Cinepro on "The Garden of Eden" madb

[_Ray A]

The same as any nonhuman imho.

Care to elaborate?

[_bcspace]

The same as any nonhuman imho.

Care to elaborate?

Not enough details to elaborate on.

[_Dr. Shades]

I prefer a local flood hypothesis.

In that case, please answer these three questions:

• Why did Noah build an ark?
• Why did Noah gather any animals?
• When God put the rainbow in the sky, what was He promising never to do again?

[Guest]

Hi, bcspace.

You might know this, but I wanted to point out if you didn't, that Neandertal Man buried their dead. In one memorable case, they placed flowers in the grave of a loved one.

Here is a quote regarding a different burial site, also of Neandertals, in the Czech Republic:

The bodies had been buried with curious attention. According to the expert Bohuslav Klima, of the Czech Institute of Archaeology in Brno both young men had been laid to rest with their heads encircled with necklaces of pierced canine teeth and ivory; the one with the pole thrust up to his coccyx may also have been wearing some kind of painted mask. All three skulls were covered in red ocher. The most peculiar feature of the grave, however, was the arrangement of the deceased. Whoever committed the bodies to the ground extended them side by side, the woman between her two companions. The man on her left lay on his stomach, facing away from her but with his left arm linked with hers. The other male lay on his back, his head turned toward her. Both of his arms were reaching out, so that his hands rested on her pubis. The ground surrounding this intimate connection was splashed with red ocher.

http://www.donsmaps.com/tripleburial.html

A picture of the site:



I don't know that you can call their actions, or by extension, them, "inhuman." They are clearly people who mourned the loss of their loved ones, cared for them in their final moments, and sent them off to the afterlife with all the care that we today attend on our own dead.

Ritualistic burying of the dead is the beginning of religion. It implies a concern with the afterlife. These people had a religion, a philosophy of existence and non-existence, bcspace. They dreamed and hoped and planned for the future, they mourned their dead, and buried them. They were people.

[_Nevo]

Neanderthal doesn't count because his spirit is not a literal spirit child of God. Nor any homo sapiens prior to Adam. Thus Adam becomes the "first man also" because his spirit is the first spirit child of God to inhabit a physical body on the earth.

I think Hugh Nibley would disagree with you there:

"Do not begrudge existence to creatures that looked like men long, long ago, nor deny them a place in God's affection or even a right to exaltation—for our scriptures allow them such."

-- Hugh W. Nibley, "Before Adam," in Old Testament and Related Studies, ed. J. W. Welch, G. P. Gillum, and D. E. Norton (Salt Lake City: Deseret Book; Provo: FARMS, 1986), 82.

[_cinepro]

BCSpace, I think your "creative period evolution" theory is absolutely wacky, and you are taking advantage of the fact that the scriptures can only use words to a certain level of precision. You are creating an entire theory out of the fact that the Book of Mormon didn't go out of it's way to specifically negate "death" during the creative period in a single verse, as if the original author of this verse intentionally worded it in such a way to allow you this room because it was important to allow for death before the final creation.

And whether it was originally written by Lehi or Joseph Smith, I'm sure neither could fathom that one day, someone would argue that while the final "created" product was immortal, God used an evolutionary cycle of repeated births/deaths during the creative process. 2 Nephi 2:22 isn't precisely worded as a divine gift to you to support your theory; it is worded in the only way that would make sense to Lehi or Joseph Smith. The scriptures can't go out of their way to precisely debunk every LDS crackpot theory, and you are taking advantage of that.

After reading your posts over at MADB, I can honestly say that I believe you and I have the same level of doubt towards the Church's claims. Our only difference is the creativity and effort you are willing to devote to convince yourself that you don't doubt. Either that, or your whole "creative period" theory is a subtle but sharp parody of apologetic arguments people resort to in trying to resolve conflicts between LDS doctrine and science, and the degree of legalism people can apply to the scriptures and words of modern leaders in that pursuit.

[_bcspace]

BCSpace, I think your "creative period evolution" theory is absolutely wacky, and you are taking advantage of the fact that the scriptures can only use words to a certain level of precision.

I think you have a vested interest in not allowing the LDS Church to fit with modern science. Your best chestnut has been removed and now you are gnashing your teeth.

You are creating an entire theory out of the fact that the Book of Mormon didn't go out of it's way to specifically negate "death" during the creative period in a single verse, as if the original author of this verse intentionally worded it in such a way to allow you this room because it was important to allow for death before the final creation.

The Book of Mormon specifically and clearly implies a differentiation between the creative process and the finished creation.

And whether it was originally written by Lehi or Joseph Smith, I'm sure neither could fathom that one day, someone would argue that while the final "created" product was immortal, God used an evolutionary cycle of repeated births/deaths during the creative process.

I agree completely. Nevertheless, it is not unreasonable to suspect that they knew there was a difference between the creative and the created states. Afterall, there is a scripturally noted differentiation between the spiritual and the physical creation. Why not some more detail on the physical creation?

2 Nephi 2:22 isn't precisely worded as a divine gift to you to support your theory; it is worded in the only way that would make sense to Lehi or Joseph Smith. The scriptures can't go out of their way to precisely debunk every LDS crackpot theory, and you are taking advantage of that.

It is what it is. Unfortunately worded from your pov.

After reading your posts over at MADB, I can honestly say that I believe you and I have the same level of doubt towards the Church's claims.

I don't doubt any of the doctrine on the creation as far as I can tell. I think I have sufficiently defended my hypothesis on MADB. Evolution can fit.

Our only difference is the creativity and effort you are willing to devote to convince yourself that you don't doubt. Either that, or your whole "creative period" theory is a subtle but sharp parody of apologetic arguments people resort to in trying to resolve conflicts between LDS doctrine and science, and the degree of legalism people can apply to the scriptures and words of modern leaders in that pursuit.

Ah yes, the faded and tattered argument of "legalism". My interpretation of the implications of doctrine where there are no details given is just as valid as anyone else's.

[_cinepro]

BCSpace, I'm willing to allow the "marketplace" of ideas to judge your theory regarding 2 Nephi 2:22. You may continue to promote it, but its success will be judged by the degree to which you can convince other believers to adopt it (or the frequency with which others independently discover a similar interpretation).

So far, I haven't seen a single apologist join you in your unique and creative interpretation. As the years go by, we'll see if your theory finds support among other LDS, or if it falls to the wayside as so many other "unique" doctrinal contributions do.

[_guy sajer]

Here's the part where I come clean and admit that until a few years ago, I totally believed Adam and Eve were the first humans (or human-like creatures), and that there was no physical death in the world until Adam fell.

I also totally believed Noah's flood covered the whole world.

And I believed these things because that was what I had always been taught at Church.

That now seems like so long ago, and I understand that the many different wards I lived in were all teaching a particular strain of fundamentalism, and were misinterpreting the scriptures and lesson manuals provided by the Church.

(Assuming apologist role.) There has never been an official doctrine regarding Adam and Eve and the flood. Only foolish literalists would believe this.

[_guy sajer]

I prefer a local flood hypothesis. Dinosaurs died out 65 million years ago.

I'm afraid that the Brethren disagree with you:

http://www.LDS.org/ldsorg/v/index.jsp?v ... &hideNav=1

But then, we all know that you receive superior light and knowledge than they do.

Note that they also believe in a literal Tower of Babel.

I agree with Sethbag. We need no more evidence than this that Mormonism is but another man-made religion tethered with a ball and chain to the religious mythology from which it sprung.