No Death Before the Fall?

[clarkgoble]

2 hours ago, Ouagadougou said:

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

I think they are more saying that certain interpretations that have been pushed by particular GAs and even made it into manuals contradicts science. One hopes they get fixed as the true understanding of the gospel and the true understanding of science aren't in conflict. But of course our understanding of each can be in error.

[clarkgoble]

3 hours ago, JAHS said:

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.

The problem with this reading is that the JST in Moses makes all of Genesis 1 a spirit creation. It's possible to interpret spirit creation as just a planning session. People have noted how Philo's reconciling the two creation accounts makes Genesis 1 an intellectual rather than material creation with Genesis 2 the material creation. Philo's transition has a lot of parallels to the transition in Moses 3. But most interpretations have it as a creation of the spirits. The problem with that interpretation is Joseph's later teachings in the 1840's that spirits can't be created.

[JAHS]

15 minutes ago, clarkgoble said:

The problem with this reading is that the JST in Moses makes all of Genesis 1 a spirit creation. It's possible to interpret spirit creation as just a planning session. People have noted how Philo's reconciling the two creation accounts makes Genesis 1 an intellectual rather than material creation with Genesis 2 the material creation. Philo's transition has a lot of parallels to the transition in Moses 3. But most interpretations have it as a creation of the spirits. The problem with that interpretation is Joseph's later teachings in the 1840's that spirits can't be created.

I know he said that intelligences can't be created and then we suggest that he organized spirits out of the intelligences.  "Man was also in the beginning with God. Intelligence, or the light of truth, was not created or made, neither indeed can be." (D&C 93:29)  
"Now the Lord had shown unto me, Abraham, the intelligences that were organized (assembled together) before the world was; and among all these there were many of the noble and great ones;
And God saw these souls that they were good, and he stood in the midst of them, and he said: These I will make my rulers; for he stood among those that were spirits, and he saw that they were good;

Saying that he "stood among those that were spirits", suggests that there were others that were not spirits, perhaps still intelligences? It's all quite confusing actually. 

[clarkgoble]

7 minutes ago, JAHS said:

I know he said that intelligences can't be created and then we suggest that he organized spirits out of the intelligences.

The organization when Joseph talks about it is usually a social organization. A good paper on the history is Charles Harrell's "The Development of the Doctrine of Preexistence, 1830-1844" (Just click the download pdf button) The BCC thread I mentioned on the variations on the plan of salvation by Jonathan Stapley is also worth reading. The notion of creating spirits from intelligences doesn't appear until Utah.

[filovirus]

Three men go into a motel. The desk clerk said the room was $30, so each man paid $10 and went to the room. A while later, the desk clerk realized the room was only $25, so he sent the bellboy to the three guys’ room with $5. On the way, the bellboy couldn’t figure out how to split $5 evenly between three men, so he gave each man $1 and kept the other $2 for himself.

This meant that the 3 men each paid $9 for the room, which is a total of $27. Add to that the $2 the bellboy kept and the total is $29. Where is the other dollar?

 

That mind twister is puzzle that sets up two different mathematical equations which do not relate to each other as having the same result.

The same can be said between scientific evolution and religious creation ideas. One explains the facts of creation, the other explains the insights of creation. But mixing the two without fully understanding the one from the other is like mixing two math equations that don't quite relate. More light and knowledge will come from both areas of learning until we see that in fact, they do correlate.

[Calm]

8 hours ago, clarkgoble said:

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)

My problem is if we argue that the earth and all living creatures have an independent spirit, how does that exactly work when one gets to lower beings?  Does a single cell bacteria have its own spirit?  If not, how could it be created spiritually before temporally?  

It is insteresting to speculate about what spirit is and how much independence or separation there is,  it I don't see much revelation on the subject, imo.

[RevTestament]

3 hours ago, clarkgoble said:

The organization when Joseph talks about it is usually a social organization. A good paper on the history is Charles Harrell's "The Development of the Doctrine of Preexistence, 1830-1844" (Just click the download pdf button) The BCC thread I mentioned on the variations on the plan of salvation by Jonathan Stapley is also worth reading. The notion of creating spirits from intelligences doesn't appear until Utah.

If the word organized is substituted for the word created, then God organizing the spirits before this world makes perfect sense to me. He is doing in right now for the next world. Thus, the beginning of the new world starts here.

[cinepro]

20 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. 

"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

 

Ouagadougou, this post is like when you listen to the oldies station on the radio and "Take on Me" comes on and you think "Hey, I haven't heard this in a while, but I like this one, so I'll sing along."

This subject has been discussed dozens of times over the years on the board.  It is an evergreen subject because as you point out, there is no rational harmony between the "traditional" teachings of the Church (which are based in part on a reading of the scriptures) and "science."  Some just chuck science and go with the scriptures and Church teachings.  Some toss the Church's teachings and go with science. 

The interesting thing are those who want to believe both (or at least want other people to think they do).  I presume these people were the same people who as kids were fascinated with Stretch Armstrong and are now adapting those skills to the English language itself.

Ultimately, the middle position makes a semantic hash out of the scriptures and words of the Prophets and Church publications (and sometimes science as well).  Heading down this path is the doctrinal equivalent of Alice heading down the rabbit hole, where you will find yourself in an alternate universe where common words have an entirely new meaning.  If instead of looking for logic and resolution you are seeking creativity and endless surprises, you'll enjoy the journey.  If you are looking for consistency and illumination, I implore you to turn back now, as here be rhetorical monsters the like of which you have never seen.

That being said, allow me to toss a hand-grenade into the mix.

Edited May 26, 2017 by cinepro

[Rivers]

20 hours ago, Ouagadougou said:

So how then are humans killing each other around 10,000 B.C., when the Fall occurred around 4,000 B.C., but before the fall there was no death?  

Let the mental gymnastics begin...

Yes. A lot of things were going on during the creative periods according to this theory.  

And yes, it is mental gymnastics. Which is why I feel it is best not to treat the Bible as science book.  

I just started watching this really fascinating lecture by Dr. Jordan Peterson. He tackles the Bible from a psychological perspective.  He provides new ways of looking at Biblical stories and myths in general.

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=f-wWBGo6a2w

 

[The Nehor]

3 hours ago, cinepro said:

That being said, allow me to toss a hand-grenade into the mix.

Well, you see the 7,000 years of temporal existence is in God's time. Since a day is a thousand years to God we can calculate the length.

So 7,000 years comes to 2,550,000 days. Then multiply by 1000 and you get the temporal existence of the Earth lasting 2.55 billion years. Factor in time dilation for when the Earth accelerated at high speeds from the vicinity of Kolob to Sol, our current sun, and it all makes perfect sense.

So Adam and Eve fell a looooong time ago. But, you will say that humanoids did not exist that far back at all and things were dying before then? Well, after the Garden incident God transported them through time to the beginning of our species.

Now, I put more thought into that lunacy then goes into most LDS extrapolations of our doctrine. Don't trust extrascriptural extrapolations and explanations on how things work.

Edited May 26, 2017 by The Nehor

[The Nehor]

[Robert F. Smith]

7 hours 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".

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.

I always suggest that those who wish to talk about science should study it a lot.  At the college level.  God is never discussed in science classes and is not an issue for scientists.  Indeed, many scientists believe in God.  You clearly do not know science.

I always recommend that those who wish to discuss the Bible should study it a lot.  At the scholarly level.  The Bible was not written in English, and an English translation can be very misleading.  Particularly for those who do not understand the English language well, not to mention their lack of training in Hebrew.  A good commentary is helpful, and I always advise people to read the late Jewish scholar Ephraim Speiser, Genesis, Anchor Bible volume 1 (Doubleday, 1964).  Carefully read his comments on Genesis 1.  The Bible does not say that biological evolution did not take place, and, in any case, Genesis 1-3 is not a science text, nor is it a hisfory text.  It is a ritual temple text.  That is obvious to non-Mormon biblical scholars.

Your fundamental error here is to confuse two separate modes of activity and thought: (1) science, and (2) religion.

[Robert F. Smith]

8 hours ago, snowflake said:

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.

The semantic range of "day" is not restricted to 12 and 24 hour cycles.  By ignoring that in a ritual temple text like Gen 1, you miss the whole point.  You are asking the text to do something it was never intended to do.  Don't feel too badly.  Most people read the Bible the way you do.

8 hours ago, snowflake said:

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?

You might want to read up on photosynthesis, and then ask whether the light you admit was present from day 1 could activate photosynthesis.  You aren't thinking like a scientist.

[Robert F. Smith]

9 hours ago, Ouagadougou said:

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.  

To "seem" or to "appear" is used properly by FAIR, even though you don't seem to get it.  You appear to have entirely missed the point they are making, which is that surface impressions frequently lead the poorly informed to draw incorrect conclusions.  You appear to have a very poor command of the English language.

Quote

Appearance vs Reality is one of the most common themes used in literature to this day and has been explored in many ways. It is a broad topic which means something different to everyone. Phaedrus, a Roman poet, said "Things are not always as they seem; the first appearance deceives many.”  https://www.google.com/#q=appearance+versus+reality .

 

[Sevenbak]

Food for thought... Here's an interesting scientific observation that measures the radioactive decay rates (the same used in carbon dating) and their relationship to variations in our solar location and distance.   For example major solar flares  and the suns rotation change the radioactive decay rates as the suns energy becomes closer to the earth.   If true, it's entirely possible that it means  that Joseph was correct when he said the earth didn't take this position with our solar system until after the fall.   The current scientific approach of carbon dating could be completely based on bad information.   Perhaps time and more research will tell.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/phys.org/news/2010-08-radioactive-vary-sun-rotation.amp

I think this is one of those issues where the arm of flesh and the arm of faith are in a constant game of arm wrestling.

[snowflake]

8 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

I always suggest that those who wish to talk about science should study it a lot.  At the college level.  God is never discussed in science classes and is not an issue for scientists.  Indeed, many scientists believe in God.  You clearly do not know science.

I always recommend that those who wish to discuss the Bible should study it a lot.  At the scholarly level.  The Bible was not written in English, and an English translation can be very misleading.  Particularly for those who do not understand the English language well, not to mention their lack of training in Hebrew.  A good commentary is helpful, and I always advise people to read the late Jewish scholar Ephraim Speiser, Genesis, Anchor Bible volume 1 (Doubleday, 1964).  Carefully read his comments on Genesis 1.  The Bible does not say that biological evolution did not take place, and, in any case, Genesis 1-3 is not a science text, nor is it a hisfory text.  It is a ritual temple text.  That is obvious to non-Mormon biblical scholars.

Your fundamental error here is to confuse two separate modes of activity and thought: (1) science, and (2) religion.

God might not be "discussed" formally in science classes at university but he certainly was scoffed at, ridiculed, and compared to Santa claus at my university biology class which I took for a year. Any mention of a "designer" was met with expected hostility, contempt  and disregarded as fantasy. I remember studying the Krebs cycle in biology lab and I looked at the lab tech and asked how she this complex energy transfer system just "evolved" out of amino acids. She just smiled and said I know, pretty amazing huh, and at the time I truthfully thought that evolution was possible.  The notion that God has nothing to do with science is untrue.  The vast majority of scientists are atheists.  Now, I would agree that God was rarely discussed in my University physics or chemistry classes. 

As I pointed out earlier Hugh Ross (and others) appear to have been stuck at the University too long.  The inability for some at the University to determine the difference between science and religion is understandable.  It is a cardinal sin at the University to question certain things, and the holy grail of evolution and the age of the earth/universe are the big ones, another newer one would be global warming..er....climate change. (To doubt these could cost one their job!) So to mentally come to terms with the facts that the Biblical text and "science" don't agree, they begin with the mental gymnastics. If you accept evolution as a "truth" you must either A) completely disregard religion and the bible or B) torture the biblical text until you can compress evolution into it, that way one can somehow come to terms that they really are compatible. Mr.Ross and others have done the latter. 

[snowflake]

10 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

Your fundamental error here is to confuse two separate modes of activity and thought: (1) science, and (2) religion.

Your fundamental error is to disregard God's word, the authority of scripture you apparently see as impossible or corrupt or am I reading my Bible wrong? 

"Science" has told us that the virgin birth is impossible.

"Science" has told us that the bodily resurrection of Jesus is impossible. 

Do you believe these things happened or has science disproved them?

 

[Kevin Christensen]

Pogi's list of Joseph Smith quotes are relevant.  I've used most of them repeatedly over the past several decades.

Quote

“The first and fundamental principle of our holy religion is, that we have the right to embrace all, and every item of the truth, without limitation or without being circumscribed or prohibited by the creeds and superstitious notions of men.” Joseph Smith in The Personal Writings of Joseph Smith, pp. 420.

“I never thought it was right to call up a man and try him because he erred in doctrine, it looks too much like Methodism and not like Latter day Saintism. Methodists have creeds which a man must believe or be kicked out of their church. I want the liberty of believing as I please, it feels so good not to be tramelled.” Joseph Smith in The Words of Joseph Smith, pp. 183-184,

“I cannot believe in any of the creeds of the different denominations, because they all have some things in them I cannot subscribe to, though all of them have some truth. I want to come up into the presence of God, and learn all things; but the creeds set up stakes, and say, ‘Hitherto shalt thou come, and no further;’ which I cannot subscribe to.” Joseph Smith, Discourse to Saints, October 1843; DHC 6:57.

“..I stated that the most prominent difference in sentiment between the Latter-day Saints and sectarians was, that the latter were all circumscribed by some peculiar creed, which deprived its members the privilege of believing anything not contained therein, whereas the Latter-day Saints … are ready to believe all true principles that exist, as they are made manifest from time to time…” Joseph Smith, January 1843, History of the Church, 5:215; from “History of the Church” (manuscript), book D-1, p. 1433, Church Archives.

And there is the definition of what is and is not doctrine in 3 Nephi, provided by a not obscure authority, stating that building on anything more, or less than faith, repentance, baptism, receipt of the Holy Spirit (that is, ongoing revelation, rather than static, on-the-shelf orthodoxy bound and labeled as The Big Book of What to Think), and enduring to the end, where an important aspect of enduring includes putting up with the weakness and opinions of others, including the expressly fallible authorities (see D&C 1 on "inasmuch as they (church leaders) have erred" and how revelation comes not all at once, but from time to time, condition on both expedience and revelation.

And then we have things like one of Hugh Nibley's last essays, "Abraham's Temple Drama" reading Abraham as a ritual drama, and Margaret Barker's Temple Theology, making point that the pattern of creation in Genesis follows the pattern of the erection of the tabernacle, the tabernacle being a portable temple, and the temple being a scale model of the universe, thus proving a simple answer to the question about how you build the heavens and the earth in six days.  You build a model, and while you are doing the model, which is a symbol, why not go all the way an admit that the days are symbols as well?  So unsurprisingly, the well-informed Robert Smith is correct to point out the difference between a Temple Drama and a science text.

And we have the issue in the famous Book of Mormon passage about "no death" coming along with no consideration of the context.  No death where and when?  Stop thinking in absolutes when discussing relative matters.  If the last thing an earth needs is a gardener, that is the first thing a garden needs.  So Adam, the high priest, who is "many" is the last figure in the creation of the heavens and the earth, as represented by an at the Temple or tabernacle) (at least one Moses was shown among countless numbers, and remember that like the stars in the sky, ancient temples are also everywhere, as Nibley also observes), must be the first in the garden story.  And what happens before the garden and outside the garden, and in what form beyond the figurative drama, remain open questions, NOT a proof text to end discussion, set up stakes and bounds to thought, or smack the Mormons by pretending that the verse is self explaining, and that no other relevant statements need be considered.

So two Bible stories are talking from different perspectives, relative views, not absolute view.  Which means that Moses and Abraham and the Endowment are also offering different perspectives, relative views, not uninterpreted absolute views.

David Bailey's website on Science and Mormonism is packed with interesting stuff.  Ironically, some of the most insistent in proclaiming the authority of modern science relative to ancient writings and accounts turn out to demonstrate remarkable ignorance regarding the best understanding of those ancient texts.  But the game is more like rhetorical three card monte than real study.

FWIW

Kevin Christensen

Canonsburg, PA

[RevTestament]

29 minutes ago, snowflake said:

It is a cardinal sin at the University to question certain things, and the holy grail of evolution and the age of the earth/universe are the big ones, another newer one would be global warming..er....climate change. (To doubt these could cost one their job!) So to mentally come to terms with the facts that the Biblical text and "science" don't agree, they begin with the mental gymnastics. If you accept evolution as a "truth" you must either A) completely disregard religion and the bible or B) torture the biblical text until you can compress evolution into it, that way one can somehow come to terms that they really are compatible. Mr.Ross and others have done the latter. 

You are just sticking to the usual arguments. You don't care what Robert said. I disagree with your two options. I agree that to compress evolution into the English version of Genesis 1 requires torturing the English text. This is why many have left Christianity - they read the English very literally and linearly. But Genesis is clearly not meant to be read that way.

Hosea 12:10

10 I have also spoken by the prophets, and I have multiplied visions, and used similitudes, by the ministry of the prophets.

God starts using similitudes in Genesis. I believe it fairly clear that there was no literal herbaceous tree of the knowledge of good and evil in Eden - nor literal tree of life. There was no literal or physical flaming sword to keep the way. These are symbols or similitudes being used to teach a very important lesson - a lesson repeated elsewhere in the NT for instance.

Being that God says in several place that He has given the people a year for a day, the word day can be seen to be used flexibly in Hebrew. Although perhaps its most common usage is to be used for one literal earth day, we see this is not the case elsewhere in scripture where it is used as an equivalent of a time, which normally refers to a year. We see this relationship at work in Daniel 7 and Revelation 12. The NT also plainly refers to the seventh day as the end when the Hebrews will be gathered back together. So this word is plainly used other than the plain English meaning would dictate. So, it could be argued that trying to read Genesis 1 in a modern English way is actually what is torturing the text. What Robert is saying is if you read Genesis in Hebrew with a Hebrew understanding you can end up with very different understandings than the text was forced into English in the interpretation process. I particularly notice this in the various titles of God. They get completely obliterated in the English KJV imho.

So I see other choices than your two options. I believe in evolution, but I don't see Genesis 1 as a barrier to that belief. God clearly created animals with genetics so that they bring forth after their own kind. This is not contrary to evolution. I believe it fairly clear that man is part of nature, and man has used natural principles in causing evolution to occur. Two huge examples are maize/corn and dogs. I have heard it argued that the many varieties of dogs do not represent evolution because they are the same species. But to argue that a great dane and my maltese are the same animal is really rather silly. Clearly man has manipulated the genetics of dogs to bring about evolution, and the many varieties of dogs. They are not found in nature apart from man. Much of this has occurred through selective genetic breeding in just the last few thousand years - only man has been nature's selection process.

My point is there is nothing in the Bible to say this cannot occur - such ideas are all imposed on the text by traditional Christian interpretations, which really are just simply misreading Genesis. Don't be another fatality.

[RevTestament]

3 minutes ago, snowflake said:

Your fundamental error is to disregard God's word, the authority of scripture you apparently see as impossible or corrupt or am I reading my Bible wrong? 

"Science" has told us that the virgin birth is impossible.

Again, you are stuck inside your "interpretation" of things. Science has done no such things. In fact science has proven virgin births can occur, and they are performed rather regularly through artificial insemination.

Quote

"Science" has told us that the bodily resurrection of Jesus is impossible. 

Do you believe these things happened or has science disproved them?

Science has not proven this either. In fact it has brought people who were medically dead back to life - one could say it resurrected them although in a rather crude way. It has definitely not proven that resurrection is impossible, and it is not, as the world will see multiple times in the millennium. I believe these things did happen, and that science has not disproved them as you contend.

[JLHPROF]

1 hour ago, RevTestament said:

 In fact science has proven virgin births can occur, and they are performed rather regularly through artificial insemination.

 - oh, the Celestial turkey baster argument again.  I seriously don't understand why people are so opposed to the idea that Christ was conceived the old fashioned way.
Admittedly his father was resurrected and his mother was transfigured at the time, but still...

Quote

 In fact it has brought people who were medically dead back to life - one could say it resurrected them although in a rather crude way. It has definitely not proven that resurrection is impossible, and it is not, as the world will see multiple times in the millennium.

If you are saying that there is a scientific explanation for resurrection I will agree.
If you think that science will ever in this life be able to understand how it is accomplished I think you are dreaming.

[blueglass]

On 5/25/2017 at 1:59 AM, 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. 

"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

 

The bible dictionary in the printed scriptures - even the 2013 edition is superseded by the online Gospel Topics page.  For the Fall of Adam and Eve and the Physical and Spiritual death entries they took out the "no death before the fall" phrase.  For a time Elder Nelson said that adam and eve were the first to have blood, and this is now superseded by the Gospel Topics, Book of Mormon and DNA studies entry which acknowledges scientific dna evidence for evolutionary human origins to the Paleolithic era.  As for "falls" and "deaths", and "floods", - I found that when I discuss biotic extinction level events or ELE's and Kolbert's sixth extinction book it changes perspectives.  So does a read of Cloud Atlas, sapiens by Harari, or Seven daughters of Eve.  Also subscribe to the biologos forums as they're trying to do the hard work of synthesis.    

Edited May 26, 2017 by blueglass
sykes

[carbon dioxide]

On 5/24/2017 at 11:59 PM, 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. 

"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

 

Reproduction without death leads to serious problems.  Death is just as important as birth to life to exist on earth.  Perhaps the no death issue deals with man only and not other things.  Both Moses and 2 Nephi don't have to mean it dealing with no death before Adam and Eve were placed here.

Edited May 26, 2017 by carbon dioxide

[snowflake]

2 hours ago, RevTestament said:

Again, you are stuck inside your "interpretation" of things. Science has done no such things. In fact science has proven virgin births can occur, and they are performed rather regularly through artificial insemination.

Science has not proven this either. In fact it has brought people who were medically dead back to life - one could say it resurrected them although in a rather crude way. It has definitely not proven that resurrection is impossible, and it is not, as the world will see multiple times in the millennium. I believe these things did happen, and that science has not disproved them as you contend.

My point is that as a believer in God's word, I have no problem believing in Jesus, in his miracles and that he rose from the grave. I take the creation account as history and fact as well. I can accept that before the flood humans lived hundreds of years because the Word says so. Global flood, no problem, but evolution and 7 day creation whoooooaaaaaaaa  that would be "crazy and unscientific".

Historically speaking it is my understanding, that the Jews agreed with the 7 day creation period too.

[RevTestament]

17 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

 - oh, the Celestial turkey baster argument again.  I seriously don't understand why people are so opposed to the idea that Christ was conceived the old fashioned way.

Because the scriptures do not say that. Mary herself said she had known no man. Joseph had a mind to put her away privily. The OT translation of virgin is corroborated by the Book of Mormon. BY never explains why all these scriptures are wrong. and he is right. He doesn't say the Lord told him differently. Pratt is wrong. God does not come down to earth and marry Mary. No one can see Him and live. The deck is severely stacked against BY, and the spirit doesn't seem to confirm it to our latter day GAs either. BY doesn't get to change all these scriptures simply because he wants to promote polygamy. The End.

 

Quote

If you think that science will ever in this life be able to understand how it is accomplished I think you are dreaming.

nope, not saying that.