Holland doubles down on Adam and Eve... Hey BC!?

[_canpakes]

But you don't really buy it, by your own admission.
viewtopic.php?p=859982#p859982

Sure I do.

You should clarify. No death for what? All things? Adam and Eve only?

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.

Here you are ignoring the timeline AND the fact that a state of no death that lasts even as long as human lifetime is not likely to be discoverable by science.

A state of 'no death' for a lifetime is called... a lifespan.

You are currently experiencing a state of 'no death'. You'll continue to do so until you die.

Apparently, this is what you intend 'No Death Before the Fall' to refer to. : ) Via equivocation and pride, Holland and yourself are attempting to water this down to such a frivolous condition as to carry no meaning different than standard existence.

And about that Global Flood... heck, even you cannot abide by that one.

Not a problem. I don't see any specific modern revelation about the Flood, just references to it, which means human prophets could merely be connecting their own understanding to the context of actual revelation.

The position of the Church is the position of it's leadership and claimed prophets. If you disagree with a literal worldwide flood, then you disagree with the Church, Joseph Smith and subsequent prophets.

https://www.lds.org/ensign/1998/01/the- ... l?lang=eng

You state that you do not believe in a literal, worldwide flood. If modern prophets 'know' that a literal, worldwide flood took place, then you are bound to accept that, or you do not abide by the Church's stand.

Here's a specific claim to revelation that a literal worldwide flood killed off everyone save Noah and his party:

Where is safety, brothers and sisters? Where but in the Church and under the protective canopy of the gospel of Jesus Christ? Is not today much like Noah’s day when the population of the earth was wiped out in the flood and but eight righteous souls were spared?

Some doubt that there was a flood, but by modern revelation we know that it did take place. By modern revelation we know that for more than a century, Noah pleaded with the people to repent, but in their willful stubbornness they would not listen.

Don’t we need the warning voices of the prophets now as much as they did in the days of Noah? Will we respond to our own seers and revelators any more than did the people of his day? Are we so foolish that we will not learn a lesson from their mistakes?

- Mark E. Petersen, "Follow the Prophets," Ensign, (November 1981).

My question to you is: What source can you point to that nullifies the Church's stand shown above and brings you to a different conclusion?

The Atonement is safe. The Creation is safe. The Fall is safe. Et. al.

Interesting choice of words. 'Safe' from what?

Certainly not irrelevance.

[_bcspace]

You should clarify. No death for what? All things? Adam and Eve only?

Either or. Local global. Etc. Etc.

A state of 'no death' for a lifetime is called... a lifespan.

You are currently experiencing a state of 'no death'. You'll continue to do so until you die.

Apparently, this is what you intend 'No Death Before the Fall' to refer to. : )

I think it more a product of your frenzied mind to produce straw men arguments as you cast about looking for a way out.

If you disagree with a literal worldwide flood, then you disagree with the Church, Joseph Smith and subsequent prophets.

I agree. I am in disagreement with them on this issue.

Here's a specific claim to revelation that a literal worldwide flood killed off everyone save Noah and his party:

I have no doubt that a flood took place. And I also have no doubt that Noah pleaded with the people to repent and they did not listen.

My question to you is: What source can you point to that nullifies the Church's stand shown above and brings you to a different conclusion?

What specific modern revelation can you point to?

Interesting choice of words. 'Safe' from what?

Any ill effects of accepting Evolution as the way God created our physical bodies.

[_Kittens_and_Jesus]

I think the explanation is that the humanoid pre-adamites weren't "human". They had animal spirits that looked "human", but they weren't spirit children of God. So Adam was the first "human" with a real human spirit.

It's simply wonderful and wonderfully simple.

There's so much emphasis in Genesis 2-3 about the knowledge of good and evil, that my personal opinion is that Adam and Eve were the first two humans who really understood the difference between good and evil; before them all humans (or near-humans) were innocent, in the same way that children younger than eight are innocent.

In what sick and twisted universe are 9 year olds accountable for an eternal destiny?

They don't even understand algebra for God's sake, let alone whatever religious tradition they've been forced into.

[_canpakes]

You should clarify. No death for what? All things? Adam and Eve only?

Either or. Local global. Etc. Etc.

Either or? This is pretty noncommittal. Do you have an answer?

A state of 'no death' for a lifetime is called... a lifespan.

You are currently experiencing a state of 'no death'. You'll continue to do so until you die.

Apparently, this is what you intend 'No Death Before the Fall' to refer to. : )

I think it more a product of your frenzied mind to produce straw men arguments as you cast about looking for a way out.

You appear to have no better answer nor a way to explain your equivocation or your reduction of the 'no death' concept to a meaningless construct.

If you disagree with a literal worldwide flood, then you disagree with the Church, Joseph Smith and subsequent prophets.

I agree. I am in disagreement with them on this issue.

Based on what opposing prophetic source?

My question to you is: What source can you point to that nullifies the Church's stand shown above and brings you to a different conclusion?

What specific modern revelation can you point to?

There is no specific modern revelation that claims 'no global flood'... just as there are no specific modern revelations that proclaim most events of the Book of Mormon to be factual or true. Do you reject the Book of Mormon on the same premise?

The question remains as to why you aren't in agreement with the Church as shown in the links that I've already provided, especially given the lack of any prophetic pronouncement denying a global flood.

Interesting choice of words. 'Safe' from what?

Any ill effects of accepting Evolution as the way God created our physical bodies.

I suppose that we can add evolution to the discussion regarding the temporal Earth timeline, 'No Death' theory and global flood doctrines that we're already engaged in. We can start by noting that for over a hundred years the Church has resorted to yet another equivocating word salad to explain the origin of man. What a shame that prophets seem to be no better off than a well-informed high-school student at determining an answer.

https://www.lds.org/ensign/2002/02/the- ... n?lang=eng