Only Official Doctrine Can Defend Official Doctrine

[_Buffalo]

The doctrine on D&C 77:6 places the physical creation of the earth outside temporal time.

There is a reason why bcspace never quotes the scriptures he cites - it's because they don't back up his ludicrous, non-doctrinal claims.

6
Q. What are we to understand by the book which John saw, which was sealed on the back with seven seals?

A. We are to understand that it contains the revealed will, mysteries, and the works of God; the hidden things of his economy concerning this earth during the seven thousand years of its continuance, or its temporal existence.

[_DarkHelmet]

LDS Doctrine states that no animals (or plants? not sure) died before the fall of Adam.

Agreed.

Imagine how many animals roamed the earth during this time. The fossil record of extinct animals is huge. There have been at least 5 mass extinctions over the past 5 billion years. If there was no death, there could not have been multiple mass extinctions before the fall. Science got the dates wrong, which makes sense because LDS have told me carbon dating is inaccurate. So Adam and Eve lived among all these animals, including the dinosaurs. He must have had a pet dinosaur named Dino. Then came the fall 6000 years ago. All these animals died out. One mass extinction during the fall, not multiple over billions of years. Do have it about right? But why the mass extinction of all but a few of the species?

[_stemelbow]

Stemelbow:

1. It is irrelevant to the OP whether or not you enjoy the idea that the Book of Mormon happened in Central America somewhere, and for undisclosed reasons Moroni took plates of some material appearing to be gold from Central America to the future home of Joseph Smith.

Well good, I’m glad I didn’t say anything about what I enjoy regarding it all then. But your example was a failure of course, so I pointed that out.

The supposition that this journey from Central America to New York is not taught by The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. It is an ad hoc invention by some apologists attempting to explain a claim that is taught by the LDS Church (that the golden plates were buried by Joseph Smith's house in New York) fitting into the apologist theory---which is not taught by the LDS Church---that the Book of Mormon narrative took place in Central America.

Why are you explaining irrelevancies to me? I fear you have misunderstood and are blaming me. Oh well.

2. It is irrelevant to the OP whether you personally "reject the premise." A great many internet Mormons and apologists summarily reject any criticism of the Church that they claim not to be official doctrine. However, these same people freely use speculation and "theories" in attempt to explain things that are officially taught by the Church.

I think you are wrong about your claim about “a great many internet Mormons and apologists”. Indeed I doubt you can find any more than a small handful, if any, that fit that description. On top of that, my clarification that I reject the premise was in response to your question. I can’t answer it because the premise you set up is false.

The OP is asking why, for people who do take the position that criticism based on "not official doctrine" is a priori unnecessary to address, intellectual honesty does not also require such people to limit their responses to criticism of official doctrine to answers from official LDS doctrine. If something a Mormon leader said does not to be addressed because it is not official doctrine, then by the same token an explanation based on speculation and assumptions without proof by a person who has no authority of any kind to speak for the Church should also be summarily rejected on the same basis.

Your logic failed you, DJ. Its not the same token at all. Criticism is trying to prove a negative. Defense is trying to prove possibility. You are comparing apples and oranges to try and win a meaningless point.

3. The LDS Church makes numerous claims of fact that are either contrary to scientific evidence, or which have no empirical evidence to support them. A claim to have had a subjective, personal spiritual experience is not on the same footing as a claim that a vast, thousand-year civilization of Christian Hebrews lived somewhere in the Western Hemisphere prior to Columbus. The latter claim can be tested empirically. A claim of fact is a claim of fact, regardless of who makes it. Simply because the LDS Church makes numerous claims of fact related to its religious precepts does not change the reality that things like the existence of a Nephite civilization in the objective, physical world are claims of fact, not claims of a spiritual nature.

Interesting little unrelated piece, DJ. Yes, the Church has an obligation to prove its truth claims. I don’t doubt that. If it can’t, then that is the Church’s problem, not yours. But that you wish to prove the church untrue is the claim you are beholden to. If you can’t prove your claims then you are up the same creek you complain about here.

4. Burden of proof requires a person making a claim to provide a reason to believe that claim. Making a naked assertion, with no evidence of any kind to support it, and then insisting that the unsupported claim is true (or at least highly plausible) until proven otherwise is not how coherent, logical thinking works among people with more intelligence than a brain-damaged parakeet.

Then don’t make the claims you make. Possibilities persist in the world when it comes to claims. Just because a claim is unproven does not mean the claim is untrue, per se.

The failure of meeting one's burden of proof is a wholly sufficient reason to reject a claim.

No kidding. I agree with you. I tell people who reject the claims of the Church that I can understand where they are coming from all the time.

I am not required to "disprove" the idea, invented out of thin air, that Moroni somehow or other carried plates of gold or gold-appearing material from somewhere in Central America to New York. The lack of any evidence whatsoever for this contrived fantasy is the logical, reasonable basis for rejecting the assertion.

Wondering if you like to be tied up,
--Darth J

But in the realm of discussion…let’s consider a minute. If one take sthe position that its all made up and fantasy, then that claim must be maintained. Certainly you can reject the claims of the Church not believing them to be true all you want. That’s reasonable actually. But to claim you know its all made up, well that’s a claim that has to be supported. How do you know? Because you don’t accept any claimed evidence in favor of the claims? That’s not knowing anything. That’s assuming. That’s putting your faith in the methods you might call the burden of proof—that if a claim is un-verifiable in DJ’s subjective eyes, then that claim is proven untrue. No its not. Its merely claimed by DJ to be untrue, without DJ supplying any evidence to prove his claim.

[_Buffalo]

But in the realm of discussion…let’s consider a minute. If one take sthe position that its all made up and fantasy, then that claim must be maintained. Certainly you can reject the claims of the Church not believing them to be true all you want. That’s reasonable actually. But to claim you know its all made up, well that’s a claim that has to be supported. How do you know? Because you don’t accept any claimed evidence in favor of the claims? That’s not knowing anything. That’s assuming. That’s putting your faith in the methods you might call the burden of proof—that if a claim is un-verifiable in DJ’s subjective eyes, then that claim is proven untrue. No its not. Its merely claimed by DJ to be untrue, without DJ supplying any evidence to prove his claim.

In the real world, absence of evidence really is evidence of absence - especially when we're talking about ad hoc hypotheses.

[_stemelbow]

In the real world, absence of evidence really is evidence of absence - especially when we're talking about ad hoc hypotheses.

Well of course, scientifically, and in other disciplines, we have to trust that because we have nothing else. We have to put faith in such assumptions. That's how we have to proceed because we're, utlimately, left in the dark. i get that. But, I don't see the purpose for putting some limitations on religion. Afterall, one presumption of religion is that its beyond our ability to detect. We simply wouldn't be able to find the type of evidence we need to satisfy us.

[_bcspace]

As soon as you can show me the official doctrine indicating that the processes of life, death, and evolution were underway millions of years before Adam and Eve left the Garden of Eden, I will take notice. Until then, your explanation is not official doctrine, and is hereby rejected.

This is pretty genius. They really have no defense against that.

I actually negated it quite thoroughly but you just choose to ignore what you can't gainsay.

[_bcspace]

Might indeed require a global flood. But I don't see any compelling reason why a TBM must accept a literal Babel or any significant problems if he does.

I suppose if you reject the Book of Mormon you could also reject a literal Babel.

Except I don't reject the Book of Mormon account of the Flood.

The doctrine on D&C 77:6 places the physical creation of the earth outside temporal time.

There is a reason why bcspace never quotes the scriptures he cites - it's because they don't back up his ludicrous, non-doctrinal claims.

6
Q. What are we to understand by the book which John saw, which was sealed on the back with seven seals?

A. We are to understand that it contains the revealed will, mysteries, and the works of God; the hidden things of his economy concerning this earth during the seven thousand years of its continuance, or its temporal existence.

I don't need to quote the verse because I've quoted the verse in conjunction with the doctrine on it enough times to know that you know of it. The reason you won't quote the doctrine is becuase you're hoping no one will notice:

D&C 77:6–7 . Why Was the Book Sealed That John Saw?

“‘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.” (Whitney, Saturday Night Thoughts, p. 11.)
Doctrine and Covenants Institute Student Manual Section 77 - Questions and Answers on the Book of Revelation

Agreed.

Imagine how many animals roamed the earth during this time. The fossil record of extinct animals is huge. There have been at least 5 mass extinctions over the past 5 billion years. If there was no death, there could not have been multiple mass extinctions before the fall. Science got the dates wrong, which makes sense because LDS have told me carbon dating is inaccurate. So Adam and Eve lived among all these animals, including the dinosaurs. He must have had a pet dinosaur named Dino. Then came the fall 6000 years ago. All these animals died out. One mass extinction during the fall, not multiple over billions of years. Do have it about right? But why the mass extinction of all but a few of the species?

You don't have it right from my perspective. The reason why I agree that there was no death before the Fall is because of the prior garden state of no eath. But LDS doctrine and scripture reveals that there was a creative state before the garden state and it does not ascribe or imply a state of no death for that creative state. So:

Creative State (Death and Evolution) ---> The Garden State (no death) ---> The Fall (death and evolution afterwards).

So, one can accept all science on the matter of death and evolution and still truthfully say there was no death before the Fall and more importantly, not be in conflict with LDS doctrine or generally accepted science on evolution and carbon dating etc.

In the real world, absence of evidence really is evidence of absence - especially when we're talking about ad hoc hypotheses.

Doesn't really match how science treats it. For centuries the city of Troy was thought to be mythical...until they found it. By your logic, Calvert and Schliemann would not have started digging for it because of the absence of evidence.

[_Mad Viking]

Creative State (Death and Evolution) ---> The Garden State (no death) ---> The Fall (death and evolution afterwards).

I've never heard this before. I'm intrigued. So does evolution play out pretty much how evolutionary theory prescribes? Are Adam and Eve two of the descendants of what has evolved into homo-sapiens? What happens to the rest of the world while they are isolated in the garden?

[_Buffalo]

In the real world, absence of evidence really is evidence of absence - especially when we're talking about ad hoc hypotheses.

Well of course, scientifically, and in other disciplines, we have to trust that because we have nothing else. We have to put faith in such assumptions. That's how we have to proceed because we're, utlimately, left in the dark. i get that. But, I don't see the purpose for putting some limitations on religion. Afterall, one presumption of religion is that its beyond our ability to detect. We simply wouldn't be able to find the type of evidence we need to satisfy us.

I don't know, it seems to be that excluding and exempting religion from these rational processes that work so well at helping us make so many discoveries betrays a deep lack of confidence. It's almost like admitting that you know all this religious stuff is imaginary, so please don't scrutinize it too closely.

[_bcspace]

Creative State (Death and Evolution) ---> The Garden State (no death) ---> The Fall (death and evolution afterwards).

I've never heard this before. I'm intrigued. So does evolution play out pretty much how evolutionary theory prescribes?

Exactly how it prescribes, yes. So there are homo sapiens in existence before Adam and Eve. "PreAdamites".

Are Adam and Eve two of the descendants of what has evolved into homo-sapiens?

Yes. I hypothesize that Adam and Eve were the first two homo sapiens to be born with spirits who were literal children of God. That could explain why homo sapiens, being around for hundreds of thousands of years, never developed civilization until relatively recently. Alternatively, revelation/knowledge from God could have been the civilizing spark.

What happens to the rest of the world while they are isolated in the garden?

Depends. What were Adam and Eve cast out into? Is the garden state really local instead of global? That cherubim and a flaming sword barred the way back speaks to a local garden so my opinion is that the doctrine here is not as well developed as it could be.

All kinds of possibilities though. I suppose you're asking more about homo sapiens outside the garden?

1) They died out or were eliminated before the Fall. Too easy.
2) After the Fall, they began to have children who were literal spirit children of God.
3) After the Fall, they could not compete with Adam's children.
4) They mated with Adam's children (speaks more to revelation/knowledge as the spark)

etc.