No death before the fall

[_bcspace]

“. . . I say most emphatically, you cannot believe in this theory of the origin of man, and at the same time accept the plan of salvation as set forth by the Lord our God. You must choose the one and reject the other, for they are in direct conflict and there is a gulf separating them which is so great that it cannot be bridged, no matter how much one may try to do so. . . .

Considering the gospel definition of man (a spirit which animates the body), evolution doesn't propose or necessitate that man came up through the "scum"; just the physical body.

The author of this statement is either abysmally ignorant of what official LDS doctrine is on the matter, or is lying. Official LDS doctrine is that there was no death anywhere on this planet before the fall of Adam and Eve.

No, he just understand the nature of the whole thing and doesn't cherry pick or use non doctrinal sources.

Book of Mormon Teacher Manual (2009)

“The plan required the Creation, and that in turn required both the Fall and the Atonement. These are the three fundamental components of the plan. The creation of a paradisiacal planet came from God. Mortality and death came into the world through the Fall of Adam. Immortality and the possibility of eternal life were provided by the Atonement of Jesus Christ. The Creation, the Fall, and the Atonement were planned long before the actual work of the Creation began” (in Conference Report, Apr. 2000, 105; or Ensign, May 2000, 84).

Yes, even here the doctrine distinguishes the Creative period from the rest like 2 Nephi 2:22 does.

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.)

The context being first in the created world. In addition to other sources providing this context (such as 2 Nephi 2:22), the doctrine on D&C 77 provides this context as well as the 1931 statement et. al. The same qualifies the rest of your quotes.

[_Buffalo]

And now we see that bcspace is willing to throw official doctrine under the bus when he finds himself out of harmony with it. Priceless. :)

[_bcspace]

And now we see that bcspace is willing to throw official doctrine under the bus when he finds himself out of harmony with it

Actually what we see is that I have taken all doctrine into account, including the 1931 statement and similar statements. 2 Nephi, the Book of Abraham, the fact that we don't know what the actual process of creation was. Context of the created vs. the uncreated world. The gospel definition of man. Etc.

[_Darth J]

And now we see that bcspace is willing to throw official doctrine under the bus when he finds himself out of harmony with it

Actually what we see is that I have taken all doctrine into account, including the 1931 statement and similar statements. 2 Nephi, the Book of Abraham, the fact that we don't know what the actual process of creation was. Context of the created vs. the uncreated world. The gospel definition of man. Etc.

I have no official position as to whether Abraham Lincoln is dead.

I do assert that John Wilkes Booth shot and killed him in 1865.

But taking that stance does not preclude Abraham Lincoln currently being alive and well, since I have no official position as to whether Abraham Lincoln is alive or dead.

I also have no official position as to whether there were any functional airplanes built and flown during the reign of Darius the Great in ancient Persia.

I do want to make it clear, though, that nobody ever built and flew an airplane before the Wright brothers in 1903.

However, since I have said that I have no official position on the matter, my positive assertion of fact in no way precludes people building and flying airplanes in ancient Persia.

[_Yoda]

Considering the gospel definition of man (a spirit which animates the body), evolution doesn't propose or necessitate that man came up through the "scum"; just the physical body.

Wait...are you saying that pre-Adamites did not have a spirit?

[_Chap]

Considering the gospel definition of man (a spirit which animates the body), evolution doesn't propose or necessitate that man came up through the "scum"; just the physical body.

Wait...are you saying that pre-Adamites did not have a spirit?

bcspace can answer for himself, but I do seem to recall him advancing this as a possibility at least.

[_Yoda]

bcspace can answer for himself, but I do seem to recall him advancing this as a possibility at least.

I am curious about his stance on this because it seems to go against doctrine in quite a few ways. We are taught that all living things have spirits...animals, plant-life, etc.

[_Buffalo]

And now we see that bcspace is willing to throw official doctrine under the bus when he finds himself out of harmony with it

Actually what we see is that I have taken all doctrine into account, including the 1931 statement and similar statements. 2 Nephi, the Book of Abraham, the fact that we don't know what the actual process of creation was. Context of the created vs. the uncreated world. The gospel definition of man. Etc.

More recently published doctrine overrides that old stuff. Not to mention that your "interpretation" of doctrine is more creative than interpretive.

[_Jason Bourne]

You sure have an incredible amount of hubris.

I am confident in my beliefs

No doubt. But you know what they say... pride goeth before the fall.

which largely come from the Church anyway

From the Church with your spin in many instances and with your dismissal in others.

and so I have no problem holding the leadership to it.

Like I said, hubris. Total and utter hubris.

But you don't have to look to me for that. The Church itself tried to dissuade both BRM and JFS to not publish their works or at least refused to publish such works under Church auspices.

This is correct for Mormon Doctrine but not for Smith's Doctrine of Salvation.

[/quote]

It is also correct for Doctrines of Salvation, being published by Bookcraft and not the LDS Church.

No it is not. The Church did not try to dissuade JFS from publishing Doctrines of Salvation. CFR to show different.

And really, if these books were so off base annd wrong, and if the Church leaders did not want them to be published why didn't they repudiate them?

Why didn't the Church publish them?

The Church publishes very few books by the GAs that write them. That still does not address the lack of leadership for them not to at least disclose the so called 1000 plus errors they found in McConkies book. But no, they would rather let the members rely on false teachings than embarrass Brother McConkie.

In any case, by the Church's own definition of official doctrine, DoS is not doctrine and it never has been. You might find quotes from it in a doctrinal work and those would be doctrine. But I doubt you'll find these particular ones in such a context.

You continue to be obtuse and miss the point, I am sure intentionally.

And that does that say when so much of the book is pure bunk. I guess an apostle/prophet of God really did not know what he was talking about.

[/quote]

I don't think anyone is claiming that.

Over 1000 errors dude, over 1000......

Those works contain lots of good doctrine.

Along with 1000 errors.

Bad as you want it too be BC evolution and LDS doctrine clash.

How so?

You have been trounced on this ad nauseum.

You have to make to many assumptions and twists that are nonsensical like you do.

Death till the garden, then no death for a period but only in a limited little area of the garden,

When speaking of the creative period and the garden state together, the property of no death is never applied to the creative period. No stretch. No twist.

Total twist.

Adam and Eve's parents being humanoids with no child of God spirit and on and on.

I hypothesize that Adam and Eve's parent's are homo sapiens. That matches up with the doctrine of everything after it's own kind (which evolution also teaches by the way). I hypothesize that the pre Adamites might have had different spirits (I also can agree with an Uplift instead) which agrees with the doctrine that all living things have spirits and it also agrees with the already known fact that God obviously has created all kinds of spirits so I've not made Him do anything He hasn't already done. Again, no stretch, no twist.

Total stretch and twist.

You have an amazing knack for mental gymnastics to make things work for you.

I'll take that as a compliment meaning that you wish you would have come up with it earlier.

Not a compliment at all.

Yes. This is the non doctrinal Adam Sr Adam Jr theory which some confuse for an Adam God theory. Bottom line, neither LDS doctrine.

Wrong. Adam God was published by the Church-meets your own standard.

Adam God has not been published in any doctrinal context that I know of. If I recall correctly, I might have seen it in a doctrinal work once, but qualified as not being doctrine, just a historical observation.

It was in the Millenial Star as well as the Deseret News Conference reports. Official Church publications.

Adam Sr is pure bunk that you need to get around what BY actually taught. I just post this for lurkers so they know BC is peddling BS. He has been trounced over and over on this one.

The "lurkers" would be wise to know that if BY had taught an Adam God theory, then he would be in conflict with several critical doctrines already extant at the time about death and the resurrection etc.

The lurkers would be wise to know that BC expects that the more traditional comments by BY about Adam to be dealt with yet he simply wants to dismiss AG as an aberetion. What is clear is BY was all over the place which does not inspire confidence that he really knew who/what God was. Big problem for someone claiming to be a prophet.

Supporters of BY's having taught an Adam God have never addressed this by more than denial.

Wrong.

Also, supporters of BY's Adam God have never addressed other statements by BY in the same sources which conflict with the notion of the Adam who Fell being God the Father. In other words, they are cherry-picking to support long held and favorite chestnuts. The bottom line is that Adam Sr/Jr. stands as the only explanation which accounts for these things as well.

Pure bunk.

[_Nightlion]

Also, supporters of BY's Adam God have never addressed other statements by BY in the same sources which conflict with the notion of the Adam who Fell being God the Father. In other words, they are cherry-picking to support long held and favorite chestnuts. The bottom line is that Adam Sr/Jr. stands as the only explanation which accounts for these things as well.

This, I take it, is bcspace? How many times have I alone expounded the story of Adam and Eve on this site? Each time everyone shuts their mouth and walks away pretending that they heard nothing and giving no credit to my work written almost thirty years ago. I got exed for it. Mostly because of the envy of Hinckley who wanted the Church made after the likeness of HIS image which I seriously threatened. He envied me from my youth up. He somehow (from the dark side I figure) knew I was a disturber of the kingdom he was building for himself and his MAHSTAWR. He pulled out all the stops and forbid nothing to accomplish his intent.

Then to set his seal upon it as a hidden relic of his wickedness he commanded that tomb stones replace the name of the church on chapels throughout. BEHOLD his art commissioned for having killed the gospel dispensation to the Gentiles.