No death before the fall

[_Nightlion]

I believe God the Eternal Father and Christ and the HG are not sexual

Sine the Father and Son are resurrected beings, they must be sexual. There is no indication that functionality is lost in the resurrection. In fact, quite the opposite is implied.

Christ was born of a virgin,(forget you Brigham). Eve seed was taken to crush the serpents head (Christ) That means that an ovum from Eve was taken to clone the Father and the power of the Holy Ghost put that in the virgin womb of Mary and Christ came into the world. That is why Christ and the Father are identical in appearance. It also means that if the Father did not come by way of the seeds neither would his clone be sexual. So in the resurrection neither would need to be sexual to be perfect. Just for argumentation. Actually Christ did not resurrect but took his body back as he had power to lay it down and to take it again. Just because he has the power of resurrection does not mean that he used it for his own body, which was NOT perfect as it retained the scars of his suffering.

as they are without father and without mother having neither beginning of days nor end of years.

That would be the Priesthood.

God's power or priesthood IS his lineage who has no beginning and no end. I'll have to leave it there as a mystery.

[_Nightlion]

Good. You admit it's not doctrine.

I admit only that the Mother of Abominations the Whore of all the earth who perverts the right way of the Lord does not consider it doctrine. It is very good doctrine for me. 'tis sweet like honey and I can taste the principles of eternal life.

[_Rambo]

The doctrine is that there is no doctrine against pre Adamites so there are no lengths I have to go to.

Are you saying Adam wasn't the first human? I'm pretty sure that the doctrine is that Adam was the first human.

I don't remember this plan in sunday school. What I remember is this and this is what is still taught.

Creative Period 7 God Days ----> Adam and Eve in the Garden ---> Fall

FIFY since the other way doesn't appear to be doctrine, ever.

How is your way doctrine? You are just implying things that are clearly not in the scriptures.

Do you think there was death outside the Garden during the time when Adam and Eve were in the garden.

A good question. Depends on whether or not the garden state was local or global. I trend local but can roll either way.

Of course you do. The other way doesn't make sense. You and I both know this.

When God said there was no death before the fall

When did God say that?

Moses 6:48

48 And he said unto them: Because that Adam fell, we are; and by his fall came death; and we are made partakers of misery and woe.

I find it odd that you read this as because of the fall came death but... only in the garden! I didn't see that addition to the scriptures.

[_Rambo]

Hey Rambo

To add something to the mix (Very short version)

(I am not suggesting that I happen to agree, nor am I suggesting that I do not agree with what I am going to add here. This topic is, and has been for some time, a very hotly debated topic among believers of many flavors. It also has several layers to it)

Anyhow, some believe that the "no death before the fall" is rooted in the soul of the human being.

Peace,
Ceeboo

I see what you are saying Ceeboo but it does seem a little weak here.

I seem to see a trend when stuff in the Bible does not agree with science then that part in the Bible must have been symbolic and not to be taken literally. I bet things were taken literally in the Bible until science came along and refuts such claims. All of a sudden the believer has to change their mind and say "oh... that must of been symbolic because there is no other possible way." When really the easiest explaintion is the Bible was written by a bunch of un educated nomads.

[_bcspace]

You're confusing obfuscation with mathematics. They're two very different things.

No, but a number line might be beyond your ability to comprehend. Study up, you'll need this knowledge in order to understand smaller and larger infinities later on.

[_Runtu]

This thread is funny.

And a little sad, too.

[_bcspace]

The doctrine is that there is no doctrine against pre Adamites so there are no lengths I have to go to.

Are you saying Adam wasn't the first human?

I am. Notice that the 1931 statement allows me to consider it as possible:

"The statement made by Elder Smith that the existence of pre-Adamites is not a doctrine of the Church is true. It is just as true that the statement: "There were not pre-Adamites upon the earth", is not a doctrine of the Church. Neither side of the controversy has been accepted as a doctrine at all."

I'm pretty sure that the doctrine is that Adam was the first human.

First man and first flesh. BUt the doctrine qualifies it in such away as to not preclude pre Adamite homo sapiens.

How is your way doctrine? You are just implying things that are clearly not in the scriptures.

If I am, such would not be unreasonable unless I actually conflict with the doctrine which is far more than just scripture. Fortunately, I do not.

A good question. Depends on whether or not the garden state was local or global. I trend local but can roll either way.

Of course you do. The other way doesn't make sense. You and I both know this.

But neither of us can be sure for now.

When did God say that?

Moses 6:48

Nope, it merely says the by the Fall, death came into the world. Let me save you the trouble of finding one as when you do, I will agree and simply refer to 2 Nephi 2:22 wherein we see that the creative state before man was placed into the garden state does not identified as having the property of no death. It is only AFTER the creation is finished and man placed into the garden that the property of no death is applied.

I find it odd that you read this as because of the fall came death but... only in the garden! I didn't see that addition to the scriptures.

I don;t necessarily read it that way, but tell me to what were Adam and Eve cast into after the Fall and how come the way back was barred? Those kinds of things imply a local garden state. Not claiming there is doctrine either way, I'm just calling it like I see it.

[_bcspace]

This thread is funny.

And a little sad, too.

Oh you guys would have nothing to do if I didn't come and defend LDS doctrine as not being preclusive of evolution.

[_Rambo]

The give bcspace 10/10 for the best mental gymnastics. Really is there anyone better?

[_LDSToronto]

[
I heard my own dad say that dinosaur bones were from other planets. Ugh. Yes, Dinosaurs are extraterrestrials that God took and buried them in the earth to test our faith.

35+ years ago, I was a little kid interested in dinosaurs, and a Mormon who went to Primary after school on Tuesdays, where I heard stuff that didn't jibe well with the whole extinct dinosaur narrative.

So I asked my mom about it.

She essentially said: "Dinosaurs lived and died on other planets, which were later destroyed. Heavenly Father and Jesus, when they were building our planet Earth so we could have a place to be tested, used pieces from those destroyed planets. That's why there are dinosaur bones."

This came from somewhere... too many people have heard this same bullcrap story. Was it an Ensign article? A story in the Improvement Era? A rogue Education-Week instructor?

I'd love the find out the genesis of this myth.

I have heard this exact thing as well. If I recall correctly, a friend of mine read the 'Thousand Year' books by Cleon Skousen and told me that this is how Cleon explains the fossil record - it came from crushed up planets that were used in the formation of the earth.

I've never read the Skousen books and I don't have copies at hand, so I can't verify.

H.