Any Mormon doctrines that have adapted to science?

[_Bazooka]

If you want to see Mormon doctrine being pretzeled into fitting with science, you need to call B.C.space.....

[_bcspace]

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.

The timeline shows that The Fall bringing death into the world and death existing before the Garden state are in harmony.

2 Nephi 2:22 also shows that the state of no death is applied to earth after the creation is finished, but no word on "no death" during the creative process itself.

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.

You've yet to find a contradiction. You only believe on is there because it must be there to suit your narrative.

It's a HUGE defeat for anti Mormonism when Mormons accept both science and doctrine, just as the scriptures teach us to do.

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.

No, God did it on purpose so man could have his agency and freedom of choice. Your notion is not unlike the heretical non LDS Christian notion that man (Adam) screwed it up and then God had to provide a Savior to fix it. The reality is that a Savior was provided Before the choice was made because God had faith Adam would make the right choice (a woman being there to make sure he did ) and Fall thus paving the way for us to become Gods ourselves. It all happened according to plan.

[_bcspace]

Does Orson's writings constitute doctrine and replace what Joseph Smith actually stated in D&C 77?

Those writings are THE official doctrine that explain what Joseph Smith said because those writings are officially published by the Church here:

https://www.lds.org/manual/doctrine-and ... n?lang=eng

Official publication is THE definition of official doctrine.

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

How so? My hypothesis accepts all science on the subject. A state of no death, even one lasting a few decades and especially if in a localized region (as the doctrine often seems to imply) is not going to be easy to find.

And it is really an absolute state of no death? Did Adam step on no bugs? Did he digest no food? Did he eat no plants?

[_Doctor Steuss]

Loosely tied to the OP -- Widstoe's “Joseph Smith as Scientist…” is a fun glimpse into the past. Of particular note might be the chapter illustrating how Joseph’s teachings are vindicated by the “ether of science.”
https://archive.org/details/josephsmithassci00widt

If only modern physicists weren't anti-mormons...

This little luminiferous aether of mine; I’m gonna let it shine!

[_canpakes]

Those writings are THE official doctrine that explain what Joseph Smith said because those writings are officially published by the Church here:

https://www.lds.org/manual/doctrine-and ... n?lang=eng

Official publication is THE definition of official doctrine.

Official publication in what? An anonymously authored student manual 'replaces' D&C 77 as spoken by Joseph Smith? That's pretty awesome, given that the criteria for 'truth' seems to be mere 'publication' of anything by any author, apparently via any medium that is in some way connected to the Church. Given the vast amount of publications and their content created throughout the last 170 years or so by Church members, we can have a field day with this, especially given your claims often presented in this forum about any number of things that are 'not doctrine', but that are now seen to meet the very test that you use to determine what is 'doctrine'.

Regardless, the unfortunate problem remains that Whitney wrote a bit more than the muddy and meaningless mishmash that you are selectively including above. Please go to the source (Saturday Night Thoughts) and read the full passages. Whitney's claims do not match what modern science accepts as accurate regarding a 7 thousand year 'temporal existence' window for the Earth and the state of humanity on it from that time, nor does much of anything else penned by the author.

End result: Science - 1, LDS Church, -0-

On to your statement about 'No Death Before The Fall' ...

My hypothesis accepts all science on the subject. A state of no death, even one lasting a few decades and especially if in a localized region (as the doctrine often seems to imply) is not going to be easy to find.

And it is really an absolute state of no death? Did Adam step on no bugs? Did he digest no food? Did he eat no plants?

True enough about those bugs and plants, which would be the least of points to make. That's why the claim, 'No Death Before The Fall' is pretty nonsensical, given that we seem to have much evidence of all sorts of things dying for millions of years before 'The Fall', whenever that was supposed to be. You now seem to be coming around to this realization.

Science - 2, LDS Church -0-

And about that Global Flood... heck, even you cannot abide by that one. Science - 3, LDS Church -0-.

That looks like three strikes against the Church and its truth claims, several of which you seem to be waffling on as well.