Cinepro on "The Garden of Eden" madb

[_bcspace]

Also, still waiting for evidence against evolution not conflicting with LDS doctrine......

The problem, BC, isn't the evidence. It's what lies between your ears.

I think the real problem is that no one really addressed my hypothesis. Someone kept pulling out the 1909 statement, but no one could point out within it's text where I was in conflict.

[_Ray A]

I think the real problem is that no one really addressed my hypothesis. Someone kept pulling out the 1909 statement, but no one could point out within it's text where I was in conflict.

The 1909 FP statement can be interpreted in many ways. It was, basically, a well crafted avoidance of the "threat" of Darwinism. David O. McKay said he believed in evolution. It may have been some kind of concession to Sterling Mc Murrin, who McKay didn't want excommunicated. No doubt McKay believed in some kind of theistic evolution, but he was not prepared to accept six day, or six thousand year creationism. He was "open" on this question, as you should be.

[_The Dude]

I think the real problem is that no one really addressed my hypothesis. Someone kept pulling out the 1909 statement, but no one could point out within it's text where I was in conflict.

I actually agree with you, BC. There's no "problem" I can see, where "evolution" conflicts with LDS "doctrine".

[_bcspace]

I think the real problem is that no one really addressed my hypothesis. Someone kept pulling out the 1909 statement, but no one could point out within it's text where I was in conflict.

The 1909 FP statement can be interpreted in many ways. It was, basically, a well crafted avoidance of the "threat" of Darwinism. David O. McKay said he believed in evolution. It may have been some kind of concession to Sterling Mc Murrin, who McKay didn't want excommunicated. No doubt McKay believed in some kind of theistic evolution, but he was not prepared to accept six day, or six thousand year creationism. He was "open" on this question, as you should be.

I am quite open to it. In fact, I reject creationism altogether. I do believe God did it and I believe He used evolution. Back in DoM's time and before, there were indeed some spats. But all the Church put out was a reiteration of doctrine, the meager details of which don't conflict with evolution in any way.

[_Ray A]

In fact, I reject creationism altogether. I do believe God did it and I believe He used evolution. Back in DoM's time and before, there were indeed some spats. But all the Church put out was a reiteration of doctrine, the meager details of which don't conflict with evolution in any way.

I suppose this is technical, but "creationism" also refers to the belief that God created "man", regardless of where, when, how. Six thousand years, or six billion years, "creationism" is the belief that God created "man". The "meager details" in the FP statement won't conflict with evolution, because it was intentional. The Church leaders wanted to reaffirm their belief in theistic creationism, without giving an exact time frame. In other words, they were open to various time frames, but unwilling to deny the scriptural story of Adam and Eve, who, theoretically could have lived four billion years ago. The internal contradictions of this "open" view have been addressed by thinkers like Roberts and Nibley, who proposed "pre-Adamites", but this could not solve the problem, scripturally based, that death came into the world only after the time of Adam. The archaeological record affirms that death has been in the world since Darwin's mud pond. Millions of species have lived and become extinct prior to 4,000 BC. The Dinosaurs "ruled the earth" for 65 million years. All before Adam. None of this fits the idea that Adam was the "first flesh" upon the earth. But we could make Adam four billion years old. That could solve it. And Noah placed Dinosaur eggs on board the Ark, because otherwise they wouldn't fit. And post-flood, where did they end up? As Australian kangaroos! They look like dinosaurs to me.

[Jersey Girl]

I suppose this is technical, but "creationism" also refers to the belief that God created "man", regardless of where, when, how. Six thousand years, or six billion years, "creationism" is the belief that God created "man".

I agree with Bcspace, that God used evolution. Creationism involves the usage of magic versus evolution. I think most of them hold to a creation date of 6000 BC.

The Dinosaurs "ruled the earth" for 65 million years.

You don't suppose Gaz's Theocratic Blood Atoning did them in, do you?

[_bcspace]

In fact, I reject creationism altogether. I do believe God did it and I believe He used evolution. Back in DoM's time and before, there were indeed some spats. But all the Church put out was a reiteration of doctrine, the meager details of which don't conflict with evolution in any way.

I suppose this is technical, but "creationism" also refers to the belief that God created "man", regardless of where, when, how.

It does. But it also includes a literal six day creative period and a creation of man out of clay.

The internal contradictions of this "open" view have been addressed by thinkers like Roberts and Nibley, who proposed "pre-Adamites", but this could not solve the problem, scripturally based, that death came into the world only after the time of Adam.

I believe I have solved this problem by pointing out that there are no details given (such a "no death") for the creative period.

The archaeological record affirms that death has been in the world since Darwin's mud pond. Millions of species have lived and become extinct prior to 4,000 BC. The Dinosaurs "ruled the earth" for 65 million years. All before Adam.

Agreed.

None of this fits the idea that Adam was the "first flesh" upon the earth.

The context could be the first flesh that was finished being created or some other things as well.

But we could make Adam four billion years old. That could solve it.

It is true we don't know how long Adam was in the garden, but my thinking goes like this....

-Homo sapiens evolved 10's or hundreds of thousands of years before Adam.
-Their spirits were not initially literal spirit children of God. Perhaps animal spirits of some sort.
-When all was ready, the Lord took a homo sapiens and put a spirit child within (at conception/birth) and placed him in the garden into a state of no death.
-After Adam fell, evolution proceeds apace.
-The interruption in evolution can be imperceptibly short.

The advantages are obvious. Creation and evolution are as science discovers. The fall can be much closer to the traditional time frame. Having different (lesser) spirits within helps explain why homo sapiens has been around for hundreds of thousands of years and yet only relatively recently has exploded civilization-wise.

And Noah placed Dinosaur eggs on board the Ark, because otherwise they wouldn't fit. And post-flood, where did they end up? As Australian kangaroos! They look like dinosaurs to me.

I prefer a local flood hypothesis. Dinosaurs died out 65 million years ago.

[_Ray A]

-Their spirits were not initially literal spirit children of God. Perhaps animal spirits of some sort.
-When all was ready, the Lord took a homo sapiens and put a spirit child within (at conception/birth) and placed him in the garden into a state of no death.

How does that solve the problem of man being the "first flesh" upon earth?

[_bcspace]

How does that solve the problem of man being the "first flesh" upon earth?

I answered that.

[_Ray A]

How does that solve the problem of man being the "first flesh" upon earth?

I answered that.

Where?

Moses 3:7

7 And I, the Lord God, formed man from the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; 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.

Please reiterate.