PoGP on Canaanites, black skin and priesthood

[_Buffalo]

I'll start a thread on evolution shortly.

[_Buffalo]

From the Mad board, Cinepro said:

Thank you Scott. I was referring to the story that Elder McConkie had told President Kimball that it didn't originate with Joseph Smith.

Regardless of what "most historians" do or don't believe, we should never underestimate the creativity of Church leaders and apologists. It was, after all, Joseph Fielding Smith who told someone that there were two Elijah Abels in the early days of the Church, one white and one black, and that we were confusing the white priesthood-holding one with the black non-priesthood holding one.

So I just want to make sure.

I guess bcspace is taking the time-honored Joseph Fielding approach to trying to explain inconsistencies. :D

[_ludwigm]

It was, after all, Joseph Fielding Smith who told someone that there were two Elijah Abels in the early days of the Church, one white and one black, and that we were confusing the white priesthood-holding one with the black non-priesthood holding one.
So I just want to make sure.

More...
- two Esaiases
- two Jeremys
- two (five, eight, unnumbered) Eliases
- Gabriels/Noahs
- John the Baptists (in other words...)

[_bcspace]

The Church officially teaches that the temporal age of the Earth began approximately 7,000 years ago, and that the human race entered mortality at that time with a man and a woman who lived in present-day Missouri. Not only does this not fit evolution, it does not fit anthropology.

You've obviously not read LDS doctrine on D&C 77:6

If LDS doctrine did not preclude what is known about the development of the human race, you would not have to invent new and exciting ways based on nothing but your assertions that no death at all before the Fall really means rampant death all over the place before the Fall.

I haven't invented anything. i merely worked with the available facts.

Nothing wrong with reconciliation.


Perhaps if Buffalo starts this thread where you can explain your simple, beautiful theory of divine artificial insemination and non-human spirits in homo sapiens bodies giving birth to Adam and Eve, you could provide the evidence in support of your wild, heretical, fantastical speculation----or "theory," if you prefer.

Well, the interesing thing about the thread he did start was that he hamstrung himself immediately with the scientific concept that no evidence for does not equal evidence against. In other words, the appearance of randomness does not preclude the existence of God's hand. Heck, I can write code with graphical or numerical output that generates the appearance of randomness, but that wouldn't preclude that I exist.

You know, the evidence that heretofore has been notably absent from every thread in which you have shared how making things up out of thin air equates to "reconciliation."

Your abject lack of examples as to what exactly you think I made up begins to make an entrance here.

[_Darth J]

The Church officially teaches that the temporal age of the Earth began approximately 7,000 years ago, and that the human race entered mortality at that time with a man and a woman who lived in present-day Missouri. Not only does this not fit evolution, it does not fit anthropology.

You've obviously not read LDS doctrine on D&C 77:6

Translation: "You've obviously not acted as if the plain meaning of ordinary words means something different than what it obviously says in order to make my rampant speculation fit the scriptures."

Some of you reading this thread may not be aware of bcspace's history of insisting that his theory about evolution and LDS doctrine, which has no basis in fact nor in the teachings of the LDS Church, resolves any and all doubts about LDS biblical literalism being consistent with science. He is inventing ideas out of thin air because he has to, not because there is any evidentiary-based reason to do so. Like many Mopologists and internet Mormons who insist that LDS doctrine does not conflict with science, bcspace is equivocating between "temporal age of the Earth" and "how long it took to create the Earth." There is no official teaching about how long it took God to make the Earth, but D&C 77 and LDS doctrine interpreting it make it clear that there was no death, nor any mortal member of the human race, prior to Adam and Eve leaving the Garden of Eden circa 6,000 years ago (the Millennium is part of the 7,000 years of the Earth's "temporal" existence).

Doctrine and Covenants Institute Student Manual
Section 77 - Questions and Answers on the Book of Revelation

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.

Book of Revelation Overview,” Ensign, Oct 1983

When the first seal is opened in the beginning verses of Revelation 6, there is shown to John an important occurrence from the first thousand years after the Fall. The Bible dictionary of the LDS edition of the King James Bible places the Fall near 4000 b.c. (See Bible Dictionary, p. 635.) When the second seal is opened in the subsequent verses, John is shown something about the second thousand years. And so on through the first four seals. The fifth seal information presented to John represents both a time period and some events of which John knew a great deal. The Apostle is shown a representation of those who “were slain for the word of God” after the opening of the fifth seal. (Rev. 6:9.)

For us, however, it is not until the sixth seal is opened (beginning at Rev. 6:12) that we begin to deal with events yet to occur. The sixth seal covers the sixth thousand year period, which generally would be about 1000 a.d. to 2000 a.d........

The information is based upon a Church Education System chart and was adapted for Ensign use by Jay A. Parry.


Doctrines of the Gospel Student Manual
Chapter 36 - The Lord's Second Coming

At the time appointed by the Father, the Son of Man will come in the clouds of heaven. It is an unknown day in the beginning of the seventh thousand years of the earth’s temporal continuance. War, such as has not been known from the beginning of time, is in progress.

Bcspace tries to make this fit by claiming, with no evidence whatsoever behind his assertion, that evolution was happening right up until the time that Adam and Eve fell, and that this was part of the "creation" (i.e., the creation was still going on while Adam and Eve were in the Garden of Eden). The insurmountable problem with this ad hoc speculation is that death is an integral part of the evolutionary process. As shown below, the LDS Church makes it very plain in its doctrine that there was no death for any form of life on this planet before the Fall, and bcspace has consistently refused to acknowledge this.

If LDS doctrine did not preclude what is known about the development of the human race, you would not have to invent new and exciting ways based on nothing but your assertions that no death at all before the Fall really means rampant death all over the place before the Fall.

I haven't invented anything. i merely worked with the available facts.

For those unfamiliar with this recurring theme that bcspace has, please keep in mind that he is the one who trumpets "official church doctrine" while insisting that the LDS Church does not officially teach that there was no death whatsoever on this planet until the Fall of Adam and Eve. Examples (which have been previously cited on this board):

CES Manual: Old Testament, Section 2-16

"Adam was the first of all creatures to fall and become flesh, and flesh in this sense means mortality, and all through our scriptures the Lord speaks of this life as flesh, while we are here in the flesh, so Adam became the first flesh. There was no other mortal creature before him, and there was no mortal death until he brought it, and the scriptures tell you that. It is here written, and that is the gospel of Jesus Christ.” (Seek Ye Earnestly, pp. 280–81.)

Bruce R. McConkie, “The Caravan Moves On,” Ensign, November 1984

There is no salvation in a system of religion that rejects the doctrine of the Fall or that assumes man is the end product of evolution and so was not subject to a fall.

True believers know that this earth and man and all forms of life were created in an Edenic, or paradisiacal, state in which there was no mortality, no procreation, no death.

In that primeval day Adam and Eve were “in a state of innocence, having no joy, for they knew no misery; doing no good, for they knew no sin.” (2 Ne. 2:23.)

But in the providences of the Lord, “Adam fell that men might be; and men are, that they might have joy.” (2 Ne. 2:25.)

By his fall, Adam introduced temporal and spiritual death into the world and caused this earth life to become a probationary estate.

Lesson 4: “Because of My Transgression My Eyes Are Opened”, Old Testament Gospel Doctrine Teacher’s Manual

The Fall of Adam and Eve brought physical and spiritual death into the world. Physical death is the separation of the body and the spirit that occurs at the end of our mortal lives......

To help explain that Adam and Eve did not sin when they partook of the forbidden fruit, read the following statement from Elder Dallin H. Oaks:

“It was Eve who first transgressed the limits of Eden in order to initiate the conditions of mortality."

Bruce R. McConkie, “Christ and the Creation,” Ensign, Jun 1982

Mortality and procreation and death all had their beginnings with the Fall. The tests and trials of a mortal probation began when our first parents were cast out of their Edenic home. “Because that Adam fell, we are,” Enoch said, “and by his fall came death; and we are made partakers of misery and woe.” (Moses 6:48.) One of the most profound doctrinal declarations ever made fell from the lips of mother Eve. She said: “Were it not for our transgression we never should have had seed, and never should have known good and evil, and the joy of our redemption, and the eternal life which God giveth unto all the obedient.” (Moses 5:11.)

And be it also remembered that the Fall was made possible because an infinite Creator, in the primeval day, made the earth and man and all forms of life in such a state that they could fall. This fall involved a change of status. All things were so created that they could fall or change, and thus was introduced the type and kind of existence needed to put into operation all of the terms and conditions of the Father’s eternal plan of salvation.

This first temporal creation of all things, as we shall see, was paradisiacal in nature. In the primeval and Edenic day all forms of life lived in a higher and different state than now prevails. The coming fall would take them downward and forward and onward. Death and procreation had yet to enter the world. That death would be Adam’s gift to man, and, then, the gift of God would be eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord.

Thus, existence came from God; death came by Adam; and immortality and eternal life come through Christ......

Thus we learn that the initial creation was paradisiacal; death and mortality had not yet entered the world. There was no mortal flesh upon the earth for any form of life. The Creation was past, but mortality as we know it lay ahead. All things had been created in a state of paradisiacal immortality.

Lesson 6: The Fall of Adam,” Aaronic Priesthood Manual 3

Explain that physical death, known also as temporal death, was introduced into the world as a consequence of the Fall. As a result of the Fall, all people and all forms of life upon the earth must suffer a physical death, a separation of spirit and body.

Chapter 3: "The Lamb Slain from the Foundation of the World,” Teachings of Presidents of the Church: Harold B. Lee

Besides the Fall having had to do with Adam and Eve, causing a change to come over them, that change affected all human nature, all of the natural creations, all of the creation of animals, plants—all kinds of life were changed. The earth itself became subject to death.

Perhaps if Buffalo starts this thread where you can explain your simple, beautiful theory of divine artificial insemination and non-human spirits in homo sapiens bodies giving birth to Adam and Eve, you could provide the evidence in support of your wild, heretical, fantastical speculation----or "theory," if you prefer.

Well, the interesing thing about the thread he did start was that he hamstrung himself immediately with the scientific concept that no evidence for does not equal evidence against. In other words, the appearance of randomness does not preclude the existence of God's hand. Heck, I can write code with graphical or numerical output that generates the appearance of randomness, but that wouldn't preclude that I exist.

He specifically said that evolution cannot be reconciled with the LDS concept of God, and he is right. When you come across that official doctrine talking about Adam and Eve descending from a lower form of life and death before the Fall, you go right ahead and put it on the board.

The misleading statement offered by Moplogists and internet Mormons is that "there is no official doctrine about how things were created." However, there most certainly is official doctrine about what did not happen. What did not happen according to LDS doctrine is what evolution says did happen.

You know, the evidence that heretofore has been notably absent from every thread in which you have shared how making things up out of thin air equates to "reconciliation."

Your abject lack of examples as to what exactly you think I made up begins to make an entrance here.

You mean how I alluded to your idea that non-human spirits were in the bodies of homo sapiens, that these non-human homo sapiens were carrying the egg and sperm of Heavenly Mother and Father, respectively, and that when these non-human homo sapiens mated to conceive Adam and Eve, God sent human spirits to inhabit these human bodies?

No, you clearly have a sound doctrinal and factual basis for this science fiction fantasy.

The ultimate problem you have is that you don't understand making things up out of thin air trying to fill in plot holes in the faith-promoting narrative and actually proving something. As I have said in a previous thread, Sethbag once cogently summarized bcspace's "Kolob meets Planet of the Apes" idea:

Finally, your ideas fail because they are postulated not on the basis of any evidentiary reason, but solely for the purpose of providing a rhetorical defense of some pretty dumb and disproven mythologies. You have misguided faith in some ancient mythologies, but you recognize their weaknesses in the face of modern discoveries, so you attempt to fabricate ways to reconcile them. Your views on how things might have been are motivated by no evidence, but rather out of necessity in the face of the consequences to your beliefs of not fabricating these views.

[_bcspace]

You've obviously not read LDS doctrine on D&C 77:6

Translation: "You've obviously not acted as if the plain meaning of ordinary words means something different than what it obviously says in order to make my rampant speculation fit the scriptures."

This is one of the few, if not the first time that Darth J has provided actual references to what he is ostensibly talking about. Someone must be coaching him.

Doctrine and Covenants Institute Student Manual
Section 77 - Questions and Answers on the Book of Revelation

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.

I was going to quote this myself so I'm glad you did first. Notice that the physical creation is placed outside the temporal existence. This has major implications for what a temporal and spiritual existence actually means depending on the contexts. The context of the Book of Abraham version of the creation is that the spiritual part was just a planning session. I don't think anyone really understands what those implications are, but it certain destroys the notion that D&C 77 says the earth is only 6 or 7000 years old (and the afterwards mentioned Old Testament Student manual agrees that there actually is no doctrine on the age of the earth).

But by placing the physical creation outside the temporal existence, we now dovetail nicely with 2 Nephi 2:22 in which all things did exist in a creative state before being placed into a state of no death.

CES Manual: Old Testament, Section 2-16

Handled with Runtu in the other thread. I think even Runtu understands it now and I think he wants to agree but just can't quite bring himself to do it yet.

Bruce R. McConkie, “The Caravan Moves On,” Ensign, November 1984

You'll notice that my model agrees with everything here. It certainly assumes that the physical body of man is an end product of evolution, but not man himself as defined by the scriptures. In addition my model does not deny the Fall. And say, my model agrees that all forms of life were created (end product) into an Edenic state.

It should be noted that BRM himself admited that his view of evolution was just opinion in his Seven Deadly Heresies speech though of course that is not a doctrinal speech.

Lesson 4: “Because of My Transgression My Eyes Are Opened”, Old Testament Gospel Doctrine Teacher’s Manual

Amen. So?

Bruce R. McConkie, “Christ and the Creation,” Ensign, Jun 1982

The already created world yes. You've already helped me to establish that dichotomy above.

Lesson 6: The Fall of Adam,” Aaronic Priesthood Manual 3

Amen. So?

Chapter 3: "The Lamb Slain from the Foundation of the World,” Teachings of Presidents of the Church: Harold B. Lee

Besides the Fall having had to do with Adam and Eve, causing a change to come over them, that change affected all human nature, all of the natural creations, all of the creation of animals, plants—all kinds of life were changed. The earth itself became subject to death.

Amen. So?

Your abject lack of examples as to what exactly you think I made up begins to make an entrance here.

You mean how I alluded to your idea that non-human spirits were in the bodies of homo sapiens,

No, I was talking about examples to prove your case or illustrate your claims.

that these non-human homo sapiens were carrying the egg and sperm of Heavenly Mother and Father, respectively, and that when these non-human homo sapiens mated to conceive Adam and Eve, God sent human spirits to inhabit these human bodies?

I don't know what you mean by the egg and sperm of HM and HF, but generally, that's the model.

No, you clearly have a sound doctrinal and factual basis

Yes I do.

for this science fiction fantasy.

It's a model based on the facts surrounding the case. The fact that I have been able to postulate one that merely does what LDS doctrine and science already do is probably a stroke of genius but I'll be willing to wait for history on that.

The ultimate problem you have is that you don't understand making things up out of thin air trying to fill in plot holes in the faith-promoting narrative and actually proving something.

You don't seem to understand that where doctrine and science don't answer, we can hypothesize all we want.

As I have said in a previous thread, Sethbag once cogently summarized bcspace's "Kolob meets Planet of the Apes" idea:

Cool. But you seem to have forgotten that evolution doesn't say that man came from apes but rather have a common ancestor.

Finally, your ideas fail because they are postulated not on the basis of any evidentiary reason, but solely for the purpose of providing a rhetorical defense of some pretty dumb and disproven mythologies. You have misguided faith in some ancient mythologies, but you recognize their weaknesses in the face of modern discoveries, so you attempt to fabricate ways to reconcile them. Your views on how things might have been are motivated by no evidence, but rather out of necessity in the face of the consequences to your beliefs of not fabricating these views.

Considering the scientific fact that no evidence for does not equal evidence against, I don't feel obligated to answer the atheist conundrum in relation to this subject.

The Church officially teaches that the temporal age of the Earth began approximately 7,000 years ago, and that the human race entered mortality at that time with a man and a woman who lived in present-day Missouri. Not only does this not fit evolution, it does not fit anthropology.

Yet the Church also teaches in the Old Testament Student Manual that it has no doctrine regarding the age of the physical earth. Combine that with the fact that the doctrine on D&C 77:6 is that the physical creation is outside the temporal existence and your whole argument is washed away since you can't place a temporal constraint on my model.

So my model is holding up nicely and thank you for pointing out and confirming the 2 Nephi 2:22 dichotomy Darth J. Now in all fairness to Darth J, I've been debating positively for evolution fitting with LDS doctrine now for approximately 30 years and have seen all these arguments and quotes before. However, I only realized the 2 Nephi 2;22 thing a few years ago and that merely strengthened my argument. But it came only in the heat of debate so I appreciate these attempts though nothing negatively new against evolution/LDS doctrine has come down the pipe in many years. Keep trying!

[_Runtu]

I still don't understand why people are still defending this stuff. What is so awful about saying that the church made mistakes based on human error, and letting it go?

I would not have a problem with putting the priesthood ban behind the church if there weren't such a vociferous group of people who are still defending it as somehow righteous and ordained of God.

[_Darth J]

You've obviously not read LDS doctrine on D&C 77:6

Translation: "You've obviously not acted as if the plain meaning of ordinary words means something different than what it obviously says in order to make my rampant speculation fit the scriptures."

This is one of the few, if not the first time that Darth J has provided actual references to what he is ostensibly talking about. Someone must be coaching him.

You bet. I have never cited or referenced LDS doctrine before this post.

I can't imagine why anyone would ever get the idea that you are completely full of crap.

Doctrine and Covenants Institute Student Manual
Section 77 - Questions and Answers on the Book of Revelation

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.

I was going to quote this myself so I'm glad you did first. Notice that the physical creation is placed outside the temporal existence. This has major implications for what a temporal and spiritual existence actually means depending on the contexts. The context of the Book of Abraham version of the creation is that the spiritual part was just a planning session. I don't think anyone really understands what those implications are, but it certain destroys the notion that D&C 77 says the earth is only 6 or 7000 years old (and the afterwards mentioned Old Testament Student manual agrees that there actually is no doctrine on the age of the earth).

But by placing the physical creation outside the temporal existence, we now dovetail nicely with 2 Nephi 2:22 in which all things did exist in a creative state before being placed into a state of no death.

See, nobody said that the planet itself is only 7,000 years old, nor did anybody say that the LDS Church teaches that. But you sure killed the hell out of that straw man!

All that's left to do now is dovetail nicely how life on Earth developed and evolved in a "creative" state in which there was no death until it was "perfect" and evolution was "finished." I sure look forward to seeing where we can find that.

CES Manual: Old Testament, Section 2-16

Handled with Runtu in the other thread. I think even Runtu understands it now and I think he wants to agree but just can't quite bring himself to do it yet.

I was pretty sure that you did not understand the difference between a contrived chain of implausible self-serving assumptions and naked assertions, versus actual positive proof of a claim. Now I am certain that you do not understand the difference.

Bruce R. McConkie, “The Caravan Moves On,” Ensign, November 1984

You'll notice that my model agrees with everything here. It certainly assumes that the physical body of man is an end product of evolution, but not man himself as defined by the scriptures. In addition my model does not deny the Fall. And say, my model agrees that all forms of life were created (end product) into an Edenic state.

Yes, sir, and all it takes is a forced, unreasonable interpretation of LDS teachings coupled with a mistaken idea about what evolution is.

It should be noted that BRM himself admited that his view of evolution was just opinion in his Seven Deadly Heresies speech though of course that is not a doctrinal speech.

And since I never claimed that to be official doctrine, please note that the "So damned What?" sign is now on.

One of my favorite things about bcspace's heresy is the implication that his opinion should outweigh the opinion of an apostle about what the scriptures mean.

Pride, self-righteousness, second-guessing General Authorities, calling cafeteria Mormonism real Mormonism..........

Although you are on the heresy end of the spectrum instead of the infidel end, your apostasy is making notable progress, bcspace.

Lesson 4: “Because of My Transgression My Eyes Are Opened”, Old Testament Gospel Doctrine Teacher’s Manual

Amen. So?

You have not specified which things in this manual you are disregarding because it does not fit with your reverse Planet of the Apes idea.

Bruce R. McConkie, “Christ and the Creation,” Ensign, Jun 1982

The already created world yes. You've already helped me to establish that dichotomy above.

A dichotomy which is both irrelevant and has no evidence of any kind to support it.

]Lesson 6: The Fall of Adam,” Aaronic Priesthood Manual 3

Amen. So?

You have not specified which things in this manual you are disregarding because it does not fit with your reverse Planet of the Apes idea.

Chapter 3: "The Lamb Slain from the Foundation of the World,” Teachings of Presidents of the Church: Harold B. Lee

Besides the Fall having had to do with Adam and Eve, causing a change to come over them, that change affected all human nature, all of the natural creations, all of the creation of animals, plants—all kinds of life were changed. The earth itself became subject to death.

Amen. So?

Totally. One of the first things you learn in Biology 101 when you get into evolution is that every form of life was immortal until 4,000 B.C.

Your abject lack of examples as to what exactly you think I made up begins to make an entrance here.

You mean how I alluded to your idea that non-human spirits were in the bodies of homo sapiens,

No, I was talking about examples to prove your case or illustrate your claims.

Oh, yes. I have shown nothing at all about how the LDS Church teaches no death before the Fall.

It just isn't there. Neither are these words. You are not reading these very words right now.

that these non-human homo sapiens were carrying the egg and sperm of Heavenly Mother and Father, respectively, and that when these non-human homo sapiens mated to conceive Adam and Eve, God sent human spirits to inhabit these human bodies?

I don't know what you mean by the egg and sperm of HM and HF, but generally, that's the model.

You don't know what eggs and sperm are?

Hmmmmm.

That would go a long way to explaining how what you are talking about is not evolution, but your caricature of what evolution is.

No, you clearly have a sound doctrinal and factual basis

Yes I do.

As shown by..........

..........

..........

for this science fiction fantasy.

It's a model based on the facts surrounding the case. The fact that I have been able to postulate one that merely does what LDS doctrine and science already do is probably a stroke of genius but I'll be willing to wait for history on that.

You mean the "facts" that no form of life died until 4,000 B.C., that prior to that time evolution progressed until everything was "perfect" and then evolution stopped, and the human race started with two people in Missouri 6,000 years ago?

The ultimate problem you have is that you don't understand making things up out of thin air trying to fill in plot holes in the faith-promoting narrative and actually proving something.

You don't seem to understand that where doctrine and science don't answer, we can hypothesize all we want.

Just like the Church says we should do.

Chapter 7: The Scriptures, “Great Reservoirs of Spiritual Water”, Teachings of Presidents of the Church: Harold B. Lee

Always there is a temptation to go beyond what the Lord has revealed and attempt to use imagination in some cases or to speculate as to these teachings. I wish you would remember that. Don’t dare to go beyond what the Lord has revealed. If you don’t know, say you don’t know; but don’t say you don’t know when you ought to know, because you ought to be students of the scriptures. Inquiries about the teachings of the gospel of Jesus Christ should be answered, whenever possible, from the scriptures.

As I have said in a previous thread, Sethbag once cogently summarized bcspace's "Kolob meets Planet of the Apes" idea:

Cool. But you seem to have forgotten that evolution doesn't say that man came from apes but rather have a common ancestor.

I don't mean to interrupt your masterful discourse on biology, but just F.Y.I.:

Man IS an ape.

Finally, your ideas fail because they are postulated not on the basis of any evidentiary reason, but solely for the purpose of providing a rhetorical defense of some pretty dumb and disproven mythologies. You have misguided faith in some ancient mythologies, but you recognize their weaknesses in the face of modern discoveries, so you attempt to fabricate ways to reconcile them. Your views on how things might have been are motivated by no evidence, but rather out of necessity in the face of the consequences to your beliefs of not fabricating these views.

Considering the scientific fact that no evidence for does not equal evidence against, I don't feel obligated to answer the atheist conundrum in relation to this subject.

I'm not an atheist, so I don't know what you are babbling about.

What you fail to acknowledge, however, is that no evidence for does not equal anything.

The Church officially teaches that the temporal age of the Earth began approximately 7,000 years ago, and that the human race entered mortality at that time with a man and a woman who lived in present-day Missouri. Not only does this not fit evolution, it does not fit anthropology.

Yet the Church also teaches in the Old Testament Student Manual that it has no doctrine regarding the age of the physical earth. Combine that with the fact that the doctrine on D&C 77:6 is that the physical creation is outside the temporal existence and your whole argument is washed away since you can't place a temporal constraint on my model.

For those who have been reading this thread, the above is the apologist sleight of hand I mentioned earlier.

What a nice way to reconcile things, though. Evolution says that organisms change over time, and over a long enough time different species develop even though they originated with a common ancestor.

So the way you reconcile LDS doctrine with gradual changes in lifeforms over large amounts of time is to assert that while evolution was happening, time did not exist.

Let us also not forget that basic principle of science that eventually evolution was finished, and so it stopped happening.

So my model is holding up nicely and thank you for pointing out and confirming the 2 Nephi 2:22 dichotomy Darth J. Now in all fairness to Darth J, I've been debating positively for evolution fitting with LDS doctrine now for approximately 30 years and have seen all these arguments and quotes before. However, I only realized the 2 Nephi 2;22 thing a few years ago and that merely strengthened my argument. But it came only in the heat of debate so I appreciate these attempts though nothing negatively new against evolution/LDS doctrine has come down the pipe in many years. Keep trying!

And I look forward to you providing any reason whatsoever besides apologetic necessity to believe in your argument by assertion!

[_bcspace]

I still don't understand why people are still defending this stuff. What is so awful about saying that the church made mistakes based on human error, and letting it go?

I have often stated that some of these opinions are not well founded in the they don't accurately describe evolution in the first place. I'm sure I at least implied it in these two recent threads.

I would not have a problem with putting the priesthood ban behind the church if there weren't such a vociferous group of people who are still defending it as somehow righteous and ordained of God.

Oh, you're talking about the ban now. What is there to claim as a mistake? And have I not already said that at worst they were trying to enfore what they found in the scriptures to the best of their knowledge?

With the OP's Canaan hypothesis gone out the window, what else is there?

[_Buffalo]

I can only shake my head at the deliberate dishonesty of bc. I can only conclude that he doesn't really believe, any more than I do. He just enjoys arguing.