No death before the fall

[_bcspace]

Considering the gospel definition of man (a spirit which animates the body), evolution doesn't propose or necessitate that man came up through the "scum"; just the physical body.

Wait...are you saying that pre-Adamites did not have a spirit?

No, according to LDS doctrine all living things have a spirit. I have never postulated that pre Adamites have no spirits. I have postulated that pre Adamites had different spirits or that they were Uplifted to explain the sudden rise in civilization after a quarter of a million years of little advancement.

The Gospel definition of a man is both body and spirit. And especially since the it is the spirit which animates the body, it is not possible to complain about man coming up through the scum through from lower orders of life simply because God used evolution to produce the physical body. That is what I am saying.

Actually what we see is that I have taken all doctrine into account, including the 1931 statement and similar statements. 2 Nephi, the Book of Abraham, the fact that we don't know what the actual process of creation was. Context of the created vs. the uncreated world. The gospel definition of man. Etc.

More recently published doctrine overrides that old stuff.

There is no such doctrine.

Not to mention that your "interpretation" of doctrine is more creative than interpretive.

Where there are no details, one can afford to be creative.

Also, supporters of BY's Adam God have never addressed other statements by BY in the same sources which conflict with the notion of the Adam who Fell being God the Father. In other words, they are cherry-picking to support long held and favorite chestnuts. The bottom line is that Adam Sr/Jr. stands as the only explanation which accounts for these things as well.

Pure bunk.

I expect an anti Mormon who has long held to an erroneous belief or chestnut to say that and not address the evidence I presented.

[_bcspace]

This, I take it, is bcspace? How many times have I alone expounded the story of Adam and Eve on this site? Each time everyone shuts their mouth and walks away pretending that they heard nothing and giving no credit to my work written almost thirty years ago. I got exed for it.

So your hypothesis is Adam Sr/Jr? I was coming to that conclusion independently and then I read the stuff by Elden Watson posted as early as 1998.

Neither Adam Sr/Jr or Adam God is LDS doctrine. If you publicly taught that they were and perhaps implied that the apostles and prophets were not inspired/called of God, then I can see why you were exed.

[_Nightlion]

This, I take it, is bcspace? How many times have I alone expounded the story of Adam and Eve on this site? Each time everyone shuts their mouth and walks away pretending that they heard nothing and giving no credit to my work written almost thirty years ago. I got exed for it.

So your hypothesis is Adam Sr/Jr? I was coming to that conclusion independently and then I read the stuff by Elden Watson posted as early as 1998.

Neither Adam Sr/Jr or Adam God is LDS doctrine. If you publicly taught that they were and perhaps implied that the apostles and prophets were not inspired/called of God, then I can see why you were exed.

So you have never read my theology written up in the early eighties. It trounces Brigham's adam-god nonsense. It grows a spine through all scripture and rightly divides while it gathers into one hand the strands of misunderstood and underdeveloped doctrines revealed in the Restoration into one great whole. The greatest LDS exposition of doctrine since Joseph Smith if I may be so bold to declare it. Of course it chumps off the standing authorities. How could it not? They had already viciously maligned me and marginalized me against the obvious power and spirit of my manifest gifts for over twelve years. Yes GAs had with intent to harm.

That work is living inspiration and not a dead form of godliness. They could never excommunicate me from Christ in their finest moment. Just add damages against their own account. They could and did only hurt themselves by casting out the righteous. Which is required of all fallen people as a seal upon their doom. Have I not flourished like an herb as they have only floundered and blundered in stumbling drunkenness?

My website is down. My paper which was added to lately exists on a PDF hosting site. Maybe I will go get the link. But only if you ask so I get some inkling that it might be read.

[_bcspace]

The greatest LDS exposition of doctrine since Joseph Smith if I may be so bold to declare it.

You can't even surpass mine which is so succinct the denizens here complain that they have nothing to latch on to and criticize. So why should I read yours?
lol

[_Jason Bourne]

Re BCs Adam Snr/Jr argument to explain away BYs Adam is God doctrine I said:

Pure bunk.

Bc Quipped

I expect an anti Mormon who has long held to an erroneous belief or chestnut to say that and not address the evidence I presented.

1: I am not an anti Mormon. I sit in the pews and I hold a calling and a TR. The only place I challenge nonsense like you spew is here.

2: Unlike you I am a seeker of truth even when it is uncomfortable. The uncomfortable truth is BY taught the Man Adam was our God and Jesus Christ's father. That was very uncomfortable for me when I finally admitted it after years of using Adam Sr/Jr as well as the argument that he also said and taught the traditional ideas about Adam.

I and others have shown to you over and over why your evidence is week and loses the argument. Your typical response is like you said above...you call it a chestnut and claim your arguments have not been addressed, which is a lie. Yes a lie. You are free to say you don't agree with the arguments but don't lie BC and say your argument has not been addressed.

[_bcspace]

I expect an anti Mormon who has long held to an erroneous belief or chestnut to say that and not address the evidence I presented.

1: I am not an anti Mormon. I sit in the pews and I hold a calling and a TR. The only place I challenge nonsense like you spew is here.

Such has never been proof positive against anti-Mormonism. But your unwillingness to address the facts and just lay back and spew invective is the modus operandi of the anti Mormons.

Your typical response is like you said above...you call it a chestnut and claim your arguments have not been addressed, which is a lie. Yes a lie. You are free to say you don't agree with the arguments but don't lie BC and say your argument has not been addressed

Where have the BY quotes showing Adam and God the Father to be separate or the doctrines Adam-God conflict with ever been addressed with something other than denial? The most anyone ever came up with is the general reaction of others around BY. Better than postulating that BY would change things up on a whim, but still is nothing more than denial.

It being on FAIR is not one of my own qualifications for accepting, but it's still one of the major and unrefuted apologetic explanations on FAIR wiki so I'm sure I am in good company.

[_Jason Bourne]

Where have the BY quotes showing Adam and God the Father to be separate or the doctrines Adam-God conflict with ever been addressed with something other than denial?

Where have BYs statements about Adam being God ever been addressed with anything other than denial?

The most anyone ever came up with is the general reaction of others around BY. Better than postulating that BY would change things up on a whim, but still is nothing more than denial.

I cannot explain why a person taught one thing and then another. But what is clear is he taught conflicting things. And while he did teach traditional things about Adam he did teach that Adam was God and NOT Adam Senior, etc. This is clear because NOBODY that was his contemporary understood it that way. This is why Pratt went to war over it. This is why Woodruff's journal discusses it, and not in light of the Sr/Jr nonsense. This is why others of the day record the teaching in their journals and refer to it in the way BY said it, that Adam, the man that was in the garden, is our God. If you can show me one, JUST ONE, contemporary of BY that understood AG the way you argue I will concede to you.

[_Jason Bourne]

Such has never been proof positive against anti-Mormonism. But your unwillingness to address the facts and just lay back and spew invective is the modus operandi of the anti Mormons.

Again you lie when you say that facts have not been addressed. When have you addressed the fact that BYs AG sermons were published in the Millennial Star and Deseret News, two of the Church's official publications of the day?

[_bcspace]

Where have the BY quotes showing Adam and God the Father to be separate or the doctrines Adam-God conflict with ever been addressed with something other than denial?

Where have BYs statements about Adam being God ever been addressed with anything other than denial?

They've been countered by the references I gave. So far, the counter to the counter has been nothing but denial. No additional references, no quotes, no intellectually honest explanation. At best, we are at agree to disagree.

the Millennial Star and Deseret News, two of the Church's official publications of the day?

Not by any stretch of the imagination. The Millenial Star was not an official publication for the same reasons the JoD was not an official publication. The Deseret News is also not published by the Church.

Wouldn't matter if they were as reference to such still does not address BY's quotes differentiating between Adam and God the Father and the doctrines Adam-God is in conflict with.

Only anti Mormons make these kinds of arguments Jason.

[_Jason Bourne]

the Millennial Star and Deseret News, two of the Church's official publications of the day?

Not by any stretch of the imagination. The Millenial Star was not an official publication for the same reasons the JoD was not an official publication. The Deseret News is also not published by the Church.

Yes both were the only medium for official publications of the Church at the time. Just as today the Church news is official so the entire Deseret News of the 19th century was official.

Wouldn't matter if they were as reference to such still does not address BY's quotes differentiating between Adam and God the Father and the doctrines Adam-God is in conflict with.

I see you have failed to counter my point that not one person understood BYs AG doctrine to mean anything other than what it said directly. My challange thus stands. Find me ONE PERSON from BYs time who understood BYs AG teachings as Adam Sr/Jr andI will concede. Since there a numerous accounts of those who understood him to mean the Adam in the garden that fell is our God I think you lose. This evidence is most damning. Even the 12 understood it this way.

Only anti Mormons make these kinds of arguments Jason.

Ad hominem attacks mean you have lost.