"Thus saith the Lord: Noah I am going to flood this valley. Go and take two of every animal and move them over to the next valley so that they don't drown, for a remanant of the seed of this valley must be preserved ...Amen"
The interesting thing about that is, according to the Lexicon, "all flesh" and "every living thing" in Genesis 6 could be translated as all your sustenance and all your relatives (who are in opposition to God).
So yes, the farm and everyone living in your locality makes sense here.
That was indeed an odd thread. I posted it because some exmos I know said they thought someone somewhere would make a connection to the Jaredites. I didn't think they would, so I posted it on MAD to see what the response would be. As I predicted, no one said anything about Jaredites, but I did get told I'm sowing the seeds of doubts. I admit it, I'm just plain evil. I make Juliann and Pahoran look like Ned and Maude Flanders.
I think you were sowing the seeds of doubt. It's just science. But that's the problem here - the scientific view of this continent's peopling is a different story than that told in the Book of Mormon.
By the way, I think the "land bridge or bust" mindset is unjustified. Ok, it could have been across the land bridge when it was actually dry land, or it could have been that people crossed the Bering Strait with small boats at a time when the land bridge was actually underwater. The Bering Strait isn't that wide. I think it's far more likely that people crossed the Bering Strait in small boats, than that they crossed the whole ocean.
Then again, look at the peopling of the islands of the Pacific. These people made some pretty remarkable voyages. Imagine how many Polynesians died on their boats without actually making any landfall, compared to the small fraction who actually ran into habitable land and survived to populate it.
I like the way The Dude expresses this. My understanding of his main message is that it's not what's excluded as a possibility that is important. It's not utterly impossible that people could have crossed over from Israel to the Americas in a boat. What's important is that we do have evidence of people who really were on the American continent, and we have evidence of where these people came from, and some good ideas on how, and those "wheres" and "hows" are different than "from Israel" and "by boat across the entire Atlantic Ocean".
Mormonism ceased being a compelling topic for me when I finally came to terms with its transformation from a personality cult into a combination of a real estate company, a SuperPac, and Westboro Baptist Church. - Kishkumen
I think you were sowing the seeds of doubt. It's just science. But that's the problem here - the scientific view of this continent's peopling is a different story than that told in the Book of Mormon.
How so? If LDS doctrine is that the Garden of Eden was here, then there were people here before the Jaredites.
On top of that, there being no conflict between LDS doctrine and evolution theory, there were homo sapiens here thousands of years before the Fall. Where does the Book of Mormon conflict with that?
On top of that, there being no conflict between LDS doctrine and evolution theory,
I take it you don't agree with Elder Mc Conkie?
Not at all.
However, in The Seven Deadly Heresies (nondoctrinal) BRM essentially admits evolution can be reconciled and simply stated his reasons why he didn't think it could. In an Ensign article (doctrinal) BRM took an earlier talk by ETB that was against evolution and added the caveat "that denies the Fall".
I don't deny the Fall or any other LDS scripture or doctrine. Evolution fits just fine.
bcspace wrote: I don't deny the Fall or any other LDS scripture or doctrine. Evolution fits just fine.
So what do you make of 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.
Last edited by _Ray A on Tue Sep 09, 2008 6:11 am, edited 1 time in total.
I think you were sowing the seeds of doubt. It's just science. But that's the problem here - the scientific view of this continent's peopling is a different story than that told in the Book of Mormon.
How so? If LDS doctrine is that the Garden of Eden was here, then there were people here before the Jaredites.
On top of that, there being no conflict between LDS doctrine and evolution theory, there were homo sapiens here thousands of years before the Fall. Where does the Book of Mormon conflict with that?
More nibbling nuggets from Hugh the Nibbler?
... our church isn't true, but we have to keep up appearances so we don't get shunned by our friends and family, fired from our jobs, kicked out of our homes, ... Please don't tell on me. ~maklelan
I understand "man" to mean a physical homo sapiens body united with a spirit child of God. The implication here is that there can be homo sapiens previous to the garden, but whose spirits are not children of God.
I understand "earth" to mean the already "finished being created earth". 2 Nephi 2:22 implies a creative state prior to the already created state. The already created state has a no death property applied to it. There are no properties applied to the earth in the creative state, therefore death is possible here before the Garden.
So to combine.....
"the first flesh [that was finished being created] upon the [created] earth, the first man [a physical body with a spirit child of God within] also"