know very well that, like their cousins the chimpanzees, humans are sometimes violent and will hunt each other in groups.

[Ouagadougou]

2 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said:

I see nothing wrong with the standard scientific understanding of billions of years of Earth history, or of long human and hominid history, and they do not conflict with the so-called "Fall," which comes at the end of very long creative periods (designated "times" rather than "days" in Abraham 4 & 5).  The notion that a sacred rite (such as we now regularly conduct in out temples) was conducted in a garden-temple (a discrete place eastward in the Eden "Plain") which  formally introduced covenants and death to the entire human race, seems not to be problematic.  Death had been with us all along, but now was placed in a meaningful, dispensational context.

I don't see what this has to do with your comments about the Fall.  We already know very well that, like their cousins the chimpanzees, humans are sometimes violent and will hunt each other in groups.

FAIR states the the church's teaches appear to be a contradiction to science.  

"There is overwhelming archaeological evidence of death having occurred on the earth for many millions of years. For example, oil deposits are formed from the decomposed remains of ancient plants and animals. This is where Church teachings appear to contradict science, since many Latter-day Saint leaders and Church manuals have taught that there was no physical death on the entire earth prior to the fall of Adam. For example, this view is taught in the LDS Bible Dictionary:

"Latter-day revelation teaches that there was no death on this earth for any forms of life before the fall of Adam. Indeed, death entered the world as a direct result of the fall (2 Nephi 2:22; Moses 6:48). [1]"

This interpretation has been shared by many Church authors, including President Joseph Fielding Smith and Elder Bruce R. McConkie.[2] Consequently, the concept of no death before the Fall on the entire earth has made its way into many Church instructional manuals."

https://www.fairmormon.org/answers/Mormonism_and_science/Death_before_the_Fall#Question:_What_does_the_Church_teach_on_the_subject_of_death_before_the_Fall_of_Adam.3F

Even FAIR admits that "Church teachings appear to contradict science," so JFS, McConkie and many others were mistaken IMO as it relates to the age of the earth and the fall.  

[Robert F. Smith]

15 minutes ago, snowflake said:

Your take fits perfectly into category #2.

How long is a "day" in Genesis?

An analysis of the Hebrew word yom "day," indicates that it may be of any period, 12 hour, 24 hour, or indeterminate time (= "time" as used in Abraham 4 & 5).  One needs to read for context.  For example, how can there be a "day" or a "night" before the creation of sun and moon on the fourth "day"?  How do you say "diurnal"?

[Robert F. Smith]

1 minute ago, Ouagadougou said:

FAIR states the the church's teaches appear to be a contradiction to science.  

"There is overwhelming archaeological evidence of death having occurred on the earth for many millions of years. For example, oil deposits are formed from the decomposed remains of ancient plants and animals. This is where Church teachings appear to contradict science, since many Latter-day Saint leaders and Church manuals have taught that there was no physical death on the entire earth prior to the fall of Adam. For example, this view is taught in the LDS Bible Dictionary:

"Latter-day revelation teaches that there was no death on this earth for any forms of life before the fall of Adam. Indeed, death entered the world as a direct result of the fall (2 Nephi 2:22; Moses 6:48). [1]"

This interpretation has been shared by many Church authors, including President Joseph Fielding Smith and Elder Bruce R. McConkie.[2] Consequently, the concept of no death before the Fall on the entire earth has made its way into many Church instructional manuals."

https://www.fairmormon.org/answers/Mormonism_and_science/Death_before_the_Fall#Question:_What_does_the_Church_teach_on_the_subject_of_death_before_the_Fall_of_Adam.3F

Even FAIR admits that "Church teachings appear to contradict science," so JFS, McConkie and many others were mistaken IMO as it relates to the age of the earth and the fall.  

It might help you to understand the meaning of "appear," since you repeat it as though it were a declaration of infallibility.  It also "appears" that the sun rises and sets, but I hope that you realize that such only "appears" to happen -- and does not in fact occur.  There is frequently a stark difference between appearance and reality.  In fact, FAIR is saying that LDS Scripture does not in fact contradict science -- except perhaps for those who are ignorant of science.

[Ouagadougou]

4 hours ago, stemelbow said:

It's likely the Church is wrong regarding this teaching.  I suspect sometime down the road the Church will put out an anonymously written essay suggesting something like, "...past leaders have, in times past, speculated how the earth was formed and when it was formed.  But we know that such information would never be revealed to us (D&C 10...).  The biblical account might supply us with some history, but it is not exhaustive and in some cases we may not know whether all the events discussed in that record are historical.  Some have speculated that the Bible's story of creation is figurative.  Some thoughtful LDS people take that position.  What we know is that God has revealed scripture in our lives and that we are very blessed to have the light given to us as we partake in temple ordinances.  So science and history can teach us stuff, but that doesn't mean it can tell us what God knows. 

We encourage and support scientific research.  We think it helps humanity and will continue to do so.  God formed the earth eons ago.  He could have used old materials lying around.  He could have tricked us into thinking the earth is older than it is to test our faith.  So think what you must, but go to the temple, attend your meetings and magnify your callings.  Maybe He'll give you special info that others aren't privy to.  President Hinckley, or one of those past leaders said, you learn more and more about the temple as you go more and more.  I'm old and stuff and have gone through the temple tons, but there is still more for me to understand about it.  So, we're saying...the Church is the truth, baby.  See you on the other side..."

 

I agree that the church is wrong on this teaching.  It's ridiculous, IMO, to believe the earth is so young and that there was no death before the fall.  An essay on this topic would be interesting, but it would also probably include statements that include the following:

"Past prophets and church leaders who proclaimed the fall occurred around 4,000 B.C. were simply speaking as men and did not have access to the wealth of scientific knowledge and resources we have today."  

"Despite the fact that D&C 77: 6 states the Earth is 7,000 years old, this age cannot be take literally; rather, this could, in fact, be symbolic and/or figurative to help illustrate that the Earth is very old, perhaps millions of years old." 

 

[thesometimesaint]

43 minutes ago, snowflake said:

Your take fits perfectly into category #2.

How long is a "day" in Genesis?

Joseph Smith believed was a very long time. SEE https://bycommonconsent.com/2007/08/27/2555000000/

[Ouagadougou]

11 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said:

It might help you to understand the meaning of "appear," since you repeat it as though it were a declaration of infallibility.  It also "appears" that the sun rises and sets, but I hope that you realize that such only "appears" to happen -- and does not in fact occur.  There is frequently a stark difference between appearance and reality.  In fact, FAIR is saying that LDS Scripture does not in fact contradict science -- except perhaps for those who are ignorant of science.

Appear:

1. a :  to be or come in sight when the sun appears on the horizonb :  to show up He appearspromptly at eight each day.

2. 2:  to come formally before an authoritative body must appear in court today

3. 3:  to have an outward aspect :  seem She appears (to be) happy enough.

4. 4:  to become evident or manifestThere appears to be evidence to the contrary.

5. 5:  to come into public view a performer who first appeared on a television variety showThe book appeared in print a few years ago.

6. 6:  to come into existence Hominids appeared late in the evolutionary chain.    

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/appear

FAIR is saying that the church's own teaching on this subject "appears to contradict science."  This means it DOES seem to contradict science.  

[JLHPROF]

1 hour ago, clarkgoble said:

Brigham held to a cataclysm model. That is that this world was made from prior earths that had been utterly destroyed. So any fossils would be from those prior worlds. The problem with his view is that it contradicts the idea that the earth becomes the celestial kingdom for its inhabitants. Wouldn't that have been true for the other worlds as well?

Only if they succeeded.  The idea as I understand it is that the prior destroyed earths did NOT achieve a Celestial glory.  As in Malachi - the earth was utterly wasted.
Perhaps they didn't do their genealogy.

Quote

It's not exactly clear where Brigham's cataclysm model comes from. I've not done any research but given how he adopted protestant apologetics of many things such as institutional racism, I wouldn't be surprised to learn these were anti-Darwinian apologetics that Brigham picked up. So far as I am aware he doesn't appeal to either Joseph nor revelation for his notions here. The alternative view is that he's picked up on the idea of multiple Adams with Adam being the first one in a land. By that reasoning Noah was an Adam as was Lehi. Thus the idea of other earths would have been just prior creations here. Not a lot of textual support in Young for that though.

Moses 1:35 But only an account of this earth, and the inhabitants thereof, give I unto you. For behold, there are many worlds that have passed away by the word of my power. And there are many that now stand, and innumerable are they unto man; but all things are numbered unto me, for they are mine and I know them.

Some passed away, some stand.
If we truly believe in agency, we have to believe in the potential for failure.

 

Quote

Brigham also thought that when Adam is made from the dust of the earth in Genesis 1 it wasn't this planet.

Correct.  According to Brigham he was a resurrected being who had his probationary period on a previous earth, achieved Godhood, and created a world for his own children.

[thesometimesaint]

The Church does not each the earth is 7000 years. Every member is free to believe or not believe it  I'm one of those that doesn't believe it.

BTW The Church owns BYU ,and it teaches the earth is about 4.5 Billion years old.

[RevTestament]

15 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

Correct.  According to Brigham he was a resurrected being who had his probationary period on a previous earth, achieved Godhood, and created a world for his own children.

The key of the Ancient of Days.

[snowflake]

1 hour ago, Robert F. Smith said:

An analysis of the Hebrew word yom "day," indicates that it may be of any period, 12 hour, 24 hour, or indeterminate time (= "time" as used in Abraham 4 & 5).  One needs to read for context.  For example, how can there be a "day" or a "night" before the creation of sun and moon on the fourth "day"?  How do you say "diurnal"?

I totally agree that context is important. Exodus 20:

⁸ Remember the sabbath day, to keep it holy.

⁹ Six days shalt thou labour, and do all thy work:

¹⁰ But the seventh day is the sabbath of the Lord thy God: in it thou shalt not do any work, thou, nor thy son, nor thy daughter, thy manservant, nor thy maidservant, nor thy cattle, nor thy stranger that is within thy gates:

¹¹ For in six days the Lord made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day: wherefore the Lord blessed the sabbath day, and hallowed it.

So we have an account stuck right in the middle of the 10 commandments, claiming the earth was created in 10 days. Perfect example of context.

In the Genesis account you are correct in pointing out that there was light (day 1) before the sun, planets and the stars (day 4). The Genesis account also has plants showing up on day 3. If the "days" of Genesis meant long periods of time, all the plants would die without the sun's light for thousands of years, no?

 

[snowflake]

2 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

There is in fact no conflict between science and Scripture, and modern-day revelation does not require that we follow apostate Judeo-Christian theological norms.

This depends on what you consider science.  In most high school "science" classes and all college biology classes you will be taught that you are an evolved monkey, there is no such thing as God, and the earth is billions of years old and was "created" after the sun.

Not sure if you've read the Genesis account recently but would encourage you to read it again. Just a few points of the Genesis account that absolutely disagree with  "science".

There is a God.

The earth was created on day 1 before the sun (day4).

Man was not evolved from a monkey but was created out of the dust by God (day 6).

If you take "day" to mean "day" (like it clearly says in Exodus 20) the earth is around 7000 years old. 

Plants were created before the sun.

No such thing as evolution.

All of these things are clearly taught in Genesis, and are incongruent with what is taught in high school and university.

 

[clarkgoble]

30 minutes ago, snowflake said:

This depends on what you consider science.  In most high school "science" classes and all college biology classes you will be taught that you are an evolved monkey, there is no such thing as God, and the earth is billions of years old and was "created" after the sun.Not sure if you've read the Genesis account recently but would encourage you to read it again. Just a few points of the Genesis account that absolutely disagree with  "science".

One can disagree with your reading of Genesis without disagreeing with Genesis. I've been in lots of science classes and have never heard God mentioned except at BYU where he was mentioned positively. But science proper has nothing to say about God. Also biology textbooks say humans and monkeys have a common ancestor not that humans are "evolved monkeys." The evidence for the earth being billions years old is ridiculously strong. Much stronger than a particular reading of Genesis which major Christian religions like Catholicism reject.

45 minutes ago, snowflake said:

we have an account stuck right in the middle of the 10 commandments, claiming the earth was created in 10 days. Perfect example of context.

I honestly can't fathom your reasoning here. I think no one denies the creation account is based upon the days of the week and the Jewish notion of the sabbath. That doesn't mean the days there are necessarily 24 hours long.

I mean it's fine to believe that if you want. Just that that verse isn't exactly a persuasive reason.

[thesometimesaint]

Science doesn't claim we are evolved monkey's. It says we have a common ancestor.

Science makes no claim about God.

SEE

The Bible says God created the heavens and the earth. Science says nothing about God.

So you believe in some type of Golem spell. SEE https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Golem

"Day" in the bible is indeterminate. SEE https://books.google.com/books?id=Dp0_AAAAYAAJ&pg=PA158&lpg=PA158&dq="Day"+in+the+bible+is+indeterminate.&source=bl&ots=6hUUy9mZi7&sig=2Fk7aePoM3c_pe4GKZGJP2-mT7E&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjY_ri89YvUAhXnxVQKHbDeA3gQ6AEITTAH#v=onepage&q="Day" in the bible is indeterminate.&f=false

Evolution is a fact. BTW Do you believe that putting a stick in the ground changes farm animals genetics?

[clarkgoble]

Urgh. Had a big post and lost it.

Briefly, the reason why the cataclysm model of Brigham Young makes no sense when this world is exalted is because it was a common belief in the Utah period that this was the most wicked world.

"We are inhabitants of a world of sin and sorrow; pain and anguish, every ill that can be heaped upon intelligent beings in a probation we are heirs to. I suppose that God never organized an earth and peopled it that was ever reduced to a lower state of darkness, sin and ignorance than this." (Brigham Young, JD 10:175) 

This also pops up in Moses 7:36 "and among all the workmanship of mine hands there has not been so great wickedness as among thy brethren."

I should also note that while I have no clue about the origins of the details of Brigham's ideas on cataclysm that the broad idea comes from Joseph Smith. Although the original sources on that make it seem different from what Joseph was often quoted as teaching. So it seems likely an idea that got mangled a bit. I'd say Joseph is simply saying that there is no creation ex nihilo and thus the earth was made of something else. (Which is of course what physics teaches) This then becomes the idea of big huge pieces of previous earths with fossils by the time the quote gets "harmonized" by Elders Franklin D. Richards and James A Little in A Compendium of the Doctrines of the Gospel p. 287 (1882) "This earth was organized or formed out of other planets which were broken up and remodeled and made into the one on which we live." B. H. Roberts then goes with this combined with some of Brigham's teachings to give the cataclysm model a lot of Mormon young earthers push.