It is held by some that Adam was not the first man upon this earth and that the original human being was a development from lower orders of the animal creation. These, however, are the theories of men. The word of the Lord declared that Adam was “the first man of all men” (Moses 1:34), and we are therefore in duty bound to regard him as the primal parent of our race. It was shown to the brother of Jared that all men were created in the beginning after the image of God; whether we take this to mean the spirit or the body, or both, it commits us to the same conclusion: Man began life as a human being, in the likeness of our Heavenly Father.
(First Presidency Statement November 1909)
bcspace, if the above is true then you believe that every form of human species on the planet today started out life from Adam and Eve who were placed in the Garden of Eden (c4,000 BC) 6,000 years ago.
Well, when you're able to point out how or where this conflicts with evolution, let me know. Also, this is prior to the 1931 statement which accepts the possibility of preAdamites.
So the human race is only 6,000 years old.
The doctrine does not preclude homo sapiens having existed for hundreds of thousands of years as per science. It simply says Adam is the first man and the context is the gospel sense. The doctrine and scripture also allows for an undefined, in age and state, creative period prior to Adam being placed in the garden.
Not only that, you also believe that, with the exception of Noah and his few family members (three sons), the entire human race was wiped out (c2,300 - 2,400 BC) 4,000 years ago.
I do not and have already stated this. But the local Flood is not the creation.
So, actually the current diversity of human life has only been formed over the last 4,000 years and actually started life from Noah and his wife and his three sons.
Have I accurately reflected the current stated position and teaching of the Church?
Generally not. But you have accurately reflected the Skousen-Fielding-McConkite view.
Regardless of what Mormon apologists, apostles and prophets claim, no matter how much tortured, twisted logic, fantasy, pseudoscience and faith you wish to apply, these scientific findings simply cannot be reconciled with Mormon Doctrine as set forth in LDS scripture - BCSpace or no BCSpace.
Am not claiming my hypothesis to be a theory, but you have to admit the favorability of scripture and doctrine towards it.
Perhaps we can start with your claim (which you based on string theory), that Kolob actually exists in an alternate universe and that LDS Temples are an analog for a gateway to that universe.
Not my claim, just an idea. Not based on String Theory though such does allow for multiple uinivereses. Also, nothing to do with creation. But you did fail to note how it might be inconflict with science or doctrine.
Then we can move on to your insistence that science and LDS religion can be reconciled when it comes to the biblical Adam and Eve and the LDS doctrine concerning "pre-Adamites", given the science I have described above.
And I've shown how they fit well together.
These are just two examples from the last two weeks or so.
You've provided no examples so far.
Now, I understand that, in your mind, there are no conflicts between science and the LDS religion. However, as I have said before, Mormons who believe that their religion does not conflict with science need to read more about science, more about their religion, or both.
One of the reasons why you;ve provided no examples is because you've not even attempted to show how or why there is a conflict. You simply stated there is a conflict.
Here is a suggestion for you. Simply try to imagine how your explanations of no conflict, and your resulting versions of the "science" involved, would be accepted in the science classrooms and laboratories of secular colleges and universities.
Science does not address the existence of God or His works and none of my claims have denied science.
You sure are impressed with yourself - as usual.
You make it easy by not stating how or why there is a conflict.
However, evolutionarily speaking, there is no such thing as a single person or two persons as the "first" of any species.
Not my hypothesis. How would science detect say a different type of spirit or when the knowledge of God was revealed?