Leaderboard

I have never heard that we should never speak of miracles, but rather, only if the Spirit prompts us to share. I have had miracles occur in my life. Most of the time I do not share them, but there are times when I have felt prompted to do so. For my children, now all adults, I created a binder I called “Family Treasures“. In the binder I have recorded the miracles that have happened to me, my husband, my children, and many of our ancestors. I believe there is a time and place for some of these miracles to be shared. They are sacred. I hope in my telling of the events that they will help strengthen my children and grandchildren’s testimonies.

I don't. I believe it is not possible to do so at this time. Probably, inasmuch as the scriptures make it clear that Adam was the first man. Other possibilities exist, such as the speculation that this earth has been the cradle for others of Father's children in previous "plans of salvation", so to speak. In such a case, those remains would indeed be children of God, but would have nothing to do with us. I find all sorts of holes in this particular idea, but I don't completely reject it out of hand. The state of our knowledge of such mechanical explanations is so deeply deficient that I think the safest and most correct answer is that we don't know and probably cannot know at this time.

I don't know that I have anything new to add to this conversation. I don't have any answers as what how anything pre-Adamic came to be (meaning humanoid in form) but I do think it's pretty clear that whatever they were they are not the sons and daughters of God. I also think that no matter what words may have been used the intent of what past Church leaders have said is that Adam and Eve, both physically and intelligence, did not descend from these creatures. Beyond that I don't know that the rest really matters.

I don't consider this an either/or proposition. You can be a guardian of religious liberty and a bad citizen at the same time. I actually agree with the court ruling. I don't object to executives having emergency powers that permit them to act rapidly. But those powers need to be limited and subject to review by legislatures. I think a 28 day review is prudent, and since the legislature didn't uphold the emergency declaration, it should be terminated. It would be nice if the federal government operated similarly (for most emergencies at the federal level, it seems the legislature has to override the declaration, or else it persists indefinitely). But just because I agree with the court ruling doesn't mean I think it's wise or responsible to meet in large groups.

https://newsroom.churchofjesuschrist.org/article/safe-return-church-meetings-activities

I understand your point and I enjoyed reading your story; what I don't understand is how that relates to the theory of Adam and Eve being the progeny of an evolutionary line or the actual population growth that has occurred over the course of recorded history. I am trying to figure out how we can mesh all the data together from the supporters of organic evolution in this thread so that we spit out a result that doesn't contradict the following: Even if we assume the 7000 years didn't begin until after Adam and Eve partook of the fruit and became mortal, how do we tie it all together? Are we in agreement that the humanoid creatures who supposedly lived before Adam and Eve were not children of God? I'm sure there are other important questions of note, but alas, my children are calling for me and I must go.

It's distressing to see things that seem so obvious being misunderstood so badly. So instead of throwing around silly examples of infinity-year doublings, let me do a different silly thing and tell the story of the Wasabi. The Wasabi were a people with neolithic (late Stone Age) technology, living on a large island off a continental coast. They lived in almost total isolation for a period of ten thousand years, surviving primarily on herbs, fruit, some wild game, fish, and spicy mustard. They had no domesticated animals until about ten thousand years ago, when they began domesticating various plants and found it useful to have cats around their granaries to combat the spike in native mouse populations. The Wasabi began farming, but continued to be hunter-fisher-gatherers. Early evidence from about 10,000 years ago establishes a population of Wasabi of roughly 10,000 individuals, concentrated in the southern island group. They comprised four settlements on three islands, one on each of two smaller islands and two on opposite sides of a large island. Each settlement consisted of 20 to 30 villages, ranging in size from a few dozen people to large villages of several hundred. Their early history runs more or less as follows: <YEAR> : <POPULATION> <HISTORICAL OCCURRENCES> *********************************************************************** Year 0 : 10,000 The earliest evidence for the Wasabi show nomadic people who are primarily hunter-gatherers, but who also begin to tend naturally occurring collections of fruit trees in this area. They are in four major groups covering three islands, as has been described. The big island hosts two separate groups that maintain contact with each other. The two other islands, Alice and Bob, hold smaller populations of the same overall blood lines. Each of the smaller islands has 2000 to 2500 individuals, and the big island has around 5500, roughly equally divided between the two big island groups. Year 50 : 15,000 After a couple of generations, the Wasabi are well-established and growing. But it appears that several consecutive years of cool weather occur during this 50-year period, possibly connected with a volcanic eruption a few thousand miles away in Micronesia, that impacted the fruit harvest. The people survive and thrive despite this. Year 100 : 15,000 A couple of generations further on sees the population pretty much the same. There are several periods of one to two years of drought, and the population may have dipped between years 50 and 100. However, all evidence suggests that by year 100, the Wasabi had rebounded. At this point, the Wasabi begin experiencing good climatic conditions most years, which would last for the next three centuries. Year 200 : 60,000 The Wasabi have grown immensely in the last century. Good fruit harvests, peaceful conditions, and the introduction of better fishing technology in the form of a primitive type of gill net, have made this a Golden Age of sorts. Innovations in farming technology seem to have been introduced. Occasional contact between the big island, Alice, and Bob have spread these innovations throughout the people. Things are good with the Wasabi. Year 250 : 30,000 The population, though still large, has suffered a series of terrible setbacks. On the big island, the two populations, who had before maintained good relations, began fighting over mid-island resources. This devolved into open warfare between tribal factions, both between the two populations and also within the populations, as various tribes strove to consolidate power. Many of the men died in battles, but far more people died of starvation that resulted from the destruction of farming plots and the inability to fish (because fishers were subject to be killed by their enemies). The populations on Alice and Bob do not show the same devastation, but their growth appears to have essentially stopped, and each has around 8000-10000 people. Year 280 : 18,000 The next generation or so sees continued warfare on the big island, which has now been established in the cultures of the big island's population. War and famine have reduced the combined population on the big island to around 5000 people in total. Evidence suggests that at this point, the hostilities largely ceased while the people struggled just to survive. The warfare has only tangentially touched the two smaller islands, but contact with the larger island has had other negative consequences. One of the smaller islands, Alice, had a population of over 10,000 in Year 270, including a large village of almost a thousand people. People from this village visited outlying areas, including the large island, and brought back with them an influenza virus. This quickly infected everyone in the village, then on the island. Since this was a novel and quite nasty virus for this population, the death rate was 25% from the virus itself. The survivors sought to take care of their own, and many children orphaned by the disease died of sickness (not flu) or starvation. After two years, fully half of this island's population had succumbed to this devastating plague. The large city on Alice was abandoned and apparently never again inhabited. By year 280, Alice's population is no more than 5,000 people. Bob did not make out nearly so badly, but the flu pandemic did result in widespread death, with perhaps 10% of its population dying off. Bob is at perhaps 8,000 people. Year 500 : 25,000 Jumping ahead more than 200 years, investigators are surprised to find that the population has not rebounded nearly as much as expected, not even close to their maximum of 60,000 three hundred years earlier. The record in the dirt is not clear on why this is, but leading theories include climate change and extensive emigration; it is at least clear that the excellent weather conditions experienced in the Wasabis' early years ceased at around year 400, when rainfall patterns shifted and things became much drier. It does seem evident that much of the farming abilities developed by the Wasabi in earlier years were abandoned or forgotten. Year 700 : 75,000 Two hundred years later, the population has boomed. Bob is now the principle island, though with only 15,000 inhabitants, the smallest population of the three islands. Bob now hosts the largest city among the Wasabi, and with fully 2500 people, it cannot be considered a mere large village. Technological innovations in this city include running water in an extensive ditch system. There are no large draft animals among the Wasabi, but evidence suggests that at least hogs and waterfowl have been domesticated on the islands. The big island shows evidence of a continuation of the two-population division, but genetic markers show that the people are closely related, so intermarriage obviously continues. Alice hosts a population of 25,000, spread out across the island. These relatively small islands are nearing their carrying capacity for human populations; there is compelling evidence that the Wasabi were sailing to other islands, possibly even the continent, and engaging in trade. Year 800 : 90,000 The Wasabi continue to grow, but their culture is undergoing some sort of transition. Religious emblems have always been prevalent in the Wasabi detritus, but not so much at this time. Farming has reached an apex of technological innovation, and the climate is as good as it has been in centuries. But despite plenty of food, this is clearly a season of war. We can only guess at its causes. Year 850 : 25,000 War and the resulting famine have killed off many people. Coincidentally, shifting weather patterns have obviously resulted in severe food shortages. In a period of 50 years, the population has utterly collapsed. This is a catastrophe worse than anything the Wasabi have ever experienced. Year 900 : 15,000 The population continues to drop for the next couple of generations as the climate cools severely. People still survive in areas, especially in Bob, which has a population of nearly 8000. The big island is almost completely depopulated, with no more than 2000 people living there (and no sign of population division). Large numbers of small villages still exist on Alice, concentrated on the coastline. The people were obviously leveraging fishing for their food, but fish populations at this time were in decline. Shortly after this point, the first of three major influenza epidemics swept through the surviving Wasabi populations. Year 950 : 6,000 The Wasabi have been nearly wiped out. Warfare, disease, famine, and drought have combined to make the islands much less hospitable than in times long past. The Wasabi have lost much of their culture and technology in the savage years of the preceding two centuries; several large groups have emigrated from the islands, mostly from Alice, and are lost to Wasabi memory. The remaining population is split between the big island and Bob, with no more than a few hundred still living on Alice. The Wasabi are perilously close to extinction; Vegas odds would give them no more than a 25% chance of long-term survival. Year 1000 : 10,000 Pulling back from the brink, the Wasabi have reestablished both fishing and farming, The climate is still not favorable, but the ever-resilient Wasabi have learned techniques to produce and gather food, and have managed to structure a society that avoids war and its attendant evils. Bob is still the center of Wasabi culture, but settlements have been established on all three islands, with a significant population of more than 2000 on Alice and over 3000 on the big island. Evidence shows a definite spreading of Wasabi influence in the larger area, disproportionate to their population at this time. *********************************************************************** So in a 1000-year span of time, our fictional Wasabi find themselves right back where they began with regards to their population. Now obviously, this is just a made-up story. But it parallels reality; you could doubtless find dozens or hundreds of such stories. The Book of Mormon presents several, and shows how numbers wax and wane. The point is, a little reflection will show that the statement "you can't stay at a population of 100,000 for centuries or millennia" is silly. Of course you can. Populations grown and diminish, and sometimes go extinct (from which there is no return). Especially if your population is at the carrying capacity of the land, it's entirely possible—likely, even—that a stable human population can go centuries or longer without growing much in numbers. My silly little dramatization should at least illustrate this most obvious idea.

I'm no population expert, but just from the math it seems you didn't subtract the death rate or compound the growth rate. Is your assumption that the birth and death rate is equal? If, for example, the death rate is 9% then couldn't we can effectively compound the 1% net gain over the time period? If so, then the population would double roughly every 70 years. That said, both of those would fluctuate, plus mass extinction vs death events, etc. Even so, with a .1% net compound birth rate, the population would double every 700 years. After 8,950 years that would be a total population of ~1.5 Million.

It really comes down to what you believe. This really has become a political issue and not a health issue. when all is said and done, individual’s chosen sources of news will be spun to show they were correct. I, of course, take the conservative side and think this is all slightly concerning hullabaloo. But certainly not serious enough to take such drastic measures.

Both the existence and details of this virus, and the all the different national/federal/state/local government's various reactions to it, have all made perfect sense to me... Since we got a new virus with a high R0 value, where people can be carriers for days and not have any symptoms. Since we got a new virus with a high R0 value, where people can be carriers for days and not have any symptoms, and the thing has a higher fatality rate than the usual flu. No really, high R0 value, asymptomatic carriers, and higher death rate. Those are three things. They're the things that make everything make perfect sense. If you don't understand or believe one or more of them, I suppose you could have your beliefs about it. But I both understand and believe all 3, and it all makes sense to me. Governors shutting things down, doesn't have a single thing to do with the federal constitution. It has to do with the individual states' constitutions. I wish more people would understand this important point. State governments don't get their rights from the constitution, they get them from the people. Best dang thing I've seen during this whole thing: A reporter asked Trump something like "You just said that you wish more states would X, and yet there are reports that some states are not X-ing. Why doesn't your administration do more to make these governors X?" Trump replied "Well, there's this thing called the constitution..."

I'm so glad that we can find such surety about a topic that Christians can admit we have no revelation on and that scientist admit that we haven't really figured it out yet.

Matthew 7:6 Give not that which is holy unto the dogs, neither cast ye your pearls before swine, lest they trample them under their feet, and turn again and rend you. Or even better: JST Matthew 7:9 Go ye into the world, saying unto all, Repent, for the kingdom of heaven has come nigh unto you. 10 And the mysteries of the kingdom ye shall keep within yourselves; for it is not meet to give that which is holy unto the dogs; neither cast ye your pearls unto swine, lest they trample them under their feet. 11 For the world cannot receive that which ye, yourselves, are not able to bear; wherefore ye shall not give your pearls unto them, lest they turn again and rend you.

This session focuses on King Saul's consultation with the witch at Endor. I suspect that we share a rejection of fortune telling, which despite this episode being roughly 3,000 years old, gets called "New Age," these days. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zSI6MXB0rCA

To summarize the story: A judge ruled that the governor's (Oregon) extension of a 28-day executive order by 60-days was null and void since she did not get consent from the state legislature. Further, the judge seemed to agree with many of the plaintiff's contentions--mostly from churches. I first read this in the Epoch Times, a conservative publication. So, I checked to see if the mainstream media had suppressed the story or not. To my positive amazement, both Time and ABC News reported on it. Here's the ABC version: https://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory/judge-tosses-coronavirus-restrictions-oregon-governor-70751385 So...were the churches bad actors, protecting their church budgets by threatening members and the community at large with rampant spreading of COVID-19, or were they religious liberty guardians, assuring that the balance between free exercise of religion and state emergency powers be maintained with great care?

"The dismal science" is a derogatory alternative name for economics coined by the Victorian historian Thomas Carlyle in the 19th century (originally in the context of his argument to reintroduce slavery in the West Indies). The term drew a contrast with the then-familiar use of the phrase "gay science" to refer to song and verse writing.[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_dismal_science

Since lying to the FBI, or for that matter, most government officials is a felony, best advice is don't even be a witness. That's why people who are seemingly on the periphery of these cases tend to lawyer up immediately. Flynn had no reason to believe that he was the target of anything. He was the National Security Advisor, after all.

Flynn's case was never tried AFAIK. He entered a plea bargain under financial duress as well as a threat by the DOJ that his son would be dragged into the mire with him. I'm sure competent attorneys could have gotten him off, knowing what we know now, but the cost was simply too great in many ways compared to the light sentence bargained for. And at the time there seemed no light at the end of the tunnel for him to get his life back. Serious DOJ misuse of power, but the government has almost unlimited resources, and most of the rest of us do not.

It doesn't. ldsguy422 believes that human populations must either expand without limit or else go extinct. This is his "proof" that mankind has not been on the earth for 200,000 years. As I have said many times, ldsguy422 does not understand stable populations. My fanciful example was intended to illustrate the idea that an isolated population (including a population isolated on planet Earth) could indeed, despite ldsguy422's protestations, maintain a population within bounds over a very large extended period. But as they say, none is so blind as him who simply will not see. I think my contribution to this thread is finished.

Great. So there must have been wide-scale genocide for thousands and thousands and thousands of years. Yes, tribes and nations can struggle to grow for a period of time. But, not for 9 millenia. What evidence is there for this? Has a nation or tribe ever struggled to grow for such a long period of time? A few generations. Sure. Okay. But it sure as heck didn't last for 9,000 years. And you've yet to touch on how there was little to no progression for 190,000 years.

Except for those that have not.

Great. But again, we're talking about 190,000 years of nothing. Little to no progression of any kind. Can that happen for a small tribe over a period of time? Sure. But, this is for 8,000 generations. Not 50. And how did they get to the population of 10,000? I have a hard time believing the capacity to expand came to a screeching halt. People divide into other groups all the time. People travel. People discover. They explore. They don't do the same thing for 190,000 years. Your math takes on a lot of assumptions. And again, every group that has every lived has dealt with terrible tragedies, and they've all grown in spite of them.

Except for those that didn't.

It looks to me that there are some thoughts that are not communicated well. Anciently it was believed that before someone could present themselves before a "King" that they must be prepared and presentable. Part of being prepared and presentable was being "Clean". We see this in scripture - even as Moses approached the "burning bush" he was told to take off his shoes because he was entering "sacred ground". If someone was to go to Israel today (as I have done) you can learn from the Jews that it is their tradition that when someone went to the temple - they would remove their cloths and wash in a basin and put on white linen clothing in order to be prepared, presentable and clean before G-d at his temple. Only those of Israel were allowed - "strangers" were forbidden. The temple was considered the dwelling place of G-d (his presents). Thus to come before G-d and be in his presents; being clean has always been a tradition of the covenant children of G-d. Jesus even went so far as to demonstrate that it was necessary for him to be prepared and clean - even by ritual. But - as I have posted before - Jesus was ritually cleaned and prepared in the same place that the children of Israel were ritually cleaned and prepared by ritual to enter the promise land - as commanded and performed by Joshua (which is the Hebrew name of Jesus). So to Latter-day Saints - baptism is not so much an ordinance of conversion but a post conversion covenant with G-d. The covenant included being born again as an heir of G-d and G-dlyness. This was and is referred to as taking the name of Jesus Christ. Anciently, taking someone's name is similar to the modern understanding of power of attorney. With this power of attorney we must be most careful and mindful that things have changed because we are no longer ignorant but now ought to take seriously our covenant that we not continue to sacrifice innocent blood for our sins without great remorse and much sorrow. Sometimes, I think (including those of other religions) that are somewhat careless and cavalier about their continuing sins and the sacrifice of the innocent Christ is discarded because they think they are converted and therefor saved. The Traveler

We know from scripture that Adam was the "first" man. Most try to understand first only chronologically. But in scripture first means the best or most noble. So the first born and the heir was the most noble not the oldest. It is interesting that whenever in scripture that two brothers competed as the heir - it was always the younger that succeeded. In scripture we are told that man was created from "dust". We are also told that G-d could raise up seed to Abraham from stones. Obviously this is metaphoric. Whatever it took to create human life from dust and stone - it would undoubtedly be simpler to accomplish the task from stuff already living. We can determine that all life is carbon based on this planet and in essence made up of the same elements and from the same methodology of DNA. And this includes all the life forms that have ever occupied this planet. I cannot say I know and can explain how it is that there is so much evidence that Neanderthals were here before modern man or why there is that some humans today have Neanderthal DNA. I have not been able to reconcile how it seems that the earth was full of life that was experiencing death prior to when Adam and Eve left the garden of Eden. But I have learned that in both science and religion that truth matters. I have never understood why anyone would purport ignorance and justify it by saying that the truth does not really matter. Jesus prophesied that his disciples would know the truth - he did not stipulate only the truth that mattered. The Traveler

Moving to your 5 acres and living next door to anatess.

This is the problem. The 10 churches will probably react responsibly by practicing social distancing, etc. However, since the governor's authority was stripped, others will go back to partying. Then, when even one person gets COVID-19 it will be those selfish churches that endangered us all.

Before I begin I will apologize to you and the forum for being so critical of the religious community. There are a lot of individuals within the religious community that are both good and good students of science. For most of human history it has been the deeply religious that have advanced science. Something changed and came to a head with Galileo. Rather than seek truth the world had plunged into apostasy. One of the engines of the global apostasy was religious aristocracy that whenever challenged and there was no understanding - hid behind a G-d of mystery with the refrain that G-d made things and hid the understanding of why from mankind and that to inquire into divine mystery is a form of blasphemy. So when Galileo wrote a book detailing how to calculate the tides he was denounced as a heretic - because if overturned a false religious. The pattern of denouncing science by religion was changed with the advent of Joseph Smith. Long before Einstein's theory of relativity W. W. Phelps wrote the hymn "If you could hie to Kolob" that dealt with the time and space distortions of relativity. I was lucky to grow up knowing Hugh Nibley and Tracy Hall personally. Such pillars of science and thought left me with the notion that G-d wants his children invested in truth. That G-d wants us to understand him and his works - which testifies of Christ and eternal justice. I grew up believing G-d to be the universe's greatest and most brilliant scientist. And that G-d grants wisdom and understanding to those that seek, knock and ask. For some reason, that no one has ever been able to explain - many Latter-day Saints like so many of other religions have come to fear science. Joseph first learned that when we lack wisdom that we should ask G-d. Later Joseph was taught that before we ask G-d that we should study and conclude with logic and reason - and that G-d will let us know if we are right. The point of all this is that with G-d man is invested in truth as an agent - thus we have Agency. Like G-d we are not slaves to truth but agents of truth - This is the foundation of learning (education) - not just to be introduced to truth as our master - but to become the masters of truth through understanding and knowledge. The greatest engines of the truths of science ought to be the Saints of G-d - certainly not atheists and agnostics. Those armed with truth and knowledge will triumph. The only way to become armed with knowledge and truth - is to knock, seek and ask. The Traveler

McConkie, Joseph Fielding Smith, and Joseph Smith Jr seemed to have been of a school of thought that between "restoration of all thing" and "God is unchanging", that any practice of worship that was given to the modern church must have existed in both ancient Christianity and Judaism. On this premise, they assume that if there is no evidence of such practice, it must have been lost from the record. Personally, I don't find that line of thought particularly convincing. I think it's perfectly reasonable for the concepts and principles to have existed throughout history, but the form and practice to have changed with culture and technology. It would seem unlikely to me that the Israelites were practicing baptism for the dead prior to Christ's death. They had some parallels, but nothing quite like baptism for the remission of sins. Instead, their equivalent to baptism was more along the lines of restoring their ability to enter the the temple and participate in rituals there. Under our understanding of the temple, that may not seem like much of a difference, but for them atonement and freedom from transgression was gained through the sacrifices at the temple. Baptism as a symbol of conversion didn't become popular until after the Babylonian captivity. As a symbol of repentance, I doubt it was new or revolutionary by the time of John the Baptist, as not even the Jewish leadership of the time really objected to it. So sometimes between the Babylonian captivity and John the Baptist, it had evolved into a recognized and accepted custom. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_baptism) But under either premise, there really isn't reasonable way to get to ancient Israelites performed baptism for the dead.

6...definitely...6

I don't know. That's really the sum of the whole argument. I have had various theories through the years, and have largely abandoned them all as insufficient. For the moment, I assume that Adam lived 6000—10000 or so years ago, a real man, in fact the first man as far as we are concerned. I think the garden of Eden story is a true history, though I don't know if it took place in an actual garden or if the garden setting is a representation of something else. I think the fall of Adam is absolutely real, and that the story of Adam's and Eve's parts in that fall are true, though again, I am not sure if those histories are to be taken exactly at face value or if they represent an underlying truth. I also believe that God does not play games with us, or that Satan plants fake fossils around to destroy our faith in God. The fossil evidence pretty clearly indicates that anatomically modern humans have been around for at least a score thousand years and probably more like 150,000-200,000. I see no reason to doubt that. It appears that we are the latest in a very, very, very long line of anthropoid creatures. Homo erectus, of whom homo sapiens might be considered the most recent and up-to-date version, looks to have been walking the earth for the last two million years. The morphological record preserved in fossils traces human origins back past homo erectus to what were apparently much more ape-like creatures that originated in Africa. Again, I see no reason, logically, rationally, or religiously, to reject this. In fact, I personally find this extremely consonant with the teachings of the gospel. The natural man is an enemy to God. But what is the natural man? It is man as an animal, nothing more than the brute body, created (through evolution) from the dust of the earth. What separates man from animal? Nothing. Nothing, that is, until you introduce the gospel, the good news of salvation from our fallen, mortal, corrupt state. Because however much of a miracle human life and human evolution are, the experience of living as a human animal is pathetic, not even a faint echo of our destiny, if we will but seize it. God himself took upon him the animal form of human life, became homo erectus in the flesh, so he could dwell among us and teach us a better path. His mortal life was not our first taste of heaven; indeed, that was Adam's and Eve's roles. God has been with mankind ever since Adam, ever since there was an actual man dwelling on the earth—not just a human-shaped and intelligent homo erectus, but a spirit son or daughter of the Father. So what place did early humans (if we may call them that) hold in God's plan of salvation? Were they truly nothing more than human-shaped animals, no more children of the Father than are dogs and porpoises? I don't know. Those are questions that, as the saying goes, are far above my pay grade. I hold no firm opinions on such matters, indeed no real opinions at all past mere speculation. But I do know the natural man, from my own experience. I have experienced the brutish and ugly in man, the objectification, seeing women as sex toys and men as pawns to be manipulated or sacrificed as convenient. I have also personally experienced, in my own heart, the feelings of brotherhood and belonging, the seeing beyond mortal sight as I perceive my fellow beings to be something potentially far greater than what we see before us. I have felt the hope that arises in the heart as I experience kindness and even love from other human beings. Many of our emotions appear to be based in the primate structure of our brains, or at least the mammalian structure; I have seen dogs and horses demonstrate fondness, affection, bravery, cowardice, and courage in the face of evil. But I have felt things that i believe no mere animal can experience, feelings that I think are outside the ken of the natural man, precisely because the natural man is an animal. I cannot harmonize the so-called scientific view of the descent of man with the religious view of man's divine origin. But that's okay. I can't harmonize the various gospel accounts of Jesus' life, either, or the accounts of Paul's (or Alma's) angelic experiences. That doesn't mean those accounts are false. I'm sure such things can and will all be explained to perfection when the time is right. For now, we are to overcome the natural man and seek the face of God. I suggest again that what you're battling is the idea of a stable population. You seem convinced that any human population that does not die out must of necessity grow and increase in numbers over a period of, say, fifty generations. But pretty simple math will demonstrate that, given constraints of food, shelter, and other necessities, it is not only reasonable but inevitable that a stable population will be achieved and likely maintained for a long period of time, even thousands (or tens of thousands, or even hundreds of thousands) of years.

People are often surprised at what I do know and what I don't. Today, I learned something new. 🤷‍♂️

As you probably know, PC, we Latter-day Saints consider David to be a fallen prophet, one who has lost his exaltation and will now receive that which he was willing to receive instead of that which he might have received. How ancestral and cultural Jews perceive David is unlikely to change LDS perceptions on the matter. I'm offering this as an explanation, not as any sort of correction.

And there it is. You disbelieve evolution not for any scientific or pseudoscientific reason, as you suppose, but simply because you think it doesn't square with your religious beliefs. I have no response to that. I am not going to try to convert you to the gospel of evolution. But by the same token, I reject your arguments against organic evolution as utterly specious. I do not perceive the religious conflicts that you do, so I'm perfectly at ease accepting the principles of molecular organic evolution, including speciation and all the rest. You are welcome to disagree. As I wrote before, I don't believe Peter guards the Pearly Gates with a molecular biology exam. You are welcome to claim that organic evolution violates the tenets of our religion, though I am equally welcome to claim the opposite. You are welcome to deny the central tenets of evolution, though you may not simultaneously deny them and also claim truthfully that you have any real comprehension of them on anything but a strictly surface level. You are also free to teach your children about the evils of evolution. But when your children enter high school and college (including BYU), begin thinking for themselves, and perhaps accept the overwhelming evidence for evolution, you had best hope and pray that they do not take your religious objections to evolution at face value, or at least you had better hope and pray that they have developed a reasonably mature testimony of God in their lives. Otherwise, you might find your children taking your anti-evolutionary stance in a way diametrically opposed to that which you had hoped. I've seen it happen before.

There would be almost 10,000 acres per person available for a population of 4 million. That's the estimated population for 10,000 B.C. Is that the lack of a carrying capacity you’re talking about? It blows my mind that anyone could think it would take 9,000 years for a population to double. We lost 75-200 million from the black plague (20-40% of the world population), and the population still doubled in 350 years. Hard to imagine that in a time where women were almost exclusively confined to the home life, bearing and raising children, and where no birth control was present, that it would take nine millennia for a tribe to double. And I find it strange that you completely dismiss the numers from Lesotho. That nation is expected to double in size every 60.7 years. I’m not saying primitive cultures are expected to be anywhere near that, but Lesotho, a country with a per capita GDP of $1,300, isn’t exactly living a charmed life. Access to modern medicine and adequate health facilities is limited. Birth control is limited. Scarcity of food is high. Disease is high. Death rates are high. It’s interesting that you don’t think an African country, living in destitution, having a population growth 150 times higher than the all of the world for 190,000 years isn’t a big deal. That’s very hard to reconcile. Imagining that the world for 190,000 years was essentially 150 times worse than Lesotho. And they never progressed. They never ventured out. They never discovered. Dozens and dozens of impressive ruins were erected in between 3,000 and 4,000 BC. But, not a whole lot of progress before then. That doesn’t add up. Why were there no human advances for such an incredibly length period of time? And how do you reconcile modern humans being around that long when The Church clearly states that Adam was the first man? As far as DNA, no, I don’t know how it all came together. But, I’m 99.99% it didn’t randomly self-assemble in perfect sequence. Seems much, much more likely that God played a part in it. Agreed. And Ether 15 even mentions that two million Jaredites were slain in battle. That is significant. Perhaps that's an estimate and not an actual count. Could easily be calculated, though, seeing how the battle came down to two individuals. Just needed a census of some sort. But still, I don't know what's harder for me to believe - that for 190,000 years, the population doubled, on average, every 9000 years ... or the belief that there were practically no human advances. AT ALL. FOR 190K YEARS. How? Both assumptions are incredibly hard to reconcile.

The Book of Mormon when they first landed appears to back this up. Just look at how quickly the Book of Mormon numbers increased. It is said that the American Indians were anywhere from 8 to 112 million population size (they were hunters, gatherers, and traders). We know of two people (family groups) who were on the American continent. We know the Nephites spread north and south. Although, to be fair, there could have been populations that didn't increase very quickly, but you are talking about 6K to 7K years. Not just a hundred years. So, population increase isn't just something that happened within 1200 years ago. Jaredites were 3000 years ago or more and there numbers doubled. They would have been hunters, gatherers, and probably traders. The American Indians, have been around a long time (assuming we are considering the American Indians as those who traveled to America around 10,000 BC). Their population (added to by Jaredites, Mulekites, and Nephites) is estimated to have been anywhere from 8 million to 112 million (and I would assume the population didn't begin in the millions when they traveled here). It doesn't appear you are suffering from presentism as others have suggested. This appears to be steady population growth long before 1200 years ago. The interesting thing also, depending on which population growth one accepts (8 million or 112 million) that was also after all the wars and death (up to Columbus). Mayans themselves were around 4000 years ago with a steady population growth that was first estimated at 5 million (from whatever number they started with) with new discovery of potentially 10-15 million. That appears to be steady population growth (not presentism).

The traditional definition of an "apostate" is one who rejects gospel truths and turns his back on his former beliefs. This is as opposed to a "heretic", who insists that he follows the gospel, yet still holds heterodox beliefs that are generally considered incompatible with the truths he claims to believe. In the kingdom today, the term "heretic" is seldom used. "Apostate" covers both bases. I am no apostate in the original sense, but in the modified sense, that of believing things that are incorrect and incompatible with true doctrine, I am likely guilty. Obviously, I don't know what those areas are, because if I did, I would modify my beliefs. (And for the record, no, those apostate beliefs do not include ideas about organic evolution.) But if I'm striving to become an honest man—which I am—I must allow that I likely have some beliefs that I will eventually find to be incompatible with eternal truths. So I suppose you could call me an apostate in that sense. But if you do so, remember that you will have condemned just about the entire mortal kingdom of God as apostates, very probably including yourself.

This immediately leads to the surprising conclusion (for me) that there were billions of spirit children of God who were denied access to the gospel for thousands of years. That conclusion raises some interesting questions.

You're not seeing that this is utterly irrelevant. Consider this idea. For 150,000 years, the human population did not significantly change. It remained pretty much the same. Like the American bison, the human population hit its capacity and remained there. It did not increase until it filled the entire planet. It stayed more or less the same for a long, long, long, long, long time. This is not a difficult concept, but it is one you appear either to have ignored or rejected. I don't understand why. That is not a logical conclusion. It is non sequitur, unless by "atheistic" you do not mean disbelief in God, but only not using God as part of your model. If that is what you mean, then I agree. But in that case, there is not wrong with such an "atheism" that does not deny God, but merely says that we're not looking for God as the immediate causative agent. I don't know how my views are different from the mainstream. I don't particularly care; as I noted explicitly yesterday, I am not deeply trained in molecular biology and don't pretend to have great new insights into evolutionary theory. By "how DNA came to be", I assume you mean the biogenerative process leading to its existence. I don't know that. Neither do you. Neither do the scientists who speculate about warm, shallow, amino acid-laden pools three billion years ago.

No, you do not. That many scientists proclaim themselves atheist doesn't mean science is atheistic. To use your words, that "defies logic" (but in this case, it really does). Science does not deny God. Rather, science seeks mechanisms and models for observed phenomena. To say, "Thus-and-such phenomenon is like that because that's how God made it" might be true, but it's a useless statement. It adds exactly nothing to our understanding of the mechanics of the phenomenon or the predictive models we should use. Saying "that's how God made it" is ultimately a philosophical, not a mechanistic, argument. Of course science doesn't accept "because God made it that way" as a valid hypothesis! It's unfalsifiable and useless for anything but a philosophical argument.

I didn't see my option, so I added it.

2 factors that influence the virus spread: - How dense the population is. - How dense the population is.

There is the famous Will Ferrel and Chad Smith (Red Hot Chili Peppers)

Your questions reminded me of Pres. Oaks talk last October. I believe a BYU religion professor’s article on this subject had it right: “When we ask ourselves what we know about the spirit world from the standard works, the answer is ‘not as much as we often think.’” https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/general-conference/2019/10/17oaks?lang=eng There is much more speculation than there is revelation about the spirit world. Your question about why pre-mortal Christ couldn't marshal the forces of previous dispensations, made me think of the Saturday's Warrior play/movie where pre-mortal spirits and post-mortal spirits could be together and communicate. I speculate that isn't the case.

This lesson explores how devastating Saul's decline was. Not only did he lose the kingdom--his own family and household became divided. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FoNFecm78Uc&amp;t=5s

Here's mine.

The article wasn't clear about what it means in phase 1 or phase 2 when you leave your scriptures at the end of the pew.

Since I don't have to be anywhere, why bother doing my hair?

Yeah . . . sure . . . that’s totally why I clicked, too . . .

And I'm just here because I'm a moderator and keeping an eye on stuff is what I do. 🧐

For the record, this has nothing to do with the current debate about opening vs. closing in relation to COVID-19, right?