The fall of Adam and the atonement of Christ are linked together—inseparably, everlastingly, never to be parted.

[bOObOO]

3 minutes ago, Fair Dinkum said:

Resorting to magic to explain and support ones position is generally seen to be a sign of desperation

Maybe generally, but I like magic because it is fun.  YMMV

[Teancum]

7 hours ago, Fair Dinkum said:

Why would you assume that I would now choose to "...go and do whatever [I] please because there is no punishment for so-called ungodly behavior?"  This seems to be a common trope of believers, that those who lose belief will dive into so called ungodly behaviors?  A little projection perhaps?

Apparently without the threat of a god being punishing him Teddy would become a raging psychopath.  Maybe religion does restrain some after all.

[Fair Dinkum]

11 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Disparaging sincere religious beliefs by calling them "magic" is generally seen to be a sign of incivility and contempt.

Do you insist that Christians everyone have a comprehensive and empirically testable explanation for Jesus turning water to wine, multiplying the loaves and fishes, walking on water, raising from the dead the daughter of Jairus and Lazarus, etc.?  What about His bodily resurrection?  Do you insist on a specific and detailed explanation for that?  If not, why not?

Thanks,

-Smac

That is not what happened here.  Read what Boo is claiming and tell me if you support it:

Quote

No.  You did not get that idea from me.

Yes, but on this planet?  I don't think so.  On other planets, though, yes.  Our species has lived and procreated and died and been resurrected on other planets with no beginning or end to all of it, and there never will be an end to it in an eternal perspective.

Each planet goes through each phase at different times, though.  Once upon a time nobody lived on this planet.  Then 2 of us came here, a man and a woman, and soon after all of us came as their children.  Just remember, it always takes a man and a woman.

You misunderstood something somewhere, or for some other reason are saying something which isn't true now.

Boo is delving into disavowed Brighamite doctrines

[Fair Dinkum]

28 minutes ago, smac97 said:

I guess I missed that.  Are you referencing 2 Nephi 2:23?  "And they would have had no children; wherefore they would have remained in a state of innocence, having no joy, for they knew no misery; doing no good, for they knew no sin."

Are you saying that this scripture requires us to believe that there was no procreation anywhere on the earth at all (as opposed to no procreation as to Adam and Eve)?

Thanks,

-Smac

It does unless you are also admitting that Death did exist prior to the Fall, contrary to LDS scripture and doctrine still taught here

Edited August 17, 2021 by Fair Dinkum

[The Nehor]

3 minutes ago, Teancum said:

Apparently without the threat of a god being punishing him Teddy would become a raging psychopath.  Maybe religion does restrain some after all.

[OGHoosier]

59 minutes ago, Fair Dinkum said:

While I accept your assertion that all human beings alive today would in fact most likely be the descendants of any human you lived a few thousand years ago, such as Charlemagne, there is no, zip, zero, zilch evidence that all humanity descended from 2 individuals some 6,000 years ago in fact just the opposite, evidence supports that we descended from a hereditary Eve and a hereditary Adam, but that these symbolic parents live thousands of years apart from each other in completely different eras of time.

You're talking about "Y-chromosomal Adam" and "Mitochondrial Eve", right? These are actually unrelated to assessments of the MRCA (most recent common ancestor). 

Mitochondrial Eve is " the most recent woman from whom all living humans descend in an unbroken line purely through their mothers and through the mothers of those mothers, back until all lines converge on one woman." Estimated to have lived around 155k years ago.

Y-chromosomal Adam is "the most recent male from whom all living humans are descended through an unbroken line of their male ancestors." Estimated to have lived around 200k-300k years ago. 

These two humans are not the latest male or female common ancestors, rather they represent the termini of the longest patrilineal and matrilineal lines existent in humanity. That means unbroken male or unbroken female lines. All Adam and Eve would have to do is have their patrilineal and matrilineal lines broken (every patrilineal line would eventually conclude in childless death or only daughters reproduce and vice versa with the matrilineal). This is not hard (look at every royal family in history and see how long their purely matrilineal or patrilineal lines last) and it appears that most patrilineal or matrilineal lineages on earth has undergone this, since projections of the MRCA  are all over 100k years more recent than those of Mitochondrial Eve and Y-chromosomal Adam. 

I will copy the section from the Mitochondrial Eve Wikipedia page which discusses confusion between the concepts of Mitochondrial Eve and the MRCA.

Quote

Mitochondrial Eve is the most recent common matrilineal ancestor, not the most recent common ancestor. Since the mtDNA is inherited maternally and recombination is either rare or absent, it is relatively easy to track the ancestry of the lineages back to a MRCA; however, this MRCA is valid only when discussing mitochondrial DNA. An approximate sequence from newest to oldest can list various important points in the ancestry of modern human populations:

• The human MRCA. Monte Carlo simulations suggest the MRCA was born surprisingly recently, perhaps even within the last 5,000 years, even for people born on different continents.^[52]
• The identical ancestors point. Just a few thousand years before the most recent single ancestor shared by all living humans was the time at which all humans who were then alive either left no descendants alive today or were common ancestors of all humans alive today. In other words, "each present-day human has exactly the same set of genealogical ancestors" alive at the "identical ancestors point" in time. This is far more recent than when Mitochondrial Eve was proposed to have lived.^[52]
• Mitochondrial Eve, the most recent female-line common ancestor of all living people.
• "Y-chromosomal Adam", the most recent male-line common ancestor of all living people.

Let's not also forget that the titles of "Mitochondrial Eve" and "Y-chromosomal Adam" are not fixed and there are many potential Mitochondrial Eves and Y-chromosomal Adams out there. Hell, if scriptural Eve were to have existed 200k years back, she could have been Mitochondrial Eve once and then lost the title. 

Quote

The definition of Mitochondrial Eve is fixed, but the woman in prehistory who fits this definition can change. That is, not only can our knowledge of when and where Mitochondrial Eve lived change due to new discoveries, but the actual Mitochondrial Eve can change. The Mitochondrial Eve can change, when a mother-daughter line comes to an end. It follows from the definition of Mitochondrial Eve that she had at least two daughters who both have unbroken female lineages that have survived to the present day. In every generation mitochondrial lineages end – when a woman with unique mtDNA dies with no daughters. When the mitochondrial lineages of daughters of Mitochondrial Eve die out, then the title of "Mitochondrial Eve" shifts forward from the remaining daughter through her matrilineal descendants, until the first descendant is reached who had two or more daughters who together have all living humans as their matrilineal descendants. Once a lineage has died out it is irretrievably lost and this mechanism can thus only shift the title of "Mitochondrial Eve" forward in time.^[48]

Because mtDNA mapping of humans is very incomplete, the discovery of living mtDNA lines which predate our current concept of "Mitochondrial Eve" could result in the title moving to an earlier woman. This happened to her male counterpart, "Y-chromosomal Adam," when an older Y line, haplogroup A-00, was discovered.

In sum: Mitochondrial Eve and Y-chromosomal Adam are not relevant to the question of scriptural Adam and Eve.

Edit: I should clarify my commitments first. I do not believe in the "traditional Adam and Eve", wherein there were no humans until Adam and Eve came on the scene and started to reproduce. I believe that Adam and Eve emerged from the garden into a world populated with members of the Homo genus and their descendants interbred with them. I agree that Mitochondrial Eve and Y-chromosomal Adam represent evidence fatal to the "traditional Adam and Eve" unless you send them FAR back in the past. I suppose that is possible and I could see room for that kind of interpretation, but I do not personally hold it. 

Basically as long as you have Pre-Adamites and Adam and Eve's children interbreed with them, the subjects of this post are no problem. 

Edited August 17, 2021 by OGHoosier

[Teancum]

5 hours ago, bOObOO said:

You will have proof that your spirit will live on after you die, when your spirit has separated from your other body.  I could show you that proof right now if our Father would allow me  or someone else to kill you, but he hasn't allowed that, and likely will not. 

And I think you seeing your own spirit after you die is probably the only proof you will accept.  If you saw someone else's spirit you might think that was an alien being, or someone dressed in a costume, or hokus pokus.  You could imagine a lot of what ifs.

Once you see you for yourself after you die though you will then have scientific evidence which you will see for yourself.  

This is one of the dumbest arguments on this topic that I have ever read.

[bOObOO]

Just now, Teancum said:

This is one of the dumbest arguments on this topic that I have ever read.

You think so, and yet it is still one of the best arguments on this topic that you will ever consider.  You'll see, when you are dead.

[Teancum]

1 hour ago, JLHPROF said:

Why?
Because today's science says that's how it is and nothing different could ever have been the case?

Because of evidence.  Not faith. Facts. If you make claims that are supernatural back it up with evidence.  But you can't can you.  Science is open to change based on evidence. Religio is not.

[Fair Dinkum]

8 minutes ago, OGHoosier said:

You're talking about "Y-chromosomal Adam" and "Mitochondrial Eve", right? These are actually unrelated to assessments of the MRCA (most recent common ancestor). 

Mitochondrial Eve is " the most recent woman from whom all living humans descend in an unbroken line purely through their mothers and through the mothers of those mothers, back until all lines converge on one woman." Estimated to have lived around 155k years ago.

Y-chromosomal Adam is "the most recent male from whom all living humans are descended through an unbroken line of their male ancestors." Estimated to have lived around 200k-300k years ago. 

These two humans are not the latest male or female common ancestors, rather they represent the termini of the longest patrilineal and matrilineal lines existent in humanity. That means unbroken male or unbroken female lines. All Adam and Eve would have to do is have their patrilineal and matrilineal lines broken (every patrilineal line would eventually conclude in childless death or only daughters reproduce and vice versa with the matrilineal). This is not hard (look at every royal family in history and see how long their purely matrilineal or patrilineal lines last) and it appears that most patrilineal or matrilineal lineages on earth has undergone this, since projections of the MRCA  are all over 100k years more recent than those of Mitochondrial Eve and Y-chromosomal Adam. 

I will copy the section from the Mitochondrial Eve Wikipedia page which discusses confusion between the concepts of Mitochondrial Eve and the MRCA.

Let's not also forget that the titles of "Mitochondrial Eve" and "Y-chromosomal Adam" are not fixed and there are many potential Mitochondrial Eves and Y-chromosomal Adams out there. Hell, if scriptural Eve were to have existed 200k years back, she could have been Mitochondrial Eve once and then lost the title. 

In sum: Mitochondrial Eve and Y-chromosomal Adam are not relevant to the question of scriptural Adam and Eve.

 

So God is a liar?  see Moses 1:34 And the first man of all men have I called Adam, which is many. & Moses 4:26 And Adam called his wife’s name Eve, because she was the mother of all living; for thus have I, the Lord God, called the first of all women, which are many.

[JLHPROF]

2 minutes ago, Teancum said:

If you make claims that are supernatural back it up with evidence.

 
 

[Teancum]

1 hour ago, JLHPROF said:

What evidence of something 6000 years ago would you accept?
It's not like there's direct observation from that time.  Just theory based on data analysis.

 

You clearly don't understand the scientific method nor my response to your blithe dismissal of Fair's points.

[OGHoosier]

1 hour ago, Fair Dinkum said:

So God is a liar?  see Moses 1:34 And the first man of all men have I called Adam, which is many. & Moses 4:26 And Adam called his wife’s name Eve, because she was the mother of all living; for thus have I, the Lord God, called the first of all women, which are many.

I mean I'm an accommodationist so I view this as God speaking to an Israelite (or, yea, an devout 19th-century American peasant) in the way that they are most likely to understand and accept. Nevermind that Genesis is a lineage history so Adam is the first man for all intents and purposes. Genre is a thing and journalistic history is only one of them. Or (horror of horrors) I don't accept the divine dictation model for scripture so there's a lot of room for the prophet's own conceptions. 

If you reject that idea then I have nothing to offer you, though I would argue that "liar" is an inappropriate term for a God who deals in milk before meat. 

Then there's also the argument, if you will, that God does not identify "man" with "Homo sapiens" in the way we do. 

Or you could argue that God regards spiritual creation as the beginning of an individual's existence, and Adam and Eve were created first among God's mortal children. Or that they could have been created in Eden and held for a long time before being released. 

Anyways, there's plenty of responses. 

Edited August 18, 2021 by OGHoosier

[Teancum]

1 hour ago, JLHPROF said:

To you.
Others have felt the prints of the nails, felt his hands upon their head, and witnessed the resurrected Christ.

Who?  Only in mythical books written many years after the event allegedly took place. Outside the bible and Bom who?

[mgy401]

2 hours ago, OGHoosier said:

It depends in what sense you use the word "descended." If you mean that all of mankind emerged from those two ancestors and no others, then I believe you would be correct. However, if by "all humans descended from" you merely mean that all humans are descendants of a particular person, or that particular person is in every person's ancestral tree, then it's actually very likely that one or more individuals in the most recent few thousand years are the progenitors of every human being on earth. See this article in Letters to Nature and this study from Yale. It is certainly plausible (and in fact probable) that the most recent common ancestor of all humanity lived within the past few thousand years.

You’re smarter than me; I was gonna cite Wikipedia.  

[bOObOO]

6 minutes ago, Fair Dinkum said:

So God is a liar?  see Moses 1:34 And the first man of all men have I called Adam, which is many. & Moses 4:26 And Adam called his wife’s name Eve, because she was the mother of all living; for thus have I, the Lord God, called the first of all women, which are many.

 Earlier God had told Moses that the context of what God was revealing to Moses pertained to this planet, specifically, so when God said "the first man of all men" he was talking about only the men on this planet.  Same for all the living to come through Eve.

God had earlier shown Moses other planets and the inhabitants of those other planets which our Adam and Eve were not parents of.  So keep it all in context.  You are familiar with how children must come through both a man and a woman who reproduce,

People didn't just pop into existence on this planet from out of nowhere or nothing.  All people who have ever lived here came from one man and woman who reproduced themselves to create children, whenever the first man and woman reproduced here.

[OGHoosier]

19 minutes ago, mgy401 said:

You’re smarter than me; I was gonna cite Wikipedia.  

Lol, I did just that in the next stage of the conversation so I say we're even. 

[CV75]

2 hours ago, Teancum said:

Why is it right to only use spiritual tools for spiritual knowledge whatever that really means.  It seems to me the great cop out of religion  through the ages. Since so much of what religion claims is not testable and lacks evidence there has to be faith and the mysterious way of finding some truth about something.  But as has been demonstrated over and over again is that this is not reliable and results in differing and conflicting answers more often than not.   And here we have people arguing for spiritual confirmation of something that can be proven to be verifiably false by evidence.  So no, "spiritual tools" don't work on the topic of this thread.

For the same reason you can't address my post about that, just hissy-fit with a down-vote .

Edited August 18, 2021 by CV75

[OGHoosier]

1 hour ago, Teancum said:

Who?  Only in mythical books written many years after the event allegedly took place. Outside the bible and Bom who?

I recommend Philip Wiebe's Visions of Jesus: Direct Encounters from the New Testament to Today (1998, Oxford University Press.) He has a list of 30 interactions with Jesus (not even close to an exhaustive account of interactions with Christ in the modern era) but he does analyze them from the standpoint of a professional philosopher and epistemologist. He was a Christian (regrettably he passed away in 2018) but I expect most everyone here would find it an interesting read. 

The book can be found on Amazon.

Edited August 18, 2021 by OGHoosier

[JustAnAustralian]

2 hours ago, Fair Dinkum said:

and doctrine still taught here

Physical death is mentioned twice on that page. The one that talks about no death is quite clearly referring to Adam and Eve in the Garden. Nothing to do with outside the Garden.

[Fair Dinkum]

1 hour ago, JustAnAustralian said:

Physical death is mentioned twice on that page. The one that talks about no death is quite clearly referring to Adam and Eve in the Garden. Nothing to do with outside the Garden.

Can you please provide me with the scriptural reference to support your position that death functioned differently on earth depending on where on earth you lived. Also please provide scriptural support that Adam & Eve we’re not the first man and the first woman on earth. Thanks mate

Edited August 18, 2021 by Fair Dinkum

[OGHoosier]

16 minutes ago, Fair Dinkum said:

Can you please provide me with the scriptural reference to support your position that death functioned differently on earth depending on where on earth you lived. Also please provide scriptural support that Adam & Eve we’re not the first man and the first woman on earth. Thanks mate

The Cain and Abel arc implies it. See more. This post is also quite good. 

Also Also Joseph Smith, Hyrum Smith, and Orson Hyde endorsed it, with Hyde drawing justification from Genesis 1:28.

FWIW.

[JustAnAustralian]

23 minutes ago, Fair Dinkum said:

Can you please provide me with the scriptural reference to support your position that death functioned differently on earth depending on where on earth you lived.

The only mentions of death in the Garden story are in relation to Adam and Even eating the fruit of a specific tree. Thus death outside the garden, like I said, is not addressed.

29 minutes ago, Fair Dinkum said:

Also please provide scriptural support that Adam & Eve we’re not the first man and the first woman on earth.

Where did I claim otherwise? The first instance of man we have in the various scriptural accounts is Adam being placed in the garden. We have nothing about how long he was there. We have nothing about other humans outside the garden. By your logic, since cats aren't explicitly mentioned in the bible, they didn't exist right?

[JustAnAustralian]

22 minutes ago, OGHoosier said:

with Hyde drawing justification from Genesis 1:28.

Orson Hyde's comment is as a result of the way the KJV was translated (https://rsc.byu.edu/eye-faith/how-king-james-translators-replenished-earth).

JS by affirming HS's comment does seem to allow for it though.

[Fair Dinkum]

15 hours ago, OGHoosier said:

I mean I'm an accommodationist so I view this as God speaking to an Israelite (or, yea, an devout 19th-century American peasant) in the way that they are most likely to understand and accept. Nevermind that Genesis is a lineage history so Adam is the first man for all intents and purposes. Genre is a thing and journalistic history is only one of them. Or (horror of horrors) I don't accept the divine dictation model for scripture so there's a lot of room for the prophet's own conceptions. 

ok, I guess that's one way to work around this matter by completely reframing what God is supposedly actually saying to Moses. 

15 hours ago, OGHoosier said:

If you reject that idea then I have nothing to offer you, though I would argue that "liar" is an inappropriate term for a God who deals in milk before meat. 

Let's be clear, I am not calling God a liar, it is those who choose to twist God's words to accommodate their interpretation of the supposed words that he is saying that are making God out to be a liar.