No Death Before The Fall

[Rivers]

When, exactly were they created?

Frankly, you're making no sense to me. So I'll let it go and agree to disagree.

I think what she is saying is that Adam and Eve were created during the creative process which took place over a long period of time and involved death and procreation. When this creative process was finished, God transformed the earth into a Garden of Eden and sent down Adam and Eve's spirits. Then Adam and Eve ate the fruit and transformed the earth back to the way it is now.

It makes sense to me. I see a couple of loose ends, but its the best hypothesis heard.

[Senator]

It makes sense to me. I see a couple of loose ends, but its the best hypothesis heard.

Ok.

I am comfortable in relating to the creation/garden scenario as that of mythos/metaphor rather than literal events.

[cdowis]

For this to work, it would mean that all created things, marching happily along in a mortal state, all of a sudden transform to an immortal state during Adam's hiatus in the garden, then transform back to a mortal state after the fall?

Really? You are incapable of thinking of other options?

Just be patient and it will come to you.

[cdowis]

When, exactly were they created?

Frankly, you're making no sense to me. So I'll let it go and agree to disagree.

When exactly did the first life appear on earth? The first whale? The first homo sapiens.

Tell us about that first man and woman... how did they meet to procreate? Give us your version of what you call mythology.

I agree that the discussion is senseless if you cannot answer the same questions you throw at us.

Edited July 22, 2011 by cdowis

[cdowis]

Cinepro,

1. When you say what the church "teaches" (your word), do you mean in the sense that the church "taught" that there was only one Hill Cumorah?

2. I see no church teaching about the five days of creation. Look especially at McConkie's statement you quoted earlier. Read it carefully. Your are desperately pouring your own interpretation into his words, when he says something very different.

I understand your position, but I just don't see anything that makes it against church doctrine that there was death in the creation process, no more than there was only one Hill Cumorah.

The scriptures give us one statement on this issue, that Adam was the "first flesh", and everyone has made the assumption that includes the prior five days of creation. Like the one hill "doctrine", there is another possibility.

Your references specifically avoid the five days of creation, and some specifically mention the Garden of Eden (your quote from McConkie).

As you know, the fact is that there was death during the creation process, prior to Adam. I am questioning that assumption, and you have given us nothing to the contrary. Indeed McConkie allows for that possibility.

Edited July 22, 2011 by cdowis

[BCSpace]

The scriptures give us one statement on this issue, that Adam was the "first flesh", and everyone has made the assumption that includes the prior five days of creation. Like the one hill "doctrine", there is another possibility.

Yes. The doctrine (from the OT institute manual chapter 2) on "first flesh" is that Adam was the first to Fall. Animals and plants were already here before he was created.

[katherine the great]

BC Space, I've read your hypothesis with interest over the years, but one thing is very unclear to me. Do you believe that all humans were endowed with a spirit after Adam and Eve, or only Adam and Eve's children? Even at the far end of your time frame (10,000 BC), people were pretty much living all over the world.

[cinepro]

Cinepro,

1. When you say what the church "teaches" (your word), do you mean in the sense that the church "taught" that there was only one Hill Cumorah?

In post #66, I have provided several quotes from current Church publications and curriculum that can be found on the Church's website regarding physical death, creation and the Fall. If you're interested in a comparison as to how these teachings compare to teachings on the number of Hill Cumorahs, you could find all the teachings the Church currently publishes about how many Hill Cumorahs there are and compare them.

As for whether or not "teach" is the right word, I can only point out that several of the quotes I provided are from current or recent lesson manuals that the Church has correlated and published for the use of teachers in the Church (and has asked that instructors not deviate from the manuals). So I don't think it's a stretch to say the Church "teaches" these things.

2. I see no church teaching about the five days of creation. Look especially at McConkie's statement you quoted earlier. Read it carefully. Your are desperately pouring your own interpretation into his words, when he says something very different.

If you feel that the quote from Elder McConkie and the others in post #66 allow for a period of mortal creation before the Fall, that's entirely up to you (and how you allow for that is the point of this thread). There just appeared to be some confusion about what, exactly, the Church teaches on this subject, and I thought I would help by providing actual references.

Personally, I think the Church is about as clear as it can be on the definition of "physical death" and whether or not there was any physical death on the planet for humans, animals or plants before Adam's fall.

As you know, the fact is that there was death during the creation process, prior to Adam. I am questioning that assumption, and you have given us nothing to the contrary. Indeed McConkie allows for that possibility.

The doctrine is pretty clear (and consistent) that the plants, animals and humans were created in an immortal "paradisaical" state, and it wasn't until Adam's fall that physical death came into the world.

Again, here is President Harold B. Lee, as taught in the recent Priesthood/RS curriculum:

… Besides the Fall having had to do with Adam and Eve, causing a change to come over them, that change affected all human nature, all of the natural creations, all of the creation of animals, plants—all kinds of life were changed. The earth itself became subject to death. … How it took place no one can explain, and anyone who would attempt to make an explanation would be going far beyond anything the Lord has told us. But a change was wrought over the whole face of the creation, which up to that time had not been subject to death. From that time henceforth all in nature was in a state of gradual dissolution until mortal death was to come, after which there would be required a restoration in a resurrected state. …

(emphasis added)

If the answer to the question in the OP is that "in order to reconcile LDS teachings/doctrine with science, we must theorize that physical death was present in the creation process before Adam's fall", that's fine. Then the question becomes whether or not that theory is compatible with LDS teachings/doctrine. And I haven't seen anything published by the Church that would suggest that it is, and I've seen plenty published by the Church that would suggest that it isn't.

Edited July 22, 2011 by cinepro

[Senator]

I agree that the discussion is senseless if you cannot answer the same questions you throw at us.

Really?

You've never asked a question for which you did not have an answer. Is that illegal?

Oh, to be as omniscient as you!

[Senator]

If the answer to the question in the OP is that "in order to reconcile LDS teachings/doctrine with science, we must theorize that physical death was present in the creation process before Adam's fall", that's fine. Then the question becomes whether or not that theory is compatible with LDS teachings/doctrine. And I haven't seen anything published by the Church that would suggest that it is, and I've seen plenty published by the Church that would suggest that it isn't.

Once again, you're spot on.

Ever able to say it better than I.

[mfbukowski]

Ok.

I am comfortable in relating to the creation/garden scenario as that of mythos/metaphor rather than literal events.

When we are speaking of such things, there is very little difference, and besides knowing which it was is unknowable.

In other words, you have to take it on faith anyway, so the sense in which it was "real" becomes irrelevant. At least that is the way I see it. Sure it might have happened, maybe not- it doesn't matter to me. The value is in the lessons to be learned from scripture.

[Alan]

I am joining this thread late and I confess to not having read all of the posts due to time limitations. However, I wish to respond to the opening questions.

1. I do believe there was no death before the fall.

2. I have no problem reconciling this with fossil evidence.

I believe there was no death before the fall because it is true and the scriptures state this quite clearly. The same scriptures that teach me the reason for the fall and the remedy to it.

The fossil evidence all depends on the way it is interpreted. I work as a scientist (though not a paeleantologist - not even sure how to spell it! I am an ecologist) and I know that science generally is not nearly as comprehensive, complete or infallable as most people think. All of the fossils found to date, from all over the world, would not cover a football field; so I tend to be cautious about any and all assumptions and theories scientists make.

Frankly, I find the whole idea of a Christian rejecting the "no death before the fall" teaching to be astounding.

[firepatch36]

My mission president one day told me that dinosaurs existed and died so we could have oil. I'm not sure why he brought that up; I don't remember what we were talking about; but that was what he told me.

[BCSpace]

Frankly, I find the whole idea of a Christian rejecting the "no death before the fall" teaching to be astounding.

What do you think about no death before the Fall and death before the garden state? In that case, one can still truthfully state one accepts no death before the Fall and that the Fall brought death in to the (already created by context) world. 2 Nephi 2:22 and published doctrine on D&C 77 seem to open up this possibility.

Edited July 23, 2011 by BCSpace

[Fig-bearing Thistle]

As a young missionary I taught investigators that prior to the Fall of Adam there was no death in the world. This concept came directly from the missionary discussions...yet I never had any investigator even question this belief. If I taught this concept today I would be laughed out of every home.

Put in simple terms, this concept makes some sense IF Adam was a real human being who left his garden kingdom some 6,000 years ago. For if this did in fact take place...of course there would not have been death since it was Adam who through his disobedience to God brought upon us all a temporal existence and introduced death.

But reality does not support this belief...at least not as it is taught or was taught by the church. Plus science has come a long way since I was a missionary some 30 years ago...anyone who claims a belief in a young earth is not taken seriously nor is anyone who suggests that there was no death prior to 6,000 years ago.

Despite this fact...there still remain members of the church both believe and are taught that there was no death prior to the fall some 6,000 years ago.

So I have two questions.

Is there anyone here who holds to a belief of no death prior to the fall (which according to the LDS Biblical chronology took place some 6,000 years ago)

If you do hold to this belief...how do you reconcile it with reality ie (fossil record)

I hate to admit that I was one of those members who actually believed that the fossils were matter brought from other planets...Oh I was soooooo nieve and trusting then...

I believe there was no death prior to the Fall. I also believe the earth is billions of years old. I also believe that dinosaurs lived on the earth before Adam was placed here, and that those dinosaurs died before Adam was placed here on this earth.

How do I reconcile this?

To me there is one of three ways to approach this.

1.)The revealed record is incorrect.

2.)We acknowledge that there are pieces of the revealed record that are missing, and we don't have a complete understanding, and so we label our mortal understanding and learning as "infallible science" and we rely on this declared science to fill in the pieces that are missing in the revealed record. (pretty much the same as option 1)

3.)We acknowledge that there are pieces of the revealed record that are missing, and we are content to wait until those pieces are revealed. In the mean time, trusting that the revealed record is still true.

I tend to go with No. 3.

Edited July 23, 2011 by Fig-bearing Thistle

[BCSpace]

BC Space, I've read your hypothesis with interest over the years, but one thing is very unclear to me. Do you believe that all humans were endowed with a spirit after Adam and Eve, or only Adam and Eve's children? Even at the far end of your time frame (10,000 BC), people were pretty much living all over the world.

I believe, for the purposes of my hypothesis, that all preAdamite homo sapiens had spirits (consistent with LDS doctrine that all living things have spirits), just not literal spirit children of God. They were a lesser type of spirit and that is why big-brained homo sapiens have been around for hundreds of thousands of years and never developed civilization until recently; when literal spirit children of God began to be born (into Adam and Eve first).

This speaks to the question of whether or not the whole world was in the garden state. If it wasn't, then what about homo sapiens living outside the garden? Some possibilities:

1. All the homo sapiens living outside the garden started having the new homo sapiens, with a literal child of God for a spirit, as children. Could Adam somehow still be considered the primal parent of the race in that case? Perhaps in the same way Jesus is our Father (the author of our salvation) Adam would still be our primal parent because he initiated agency through the Fall.

2 They could not compete with the newly emerging homo sapiens, the descendants of Adam, and died out.

3. The new homo sapiens mated with them producing only new homo sapiens children.

4. God sterilized them all or wiped them out. Some might think of the global flood here, but since I don't accept it, I'll have to think of something else in this case.

What if the whole earth was in the garden state? Some possibilities:

1. Just before, the old homo sapiens were wiped out and Adam and Eve were saved and placed into the garden.

2. The old homo sapiens somehow didn't make it out of the garden state. We know from the scriptures that re-entry into the garden or the garden state is blocked (Genesis 3:24) and that may imply there are things left behind there. (Unicorns? )

Others of course may have other hypothesis or possiblities to help here.

I think a global garden state is more problematic than a local one for my hypothesis. But the more important question has been answered by it which is can there be evolution/death before the garden state which does not conflict with LDS doctrine? I think that answer is a resounding yes! Every other question stemming from that is relatively trivial since they involve details which have not been given by God or science.

While my initial thinking involves a change in the type of spirit, I think another valid hypothesis involves the revealed knowledge of God instead of a changing of the type of spirits being born into the world. Many of the details of my original hypothesis could remain the same in this case.

Edited July 23, 2011 by BCSpace

[cdowis]

If you feel that the quote from Elder McConkie and the others in post #66 allow for a period of mortal creation before the Fall, that's entirely up to you (and how you allow for that is the point of this thread). There just appeared to be some confusion about what, exactly, the Church teaches on this subject, and I thought I would help by providing actual references.

Personally, I think the Church is about as clear as it can be on the definition of "physical death" and whether or not there was any physical death on the planet for humans, animals or plants before Adam's fall.

The doctrine is pretty clear (and consistent) that the plants, animals and humans were created in an immortal "paradisaical" state, and it wasn't until Adam's fall that physical death came into the world.

Again, here is President Harold B. Lee, as taught in the recent Priesthood/RS curriculum:

etc

If the answer to the question in the OP is that "in order to reconcile LDS teachings/doctrine with science, we must theorize that physical death was present in the creation process before Adam's fall", that's fine. Then the question becomes whether or not that theory is compatible with LDS teachings/doctrine. And I haven't seen anything published by the Church that would suggest that it is, and I've seen plenty published by the Church that would suggest that it isn't.

I agree that leaders of the church assumed that there was no death during the creation process, but, like the Hill Cumorah, I do not see that as doctrine. We can say that all agree that Adam introduced death in the sixth day of creation, but, beyond that, there appears to be a difference of opinion, and falls into the issue of whether evolution is consistent with church doctrine.

The scriptures are certainly silent on that point, and the "waiting to see if they were obeyed" included the death process as organisms developed and the earth was prepared to receive Adam and the animals which would inhabit the earth during that sixth period.

So, I consider this as a useful working model that does not contradict church teachings, but there are many church leaders and members who would disagree with me.

And I feel comfortable with that.

[cdowis]

I believe there was no death before the fall because it is true and the scriptures state this quite clearly.

Please give us those citations. We have already discussed that Adam was the "first flesh", but do you have any others. Especially those that deal with the five periods of the creation process prior to the sixth period where Adam and the Garden were created.

There are those who think that the scriptures are not so "clear" on that point and we welcome your input.

[cdowis]

BCSpace,

Like so many things, I suspect that you would agree that the real answer will be surprising, and we will exclaim, "Why didn't I think of that." The Lord has reserved alot of surprises for us.

[BCSpace]

If the answer to the question in the OP is that "in order to reconcile LDS teachings/doctrine with science, we must theorize that physical death was present in the creation process before Adam's fall", that's fine. Then the question becomes whether or not that theory is compatible with LDS teachings/doctrine. And I haven't seen anything published by the Church that would suggest that it is, and I've seen plenty published by the Church that would suggest that it isn't.

Once again, you're spot on.

Ever able to say it better than I.

Not really. There has been no specific revelation to overturn the 1931 statement.

I think the reality is that we find JFS and his protege, BRM, in a state of disagreement with the 1931 statement of the HJG presidency. They stayed relatively quiet about it until the presidency of DOM when they tried to have their opinions sanctioned by the Church in the form of published works (Mormon Doctrine and Man, His Origin and Destiny). They were denied in this attempt and iirc, there were several answers regarding evolution which DOM had to give which were that we have no doctrine for or against it.

But JSF and BRM gained many ardent followers of their opinions, these people not understanding the difference between the personal opinion of one or a few apostles and actual doctrine. And there also were those who sided with JFS in his debate with BH Roberts and James E Talmadge before the 1931 statement. So not only do we have several generations of LDS weaned on the aforementioned nondoctrinally published works, but many of them have risen through the ranks into correlation and have been aided by those who sided with JFS.

I believe these historical facts alone negate any anti-evolution statements since it all comes back to the 1931 statement and there has been no specific revelation to overturn it. But we can also do the hard work of refuting these statements one by one while staying within the realm of LDS doctrine.

All seemingly anti-evolution statements in the Church are countered in the following ways:

1)They don't actually say or conclude anything at all negative about evolution.(1909 statement)

2)They address conclusions based on evolution (usually from atheists) but not evolution itself. (In some manuals like the OT Institute Manual)

3)They actually address misconceptions about evolution and not evolution itself. (Evolution precludes God, or man created in God's image precluded, or the Fall precluded, or the everything after it's own kind issue).

4)They contradict existing doctrine or scripture. (No doctrine on the age of the earth, undefined creative period prior to the garden state)

5)They are plain wrong. Such conflict with the 1931 statement. (Statements that preclude evolution without a specific reason given)

6)They make statements about science that are false [1990's Ensign article by a GA who is a geologist(?) who said that evolution violates the Second Law of Thermodynamics]

Now there are many promising and positive evidences that evolution does not conflict with LDS doctrine:

1) 1909 statement (subtlely)

2) 1931 statement. (not a neutral statement but a victory for the evolution pov).

3) DOM's defense of evolution.

4) Various prophets' and apostles' neutrality on the issue.

5) (In the Ensign) ETB's removal (1980's) of evolution from his own list (1970's) of things the BoM combats. (Robert Millet quotes the old statement in the 1990's)

6) Various doctrines and scriptures that support evolution. I address them whenever I mention my hypothesis so some of you know them.

7) Russel M Nelson being corrected (and recovering swiftly) by his junior companion in the recent Pew interview.

8 ) BRM's softening in his (non-doctrinal) Seven Deadly Heresies speech. He essentially said if one could reconcile evolution with doctrine, more power to them.

9) BYU's teaching of evolution not necessarily by itself, but the allowing of students and professors to express acceptance of evolution and that it's not in conflict with doctrine.

etc.

Edited July 23, 2011 by BCSpace

[BCSpace]

Like so many things, I suspect that you would agree that the real answer will be surprising, and we will exclaim, "Why didn't I think of that." The Lord has reserved alot of surprises for us.

Sure. But in the meantime, I fill in the blanks with science, a methodology that in so many ways shows how God-like we can become. Heck, God Himself was more than a little worried about it in Tower of Babel times:

And the Lord said, Behold, the people is one, and they have all one language; and this they begin to do: and now nothing will be restrained from them, which they have imagined to do. Genesis 11:6

Better to scatter and afflict those humans lest they attain vast cosmic powers and no real intelligence, wisdom, or experience on how to use it:

Edited July 23, 2011 by BCSpace

[cinepro]

Not really. There has been no specific revelation to overturn the 1931 statement.

I think the reality is that we find JFS and his protege, BRM, in a state of disagreement with the 1931 statement of the HJG presidency. They stayed relatively quiet about it until the presidency of DOM when they tried to have their opinions sanctioned by the Church in the form of published works (Mormon Doctrine and Man, His Origin and Destiny). They were denied in this attempt and iirc, there were several answers regarding evolution which DOM had to give which were that we have no doctrine for or against it.

But JSF and BRM gained many ardent followers of their opinions, these people not understanding the difference between the personal opinion of one or a few apostles and actual doctrine. And there also were those who sided with JFS in his debate with BH Roberts and James E Talmadge before the 1931 statement. So not only do we have several generations of LDS weaned on the aforementioned nondoctrinally published works, but many of them have risen through the ranks into correlation and have been aided by those who sided with JFS.

I believe these historical facts alone negate any anti-evolution statements since it all comes back to the 1931 statement and there has been no specific revelation to overturn it. But we can also do the hard work of refuting these statements one by one while staying within the realm of LDS doctrine.

Just to be clear, none of my quotes were from "Mormon Doctrine" or "Man, His Origin and Destiny". They were from conference talks and curriculum currently published by the Church.

As for the status of the 1931 memo, perhaps you can point to where I can find it on the Church website, or where it is found in some past Church publication?

The Church republished the "Origin of Man" statement in 2002, and helpfully clarified that this statement is an "official teaching" and "official doctrinal position".

And for those who haven't read it recently, this "official doctrinal position" says the following about the possibility of "pre-Adamites":

Adam, our first progenitor, “the first man,” was, like Christ, a preexistent spirit, and like Christ he took upon him an appropriate body, the body of a man, and so became a “living soul.” The doctrine of the preexistence—revealed so plainly, particularly in latter days—pours a wonderful flood of light upon the otherwise mysterious problem of man’s origin. It shows that man, as a spirit, was begotten and born of heavenly parents and reared to maturity in the eternal mansions of the Father, prior to coming upon the earth in a temporal body to undergo an experience in mortality. It teaches that all men existed in the spirit before any man existed in the flesh and that all who have inhabited the earth since Adam have taken bodies and become souls in like manner.

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.

What status does the 1931 memo have in comparison?

Edited July 24, 2011 by cinepro

[Mortal Man]

And there also were those who sided with JFS in his debate with BH Roberts and James E Talmadge before the 1931 statement. So not only do we have several generations of LDS weaned on the aforementioned nondoctrinally published works, but many of them have risen through the ranks into correlation and have been aided by those who sided with JFS.

The Roberts/Smith/Talmage affair is essential to understanding how and why correlation came to be.

“It is the duty of the General Authorities of the Church to safeguard and protect the membership of the Church from the introduction of controversial subjects and false doctrines which tend to create factions and otherwise disturb the faith of the Latter-Day Saints. There is so much of vital importance revealed and which we can present with clear and convincing presentation and which the world does not possess that we, the committee, see no reason for the introduction of questions which are speculative to say the least: more especially so when such teachings appear to be in conflict with the revelations of the Lord.” -- Council of the Twelve to Heber J. Grant, 15 May 1930

As for the Garden-of-Eden-in-a-Bubble theory:

Armed with this response Elder Talmage brought up the subject of Smith’s paper in the April 1931 meeting called to bring the issue to a final solution. In this heated meeting, as he later wrote to his son, Talmage used Sterling’s evidence to “show up James McCready Price in all his unenviable colors.” Moreover, he “was bold enough to point out that according to a tradition in the Church based on good authority as having risen from a declaration made by the Prophet Joseph Smith, a certain pile of stones at Adam-ondi-Ahman, Spring Hill, Mo., is really part of the altar on which Adam offered sacrifices, and that I had personally examined those stones and found them to be fossiliferous, so that if those stones be part of the first altar, Adam built it of stones containing corpses, and therefore death must have prevailed in the earth before Adam’s times.”²³ Finally, Talmage made it clear to his assembled brethren that all reputable geologists recognized the existence both of death and “pre-Adamites” prior to 6,000 years ago, the presumed date of the fall of Adam.

Edited July 24, 2011 by Mortal Man

[thesometimesaint]

MM:

More unsubstantiated blather.

IOW, the guiding principle of correlation is to shield the members from any information or ideas that may cause them to ask questions, begin investigating or think at all about anything. This is the unrecognized root-cause of people's boredom in Sunday school.

Correlation has never caused me a minute of concern, and guarantee you I ask LOTS of questions.

[ldsfaqs]

CFR that LDS doctrine "states the opposite".

The Church is pretty consistent in teaching that the entire planet was without physical death and "paradisaical" until the Fall of Adam. The "limited paradise" theories are interesting and scientifically necessary. But they're not "doctrinal".

Here's what Harold B. Lee taught, as published in the Priesthood/RS curriculum in 2000:

Here's what the young men are taught in their priesthood classes:

And Wilford Woodruff...

And this...

Here's how it is taught to the college kids in Institute:

Teachers and students may disbelieve and ignore what the manual teaches, but when talking about what is "taught" by the Church (or CES), it's the manual that is the reference.

When it comes to Adam & Eve "death" most certainly did enter into the world, for they were subject to it.

None of quotes you quoted me exclude the possibility that in a "lone and dreary world" there wasn't death already, and it was only in the Garden that there was immortality.

In fact, while I can't quote them for you, I know for a fact that the scriptures state they were immortal in the Garden. There is nothing that says in scripture that the world itself was also immortal.

In fact, there would be no reason for a "Garden of Eden" if the entire earth already was the equivalent of a Garden of Eden.

I appreciate your quotes, but they aren't the end all to the understanding of the issue, nor are they all the quotes on the issue. Those particular speculations are nice, but not a complete picture of the issue within the Church.

By the way, not everything that is taught is actual doctrine. In fact, most everything you quoted was opinion, not what the scriptures actually state.