DiscussMormonism.com

There is nothing about LDS doctrine that is in conflict with science.

D&C 77 would stand as a simple example, with regard to the age of the Earth. You will, of course, seek to redefine 'day' or 'temporal', or state that we really do not know that the Earth is not actually 7K years old. That won't quite do the trick.

I don't have to do anything at all in this case except to accept official LDS doctrine at face value:

D&C 77:6–7. Why Was the Book Sealed That John Saw?

“‘The book which John saw’ represented the real history of the world—what the eye of God has seen, what the recording angel has written; and the seven thousand years, corresponding to the seven seals of the Apocalyptic volume, are as seven great days during which Mother Earth will fulfill her mortal mission, laboring six days and resting upon the seventh, her period of sanctification. These seven days do not include the period of our planet’s creation and preparation as a dwelling place for man. They are limited to Earth’s ‘temporal existence,’ that is, to Time, considered as distinct from Eternity.” (Whitney, Saturday Night Thoughts, p. 11.)

https://www.lds.org/manual/doctrine-and-covenants-student-manual/section-69-80/section-77-questions-and-answers-on-the-book-of-revelation?lang=eng

And:

While it is interesting to note these various theories, officially the Church has not taken a stand on the age of the earth. For reasons best known to Himself, the Lord has not yet seen fit to formally reveal the details of the Creation. Therefore, while Latter-day Saints are commanded to learn truth from many different fields of study (see D&C 88:77–79), an attempt to establish any theory as the official position of the Church is not justifiable.

https://www.lds.org/manual/old-testament-student-manual-genesis-2-samuel/genesis-1-2-the-creation?lang=eng

Why would you bother disagreeing with the LDS "Global Flood doctrine" if there are "no LDS doctrines that are in conflict with science"?

In this case, I go with the notion that the LDS Church has merely adopted the traditional Christian view in the absence of direct revelation on the subject.

bcspace wrote:I don't have to do anything at all in this case except to accept official LDS doctrine at face value:

D&C 77:6–7. Why Was the Book Sealed That John Saw?

“‘The book which John saw’ represented the real history of the world—what the eye of God has seen, what the recording angel has written; and the seven thousand years, corresponding to the seven seals of the Apocalyptic volume, are as seven great days during which Mother Earth will fulfill her mortal mission, laboring six days and resting upon the seventh, her period of sanctification. These seven days do not include the period of our planet’s creation and preparation as a dwelling place for man. They are limited to Earth’s ‘temporal existence,’ that is, to Time, considered as distinct from Eternity.” (Whitney, Saturday Night Thoughts, p. 11.)

https://www.lds.org/manual/doctrine-and-covenants-student-manual/section-69-80/section-77-questions-and-answers-on-the-book-of-revelation?lang=eng

You're basically quoting Orson F. Whitney's attempt to make things clear as mud, from his book Saturday Night Thoughts ('The Saturday Evening of Time'), printed in 1921. Does Orson's writings constitute doctrine and replace what Joseph Smith actually stated in D&C 77?

what Joe Smith wrote: 6 Q. What are we to understand by the book which John saw, which was sealed on the back with seven seals?A. We are to understand that it contains the revealed will, mysteries, and the works of God; the hidden things of his economy concerning this earth during the seven thousand years of its continuance, or its temporal existence.

7 Q. What are we to understand by the seven seals with which it was sealed?A. We are to understand that the first seal contains the things of the first thousand years, and the second also of the second thousand years, and so on until the seventh.

Even with Orson's musings, the timelines don't jive with modern scientific thought on the planet's or man's existence and development.


Next:

While it is interesting to note these various theories, officially the Church has not taken a stand on the age of the earth. For reasons best known to Himself, the Lord has not yet seen fit to formally reveal the details of the Creation. Therefore, while Latter-day Saints are commanded to learn truth from many different fields of study (see D&C 88:77–79), an attempt to establish any theory as the official position of the Church is not justifiable.

Is this anonymously-written article doctrine? How does an anonymously-authored article supersede D&C 77?

bcspace wrote:

Why would you bother disagreeing with the LDS "Global Flood doctrine" if there are "no LDS doctrines that are in conflict with science"?

In this case, I go with the notion that the LDS Church has merely adopted the traditional Christian view in the absence of direct revelation on the subject.

I see. You've decided to randomly deviate from and disagree with the prophets, seers and revelators that you profess to heed merely on a whim that they 'copied' the traditional Christian view with regard to their Global Flood doctrine?

There is a reason why you have an issue with this in particular. It's because you believe that science does not support a Global Flood doctrine. Otherwise - having no alternative conclusion about the veracity of a global flood from any other source - you would have no reason to disagree, regardless of the origin being from within traditional Christianity, or as stated to be true by the LDS leadership since.

In short, science does not agree with a Global Flood doctrine, and you agree with science - and not the Church.

bcspace wrote:



Evolution and Death --> Garden State of No Death --> The Fall --> Evolution and Death

What is it about a simple number line that you don't understand? .

What is it about norms of the English language you don't understand?

I wonder, does "no sex before Marriage" require only that there was some period before marriage when the person in question wasn't having sex? Is an hour long enough? Teenagers should be informed of this angle before any worthiness interview.

bcspace wrote:
If you actually look at the timeline, notice that there is no death before the Fall. I have highlighted it for you. Thus I can truthfully, logically, rationally, and without batting an eye state that Evolution is compatible with the doctrine of no death before the Fall.

It's almost as good as pointing out that Evolution, like LDS doctrine, teaches that like produces like and that one species always gives birth to the same species.

I see. This is like arguing that a 100-year-old man is immortal because he has not died yet, or that there was no death before him for anyone or anything else, until he dies.

That's imaginative (I'm trying to be kind) but does not work. Maybe you're trying to say that for a little while nothing dropped dead, regardless of previous critters having died. But temporary break wherein everything, at one point, gets to stay alive a little longer does not equate to 'no death before the fall'. It just means that they stay alive a little longer before also dying. I'm pretty sure that you're not going to tell me that nothing ever died before Adam and Eve snacked on that apple, but if so, then please confirm this.

But, not even giving you this much will help. You couldn't even tell us how much time would have passed between the creation of Adam and Eve and their decision to eat an apple. Could've been 15 minutes. That's not much of a 'time out' from Death.

So, what are we left with?

Evolution and Death --> temporary Garden State of No Death for a while --> The Fall --> Evolution and Death

There you go. As stated by yourself, there was death before the fall.

bcspace wrote:If you actually look at the timeline, notice that there is no death before the Fall. I have highlighted it for you. Thus I can truthfully, logically, rationally, and without batting an eye state that Evolution is compatible with the doctrine of no death before the Fall.

No you cannot. This has got to be the most stubbornly idiotic apologetic ever to appear on these message boards. It willfully ignores the way English works in a way that would be clear to not only any adult but to any 3rd grader.

You want a time line?

bcspace posts on MDB----->tomorrow arrives------->bcspace does not post for an hour----->bcspace posts illogical drivel again------>


Thus: The will be no posting by BCSpace after tomorrow.

("there will be a period during which" is no better or worse than "there was a period during which". )

This whole "there was a period when" angle is an embarrassment that doesn't even rise to the level of sophistry.

You know, there are a lot of people defending Mormonism and some are serious and should be taken seriously. You are not one of them. I challenge you to stop acting like a broken machine stuck in a loop of illogic and post just one humanly thoughtful idea. (And for all you people who think BC is occasionally posting something valuable, I ask you to link me to the post!)

Hey I just though of yet another statement that would be true: There was no sunlight in Spain before Franco died. (LOL 'cause it was night for some period before he died)

bcspace wrote:
Evolution and Death --> Garden State of No Death --> The Fall --> Evolution and Death

What is it about a simple number line that you don't understand?

You don't understand Mormon doctrine. "The fall" brought about physical death - not just in the garden of Eden, but to the world.

So, your whole premise is both unscientific and non-doctrinal. Double fail.

Tchild wrote:

bcspace wrote:
Evolution and Death --> Garden State of No Death --> The Fall --> Evolution and Death

What is it about a simple number line that you don't understand?

You don't understand Mormon doctrine. "The fall" brought about physical death - not just in the garden of Eden, but to the world.

So, your whole premise is both unscientific and non-doctrinal. Double fail.

No, he takes that into consideration. For him, it was necessary that death existed for a couple of billion years, and that uncountable generations of living things were born, lived, and died, as part of the process of evolution out of which homo sapiens and all other species sprang. Then death ceased, because the scriptures say there was no death, and it took Adam to bring Earth back to the state it had already been in for billions of years, so that life as we know it could continue its natural course.

Given this point of view, Adam was a savior. God created the world, it was working properly, then God screwed it up and made it impossible for nature to continue taking its course, until Adam came along and brought everything back to the way it needed to be. Looked at this way, the Fall was even more of a setup than Mormons already regard it as.

Sethbag wrote:For him, it was necessary that death existed for a couple of billion years, and that uncountable generations of living things were born, lived, and died, as part of the process of evolution out of which homo sapiens and all other species sprang. Then death ceased (temporarily) because the scriptures say there was no death, and it took Adam to bring Earth back to the state it had already been in for billions of years, so that life as we know it could continue its natural course.

In and of itself, that explanation makes sense. But it would be correct to say that death took a pause. It doesn't follow that there was 'no death before the fall' if the explanation requires that death actually did inescapably occur before the fall, to everything, and possibly for billions of years, before a temporary pause that could have been as short as 15 minutes.

I can only give credit to bc for finding new and imaginative ways to play with the English language in a way that allows him to sidestep fact and reality, and in order to believe that his internal sense of 'consistency' is intact - but his explanation directly contradicts his claim, invalidating his argument.