BCSpace please respond - your loophole refuted

[_harmony]

... poopsnozzled...

Now, there's a word!

[_bcspace]

Hi BC,

In your theory, was the world in the presence of God (or unfallen) prior to the standstill? Or was it fallen, then not fallen during the standstill, then fallen again after the fruit?

Prior to the standstill, it was in the creative state.

Why would there have to be a standstill in order for God to put his spirit children into the bodies of the human/Homo Sapiens? Or are you thinking there had to be a standstill for Eve and Adam to decide to continue evolution?

The later. As we know from 2 Nephi 2, everything would've remained in the same stopped state. This possibly speaks to the notion of the whole world in this condition as opposed to just the garden, but then what is the diference when one is cast out? It's a question I haven't answered for myself, but it does not affect evolution either way.

It just seems like the whole fruit/fallen world/garden thing is useless... other than that brief (I'm sort of going with the temple portrayal here), standstill the post fruit is no different than the poopsnozzled world with the exception of actual spirit children placed in the bodies of humans rather than a regular Homo Sapien spirit inhabiting these bodies?

Well now this speaks more to the idea of the garden and the fall rather than evolution. Your last phrase here is the reason in a nutshell. They had the bodies, now the question is are they going to choose to progess or not. I suggest you read all of 2 Nephi 2.

It seems weird to think that Eve and Adam had spirits in their bodies that were non-(our type of) human, then the spirits must have died off or been cast out or something, and new spirits were placed in these same bodies.

I don't hold to that at all though it still fits. I believe they were born with such spirits.

I do have to say, I think your theory is one of the most original I have heard! :-)

I am far from the first TBM to accept evolution. However, it is true that my way of thinking about it seems to be unique.

What do you make of Gaz's idea? Do you think Eve and Adam brought with them blood?

I think it's quaint and old fashioned (in the argument against evolution sense). It seems to work on the surface because there are some verses, but to use it to preclude evolution at the very least assumes that the same process can't work in reverse and there is no evidence for that.

[_Gazelam]

Truth Dancer,

So, in your theory there was NO evolution? No blood in any creatures until Adam and Eve? Were there creatures without blood? Animals with spirits? Or was the world in the presence of God until the fall?

I'm sorry if I am not current with all the threads and theories but are you of the mind that all life started six thousand years or so ago?

~dancer~

There was no death in the world until after the Fall of Adam. The Earth and al its inhabitants were in the presence of God, and were therefore incorruptable (physically). Much likea child must eventually leave their home and learn to stand on their own, the Fall had to occur.

Note, nothing before the Fall had blood.

Also, all things that are created are created first in Spirit. This includes animals. Joseph stated that anything that has the intelligence to move out of the way if you go to lay hand on it wlil be resurrected.

[_truth dancer]

Truth Dancer,

So, in your theory there was NO evolution? No blood in any creatures until Adam and Eve? Were there creatures without blood? Animals with spirits? Or was the world in the presence of God until the fall?

I'm sorry if I am not current with all the threads and theories but are you of the mind that all life started six thousand years or so ago?

~dancer~

There was no death in the world until after the Fall of Adam. The Earth and al its inhabitants were in the presence of God, and were therefore incorruptable (physically). Much likea child must eventually leave their home and learn to stand on their own, the Fall had to occur.

Note, nothing before the Fall had blood.

Also, all things that are created are created first in Spirit. This includes animals. Joseph stated that anything that has the intelligence to move out of the way if you go to lay hand on it wlil be resurrected.

Hey Gaz,

Do you think you are stating doctrine? What do you think of BC's "theory"?

So, you do not believe in evolution, do you think it goes against LDS doctrine?

And, I have never heard this idea from Joseph Smith... Do you think he was speaking his opinion as a man or was receiving some sort of revelation on this?

:-)

~dancer~

[_bcspace]

There was no death in the world until after the Fall of Adam.

I agree 100%. There is nothing in my theory to preclude this. The distinction you have to make is the creative vs. created world as the scriptures do (2 Nephi 2:22).

The Earth and al its inhabitants were in the presence of God, and were therefore incorruptable (physically). Much likea child must eventually leave their home and learn to stand on their own, the Fall had to occur.

If you are speaking of the garden state, sure.

Note, nothing before the Fall had blood.

What about the creative state for which there are no properties or restrictions mentioned?

Also, all things that are created are created first in Spirit. This includes animals. Joseph stated that anything that has the intelligence to move out of the way if you go to lay hand on it wlil be resurrected.

Sure. Still no conflict.

[_Gazelam]

Hey Gaz,

Do you think you are stating doctrine? What do you think of BC's "theory"?

So, you do not believe in evolution, do you think it goes against LDS doctrine?

And, I have never heard this idea from Joseph Smith... Do you think he was speaking his opinion as a man or was receiving some sort of revelation on this?

:-)

~dancer~

Yes, I am stating doctrine.

BC's theory is false.

If there is any evolution, then it has taken place from the time of Noah's flood until now. Feel free to conjure up any evolution you wish to have taken place in the time between Adam and Noah.

Darwinian evolution is against the teachings of the church, yes. But everyone is always improving : )

To my memory, Josephs statement on everything being resurrected is found in "Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith". If I werent lazy I'd look it up.

[_Tarski]

Darwinian evolution is against the teachings of the church, yes. But everyone is always improving : )

Given this, it is then short step to absolute proof that the church is false.

Why?

It's simple. Evolution happens in fact and has been happening for millions of years. This truth contradicts the so called gospel. QED


Knowing the church isn't true is a side benefit of basic 20th century scientific discoveries.



Plus, there was no global flood as can be easiliy demostrated with basic geology.

Double QED

[_bcspace]

Yes, I am stating doctrine.

BC's theory is false.

If there is any evolution, then it has taken place from the time of Noah's flood until now. Feel free to conjure up any evolution you wish to have taken place in the time between Adam and Noah.

Darwinian evolution is against the teachings of the church, yes. But everyone is always improving : )

Never at any time has Gazelam specified a single doctrine with which my theory conflicts.

To my memory, Josephs statement on everything being resurrected is found in "Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith". If I werent lazy I'd look it up.

A nondoctrinal work. However, I believe I refuted your resurrection (blood?) theory and you haven't answered it.

[_bcspace]

Given this, it is then short step to absolute proof that the church is false.

Why?

It's simple. Evolution happens in fact and has been happening for millions of years. This truth contradicts the so called gospel. QED

Knowing the church isn't true is a side benefit of basic 20th century scientific discoveries.

Plus, there was no global flood as can be easiliy demostrated with basic geology.

Double QED

This is wrong also as evolution in no way conflicts with the gospel. Notice Tarski's absolute and utter lack of verses or doctrinal statements to that effect.

[_Tarski]

Given this, it is then short step to absolute proof that the church is false.

Why?

It's simple. Evolution happens in fact and has been happening for millions of years. This truth contradicts the so called gospel. QED

Knowing the church isn't true is a side benefit of basic 20th century scientific discoveries.

Plus, there was no global flood as can be easiliy demostrated with basic geology.

Double QED

This is wrong also as evolution in no way conflicts with the gospel. Notice Tarski's absolute and utter lack of verses or doctrinal statements to that effect.

Where is the list of doctrines that the FP and the Qo12 have made official doctrine by joint declaration? I am interested in knowing what they left out.

The main problem is that you have invented a private and idiosyncratic interpretation of scriptures.

Let's just say that the following facts make the church false enough for me:

1. Prophets and seers of the past have repeatedly made statements to the world and congregation that are contrary to scientific fact.
2. Prophets in the early church have made public statements contrary to what present day prophets say especially with regard to race and gender.
3. Mormon scriptures make statements contrary to scientific fact if read without doing violence to the ordinary meaning of words.
4. Educated Mormons are in direct conflict with each other over what is or is not doctrine (its a house of confusion).
(Most Mormon belief things contrary to science and that exactly because they say it is doctrine.)


That's false enough for me but there is also all the problems with the Book of Abraham (false translation) and nonexistence Book of Mormon archeology not to mention the fact that the modern church doesn't look anything like the early church in terms of visions, supposed miracles and manifestations. The Mormon church is just as ossified and institutional as the catholic church. It is also boring, dry, repetative, droning, and aesthetically business-like in dress and archetecture. It is filled with stereotypical rightwing proestablishment dogma that flies in the face of Christs rather liberal anti-establishment message:

Jesus said unto him, If thou wilt be perfect, go and sell that thou hast, and give it to the poor, and thou shalt have treasure in heaven: and come and follow me.