Sevenbak

I find it useful to trace the provenance of that teaching. (see the post: No Blood Before The Fall? Where's THAT Come from? )

I don't find it important to work in a deathless physical Eden into world history. While I understand the original tale to be told as an allegory of the expulsion of the Israelite kingship and priesthood from the Temple and Jerusalem, and being sent into exile for disobedience, the story has certainly been recast in modern revelation to teach us about our eternal nature and progression - that we each chose individually to fall physically (we chose to take upon ourselves these earthy bodies), and spiritually (those who have sinned), and that this fall from Eden happens every single hour of every single day.

While I believe in an individual Fall which we all need to look to Christ to fully overcome, I do not believe a single historical event necessitated or was the catalyst of massive structural changes in biology and the earth's very chemistry and makeup. It does not seem to be in tune with God's modus operandi.

I understand that this is not what is currently taught in official publications. I'm not going to twist others' words to make it fit. I'm not going to teach it in Sunday School. And I'm certainly okay with this worldview and still sustaining our leaders, many of which I disagree with on this matter, as true Prophets.

Thanks for the link. More prophets than I realized have taught the principle. It's current correlation in the manuals what's most important, imo.

Sevenbak:

Cells and blood have been around a lot longer than any proposed Adam and Eve.

http://africascience.blogspot.com/2007/07/two-dinosaurs-from-africa-give-clues-to.html

If one accepts current theories, perhaps. But like I stated before, I believe the fall of the earth from the presence of God to it's currently location makes solar decay rates and geological uniformities impossible to pinpoint.

I don't accept the notion that the earth literally fell from orbiting Kolob to orbiting the Sun. I suppose it is possible that our Sun snagged a planet from a passing star, but I believe that orbital dynamicists have pretty much ruled that out. Instead I accept current scientific thinking about how our solar system came about from the ancient solar nebula etc.

I believe it's more than a notion.

Here's a fairly recent Ensign article that goes into it. There are more too, from the current manuals, but this seems pretty sufficient, to me anyway.

“But of the tree of knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it; for in the time that thou eatest thereof, thou shalt surely die. Now I, Abraham, saw that it was after the Lord’s time, which was after the time of Kolob; for as yet the Gods had not appointed unto Adam his reckoning” (Abr. 5:13).

President Joseph Fielding Smith stated that in this verse the Lord “revealed to Abraham that Adam was subject to Kolob’s time before his transgression.” 19 According to President Brigham Young, Abraham 5:13 [Abr. 5:13] also means that before the Fall of Adam, the earth was near the very throne of God. But when the Fall occurred, the earth literally fell or moved from the physical presence of God to its present position in our solar system. When all the effects of the Fall of Adam are finally overcome, the earth will literally move back into the presence of God. Here are President Young’s words:

“When the earth was framed and brought into existence and man was placed upon it, it was near the throne of our Father in heaven. … But when man fell, the earth fell into space, and took up its abode in this planetary system. … This is the glory the earth came from, and when it is glorified it will return again unto the presence of the Father, and it will dwell there, and these intelligent beings that I am looking at, if they live worthy of it, will dwell upon this earth.” 20

The power by which the effects of Adam’s Fall are overcome for all created things, including the earth, is the Atonement of Jesus Christ (see D&C 76:40–43; Moses 7:48–62)."

http://lds.org/ldsorg/v/index.jsp?vgnextoid=2354fccf2b7db010VgnVCM1000004d82620aRCRD&locale=0&sourceId=6393dbdcc370c010VgnVCM1000004d82620a____&hideNav=1

Oh boy don't even get me started on the universal flood...Although I will say that you have alot in common with Bruce R. McConkie...he taught that the geological processes that created such geological wonders as the Grand Canyon took place over weeks rather than millions of years...now that is just plain bizaar.

Wow, being lumped into the same category as McConkie, I'll take that as a compliment, thanks, although the shoe latchet metaphor somehow comes to mind.

You bring up McConkie, so you should know that the correlated manuals and publications of the church quote him extensively when it comes to this topic of no death before the fall.

A more recent comparison might be the current Elder Russell M. Nelson, who was a gifted heart surgeon before becoming an apostle. He's been pretty clear about not only no death before the fall, but that Adam was the first to have blood in his veins AFTER the fall.

The irony of course, coming from a studied heart surgeon, is truly profound.

I have heard all my life in the Church that when you are born there is a veil drawn over you or a veil over your mind or something like that, basically you can't remember Huck from Henry from the pre-mortal life. I can see the incident involving the Brother of Jared when the Lord touches the sixteen stones as mentioning something about this Veil and possibly a few other possible allusions to this Veil thing in the scriptures. Does anyone know of any other statements or scriptures that talk more fully about the Veil?

This probably isn't what you wanted specifically, as it's ancient apocryphal writings, but I like it.

"And then cometh Yaluham, the receiver of Sabaōth, the Adamas, who handeth the souls the cup of forgetfulness, and he bringeth a cup filled with the water of forgetfulness and handeth it to the soul, and it drinketh it and forgetteth all regions and all the regions to which it hath gone. And they cast it down into a body which will spend its time continually troubled in its heart."

Pistis Sophia, A SIXTH BOOK - Chapter 144

Sevenbak:

We are free to believe or not believe as is our own choice.

http://en.fairmormon.org/Mormonism_and_science/Global_or_local_Flood#endnote_jeffrey3

The belief that the flood was either global or local does not constitute a critical part of Latter-day Saint theology.[6] Whether the flood was global or local, we believe that the prophet Noah existed, that he built an ark, and that he and his family survived the deluge.

Correct, but it answers the OP, at least in my understanding. The fact that it's in the manuals doesn't hurt either, so I believe it helps answer lots of questions that can sometimes run contrary to modern thinking.

Tsall good.

This is perhaps the best answer I've heard from the believing camp....it allows for how things really are while at the same time provides a way for there to have been a Missouri Eden hidden under some protective bubble while the rest of the earth went through its evolutionary/geological time table.

However, I'm sure there must be some hole in this theory. Thanks to Joseph Smith, we fortunately know exactly where the Garden of Eden was. So it is possible to test whether or not this theory holds up to scrutiny. For example if Eden was somehow protected from what was going on in the rest of the world, we should not be able to find any evidence that it was once covered or impacted by the glacial age or subject the same exact influences that the rest of the world experienced. But that is not what we find…in fact... we do find evidence that Eden (Missouri) experienced the same exact geological, evolutionary and glacial influences as the rest of the world. There is nothing to suggest that Eden was somehow sealed off from the same exact events that impacted the rest of the world during the past 4.5 billion years.

Ah, but you're putting all your eggs into one geological-planet-traveling basket.

I'm one who also believes, as the Church teaches, that there was a literal global flood, dividing of the continents in the days of Peleg, and great changing of the land in N. America during Christ's crucifixion.

When the waters receded from off this land, it did become a choice land, and the future home of the New Jerusalem, near where the Garden of Eden was. I still hold that view, no matter what modern science tells me.

This seems to be a red herring.

I also find it interesting that some of the Isaiah/Nephi passages are different than what exist in the KJV, even though they share the same language patterns.

Craig, it's not hard for me at all. The foundation for those who don't believe the Church's teaching, is that science is irrefutable or superior to our doctrine. I don't believe it is.

For me, it comes down to two issues.

#1 - time

#2 - solar decay and carbon dating

Let me explain...

Time wasn't accounted unto man until after the fall, and we don't know how long the fall took to occur. I think it very well could have taken eons.

The reason I believe that, leads me to #2. Our correlated teachings tell us that before the Fall, the earth was very near Kolob, in a different solar system than it's in now. It came to it's present location during the Fall. With that in mind, many things fall into place in my mind, including errors in the current science of constant solar decay rates, or ice ages as the earth transversed the cold emptiness of space to it's present location, etc. We just don't know enough about what transpired during the planet's fall from Kolob, or how long that took, to put the modern worldly understanding of science over revelation.

That's how I look at it, hope that helps.

I would just add that the "heavens rolling together like a scroll" is great imagery for the once and future state of the earth returning to the realms of Kolob... and all that that implies, as to refuting modern science.

But what I'm really seeking here in this post is learning HOW someone who holds these beliefs in a 6,000 year old Fall reconsile their belief. Do you just ignore science? Think its flawed? Will you jsut help me understand HOW

Craig, it's not hard for me at all. The foundation for those who don't believe the Church's teaching, is that science is irrefutable or superior to our doctrine. I don't believe it is.

For me, it comes down to two issues.

#1 - time

#2 - solar decay and carbon dating

Let me explain...

Time wasn't accounted unto man until after the fall, and we don't know how long the fall took to occur. I think it very well could have taken eons.

The reason I believe that, leads me to #2. Our correlated teachings tell us that before the Fall, the earth was very near Kolob, in a different solar system than it's in now. It came to it's present location during the Fall. With that in mind, many things fall into place in my mind, including errors in the current science of constant solar decay rates, or ice ages as the earth transversed the cold emptiness of space to it's present location, etc. We just don't know enough about what transpired during the planet's fall from Kolob, or how long that took, to put the modern worldly understanding of science over revelation.

That's how I look at it, hope that helps.

the church has a policy about using the kjv of the bible, here is a link

http://lds.org/handbook/handbook-2-administering-the-church/selected-church-policies?lang=eng&query=which+version+bible+should+use

the handbook for administering the church says this "English-speaking members should use the Latter-day Saint edition of the King James Version of the Bible. This edition includes the Topical Guide; footnotes; excerpts from the Joseph Smith Translation; cross-references to other passages in the Bible and to the Book of Mormon, Doctrine and Covenants, and Pearl of Great Price; and other study aids. Although other versions of the Bible may be easier to read, in doctrinal matters, latter-day revelation supports the King James Version in preference to other English translations."

"...in doctrinal matters, latter-day revelation supports the King James Version in preference to other English translations."

Thanks, that seems like a pretty straight forward CFR answer to me.

You came to a conclusion about me without answering my questions. That is an incorrect assumption on your part. I was asking questions about the gender of God, not stating my belief in God. I would not fit in the United Church of Christ as I am a faithful, and ever learning, member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

Sorry, your post confused me a bit, as the Church is pretty straight forward in it's teachings of the absolute necessity of God having a fixed gender, and it's role in the plan of salvation.

A point was made about God not needing a female companion. I believe the point has merit. Why does God need a female companion? Does a male God need a female God to produce offspring? With the knowledge God has aren't there more advanced means of producing?

Why does God even need a gender? Isn't God above that? Why can't God be gender-neutral? Why can't God be both?

Also, a verse is quoted about Asherah being on the right side. The verse quoted is Deuteronomy 33:3. Is that a correct quote?

Great topic!

You might fit right in with the new mantra from the United Church of Christ.

http://www.christianpost.com/news/god-no-longer-father-for-united-church-of-christ-52418/

(snip) "The left-leaning United Church of Christ now wants to be even more politically correct, and to do so its deliberative body has replaced the reference to “Heavenly Father” with the gender neutral term, “triune God,” in the denomination’s constitution."

IF there was a second Civil War beginning in Chicago, I don't think it would be over politics, but over mobocracy. Currently, there are over 100,000 gang members in Chicago. Also, the political parties, as they become more polarized, are descending into mob-think. A study of the French Revolution will give you an understanding of how that brought their nation into anarchy with much of the media egging it on.

Mobs versus the order of the Constitution would be the next Civil War.

I agree. With that view in mind, heres' a few statements that are worth noting. I find the first one really interesting, as this prophecy by John Taylor was emphasized and "correlated" by Elder Neil A. Maxwell in the Ensign.

"...The Lord permitted his prophet, John Taylor, to elaborate on this last verse in 1879:

“Those who will not take up their sword to fight against their neighbor must needs flee to Zion for safety. And they will come, saying, we do not know anything of the principles of your religion, but we perceive that you are an honest community; you administer justice and righteousness, and we want to live with you and receive the protection of your laws, but as for your religion we will talk about that some other time. Will we protect such people? Yes, all honorable men. When the people shall have torn to shreds the Constitution of the United States, the Elders of Israel will be found holding it up to the nations of the earth and proclaiming liberty and equal rights to all men, and extending the hand of fellowship to the oppressed of all nations. This is part of the programme, and as long as we do what is right and fear God he will help us and stand by us under all circumstances.” (Deseret News Weekly, 28 Jan. 1880, 28:818; see also D&C 45:68–69.)

Orson Hyde:

"The time is not very far distant in the future, when the Lord will lay his hand heavily upon that nation... That same God who gave the revelation to his servant Joseph Smith in regard to these matters, will fulfill every jot and tittle that has been spoken, concerning that nation. What then will be the condition of that people, when this great and terrible war shall come? It will be very different from the war between the North and the South. Do you wish me to describe it? I will do so. It will be a war of neighborhood against neighborhood, city against city, town against town, country against country, state against state, and they will go forth destroying and being destroyed, and manufacturing will, in a great measure, cease, for a time, among the American nation. Why? Because in these terrible wars, they will not be privileged to manufacture, there will be too much bloodshed — too much mobocracy — too much going around in bands and destroying and pillaging the land to suffer people to pursue any local vocation with any degree of safety. What will become of millions of the farmers upon the land? They will leave their farms and they will remain uncultivated, and they will flee before the ravaging armies from place to place; and thus they will go forth burning and pillaging the whole country; and that great and powerful nation, now consisting of some forty millions of people, will be wasted away, unless they repent. Now these are predictions you may record. You may let them sink down into your hearts. — JD 20:151.

Millennial Star:

This generation shall be visited by an overflowing scourge. Of the precise nature of it we are not informed. It shall pass over the nations night and day. The affect of this visitation will be so direful and calamitous that the reports of its terrible ravages will fill all people with vexation.... One of the horrors announced by the prophet upon that nation is now a matter of history the war of the Rebellion. Another and more appalling condition awaits that ill-fated people. It shall fall upon them like the visitation of a whirlwind, sweeping the country like a mighty flood. The populace will be divided into innumerable factions, and blood, carnage and woe will be rampant among them, filling the hearts of the more peacefully disposed with fear and dismay. Many will laugh at such a prediction, but, unless the people repent, it will come as surely as night follows day. Weakened and powerless from internal broils and disturbances, the nation will become a prey to the remnants left of the aboriginal inhabitants, who will be filled with vengeful rage at the wrongs that have been perpetrated upon them and furiously spread destruction in every direction. 13 Sept., 1880, p. 584-587.

D&C 45:

68And it shall come to pass among the wicked, that every man that will not take his sword against his neighbor must needs flee unto Zion for safety.

69And there shall be gathered unto it out of every nation under heaven; and it shall be the only people that shall not be at war one with another.

Sevenbak,

When you feel the spirit, is it through your optical lenses?

"All spirit is matter, but is more fine or pure, & can only be discerned by purer eyes. We cannot see it, but when our bodies are purified, we shall see that it is all matter." - Joseph Smith

"The kingom of God cometh NOT with observation... the kingdom of God is within you." - Jesus (Luke 17:20, 21)

Are you saying Christ was only spirt, and didn't have a body of flesh and bone? Even if that was true, how do you explain Moses, Bro, of Jared and other OT prophets seeing God face to face?

For your interpretation of that scripture to be valid, you'll have to throw out most of 3 Nephi, and the Savior appearing to the Nephites, letting them feel his wounds. Yes, it was real, it was physical, they saw with their eyes and felt with their hands.

Let me ask you a question... How did Joseph know what the Apostle Paul looked like?

Description of Paul, given by the Prophet Joseph, January 5, 1841, at the organization of a school of instruction:

“He is about five feet high; very dark hair; dark complexion; dark skin; large Roman nose; sharp face; small black eyes, penetrating as eternity; round shoulders; a whining voice, except when elevated, and then it almost resembled the roaring of a lion. He was a good orator, active and diligent, always employing himself in doing good to his fellow man.” Description of Paul

Here is how Brother Joseph and Sidney Rigdon described Him one time they saw Him:

I'm pretty sure that was Oliver Cowdry that saw that particular vision of the glorified Savior with Joseph.

The vision Rigdon had with Joseph came earlier... I think.

Does a Baptist preacher teaching from the Book of Mormon fulfill a "minimum" requirement? Here's a snip:

"I’m a licensed Southern Baptist minister and I embrace the Book of Mormon.

That is, I believe the truths recorded in it. No, I’m not a convert to the Mormon faith, nor am I a member of any particular "spin-off" restoration group such as the RLDS (Reorganized Latter-day Saints), Hedrikites, or Strangites. I’m still a Baptist minister. To be exact, I’m "charismatic Baptist." That is, I still embrace the "born again" experience. I still believe you’re saved by grace. By the shed blood of Christ. Salvation is by faith alone in His finished work on Calvary. I still believe in the Baptism in the Holy Spirit and the gifts of the Spirit. I believe and embrace those cardinal doctrines of Protestantism.

And you know what?…

I still believe the Book of Mormon too!"

http://www.centerplace.org/library/bofm/baptistversionofbofm.htm

This logic isn't perfect actually. Take horses. Originally thought they came over with the conquistadors. Now we know differently. Archeology changes, my friend,and to trust it, ya gotta know that you could have to change your opinion in the future ;-).

Joseph is praised for not taking alcohol despite being operated on.

So, why is it Utah is 7th in the nation for pain-killer pill abuse? If you follow Joseph Smith despite understanding, why don't you do as he did? Or maybe you've never taken anything for pain?

God gave us a brain to use & expected us to be wise & USE it.

God also gave us intuition to use in combination with intellect.

To discount archeology findings that don't fit with what you're comfortable with or with tradition... is not using one's brain nor intuition properly, IMO.

All correct, from a certain point of view.

But let's revisit Joseph's own words from the scriptures.

"‘I saw two Personages, whose brightness and glory defy all description, standing above me in the air. One of them spake unto me, calling me by name and said, pointing to the other—This is My Beloved Son. Hear Him!’ (JS—H 1:17).”

It was an actual event, real vision, seen with his eyes, and recorded with his own words.

I really love the way President Hinckley phrased the reality of that sacred event:

"...There, in circumstances which he has described in much detail, he beheld the Father and the Son, the great God of the universe and the risen Lord, both of whom spoke to him.

"This transcendent experience opened the marvelous work of restoration. It lifted the curtain on the long-promised dispensation of the fulness of times.

"For more than a century and a half, enemies, critics, and some would-be scholars have worn out their lives trying to disprove the validity of that vision. Of course they cannot understand it. The things of God are understood by the Spirit of God. There had been nothing of comparable magnitude since the Son of God walked the earth in mortality. Without it as a foundation stone for our faith and organization, we have nothing. With it, we have everything.

"Much has been written, much will be written, in an effort to explain it away. The finite mind cannot comprehend it. But the testimony of the Holy Spirit, experienced by countless numbers of people all through the years since it happened, bears witness that it is true, that it happened as Joseph Smith said it happened, that it was as real as the sunrise over Palmyra, that it is an essential foundation stone, a cornerstone, without which the Church could not be 'fitly framed together.' "

Gordon B. Hinckley, "The Cornerstones of Our Faith," Ensign, Nov. 1984, 52

He propheside some things wrong... like saying Jesus would return within 56 years (History of the Church, vol. 2, p. 189).

I would also add that I don't agree with your perception that this was a prophecy, wrong or right. No offense, but it appears to me that this is straight out of the anti's playbook.

Here's some useful info on the topic.

http://www.fairwiki.org/Joseph_Smith/Alleged_false_prophecies/Second_Coming_to_be_in_1890

Whiteness does NOT equate to purity & perfection.

Are outerspace... the depths of the sea, tree roots underground, or navy suits imperfect because they aren't white or lack light?

We've got to get away from associating white skin with rightousness. It simply is wrong & causes others pain. Don't you realize that, Tao?

It may not cause you pain because you're white, but if we want to show love to others... to be like God, who IS love... then we must learn to empathize with others different from us & to show compassion.

I suspect that you've been hurt by someone with less than pure motives in the church. I'm sorry for that, but I believe you're barking up the wrong tree.

Think Samuel the Lamanite. He was more righteous than all the "fair" Nephites, his skin color made no difference whatsoever.

Forgive the pun, but all is not so black and white.

I previously wrote, "Why should a parent know more than a child?"

Obviously, healthy parents know more than their newborn & children (minors) about most things. There could be exceptions like with geniuses, but that's rare & still, parents tend to have more wisdom through experience. Again, my point being... parents know more because they've experienced more over time. We're learning & progressing with time. In every field of study, as a human race, we're learning more... including archeology. Now we have a better idea of what a man during Jesus' time & are might have looked like.

http://en.wikipedia....i/Race_of_Jesus

Joseph, did NOT teach us to just accept anything without questioning. Nor did Jesus.

They taught to question, & to seek learning through study and by faith.

To blindly follow is what the adversary taught, not Joseph, nor Jesus.

...Brother Joseph did not SEE with his eyes...

Woah! Joseph did not SEE with his eyes? I've never heard that doctrine. Yes he was quickened in spirit in order to spare him death by seeing God, but please provide references that the First Vision was a mere spiritual experience that could be interpreted differently...

And again, I would ask, what possible difference does it make if men Jesus's time looked a certain way? Christ was the son of God, and son of Man.

Joseph's visions were real, and his testimony of the fact is real. He saw what he saw, and recorded what he recorded.

I don't blindly follow, but I don't "not follow" unless it makes sense to my mortal understanding. That's a dangerous approach, imo.

Why should a parent know more than a child? Why should our medical books be more accurate than 100 years ago? We progress... through learning, including archeology.

I also believe Joseph Smith was a prophet... in the sense that he lead people in a new direction, spiritually, religiously & culturally.

Joseph Smith had a spiritual experience... spiritual experiences (as evident in scriptures & LDS NDEs) are based on what we resonate with & largely intepreted subjectively.

When I've had spiritual experiences, they were visually unclear... yet the feeling was clear & I can still feel it when I think about it... but visually seeing spirits is periphial at best.

It's not a visual thing as much as an intuitive thing, as Jesus taught, "The kingdom of God cometh not with observation... the kingdom of God is WITHIN you." (Luke 17)

A spiritual experience is not EITHER real OR not. It's too subjective & based on faith for that.

IMO, an attitude of eitiher or (black or white thinking) is not healthy psychologically nor spiritually.

I don't think we're going to agree on the significance and reality of the first VISION and the others that he had. They were much more than mere spiritual experiences, they were manifestations of persons, down to the eye color, hair color, skin color, style of clothing or lack thereof. I'm sorry if that's painful to some, but I believe it to be true.

As to children knowing more than their parents, I believe that to be a fallacy. All knowledge is not truth. I think our generation could learn a few things from preceding ones.

My tagline shares a bit of why I believe Joseph knew much more than he even shared with the saints. I believe we would be well advised to err on the side of accepting his words to us instead of questioning everything he said in the gauge of "was he speaking as a prophet or not?" But that's just me.

So, you think Joseph Smith was infallible & omnipotent??

He knew much less what Jesus LOOKED like than we do.

Many, including him, make up their imaginations of what Jesus looks like which is influenced by tradition.

Back in the 1400's, Cesare Borgia's image was used to depict Jesus & many (including LDS) pictures of Jesus reflect this...

http://en.wikipedia....i/Cesare_Borgia

Just as you wouldn't expect archeologists to be expert in church revelations, you wouldn't expect Joseph Smith to be expert in archeology.

I realize that tradition is hard to let go, but when it harms people, tradition needs to be released... like inaccurately depicting Jesus with fair skin & associating skin tone with rightousness.

As you treat others you treat Christ... It's also written that if you reject Christ, Christ will reject you.

Try to be open to the reality of diversity... & that "the kingdom of God is within" not dependent on skin tone.

Accepting Jesus for who he was is a good start... & that will influence how you treat others who look like Jesus.

http://haha.nu/scien...-face-of-jesus/

Why should he know less what he looked like than we do???

He saw Him, more than once. I believe he was a prophet and I believe in the real and literal sense of the manifestations from heaven.

I haven't seen him, I suspect you haven't either. Anyone else that has that we should be talking about that we should put their testimony above that of Joseph's?

Either the visions he has were real, and he recorded them as fact or they weren't. It's pretty simple to me.

Where did Joseph describe Him as having a light complexion and blue eyes?

I've looked for a physical description and haven't been able to find one.

It's from the 1844 account of the First Vision.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Vision

Really, I think this whole notion is a bit backwards. If we really believe Jesus to the the only begotten of the Father, even if we assume Mary was dark skinned, since when do we try to put Mary's genes as superior or domineering above those of God the Father?

We know Christ is in the express image of the Father, so someone has to prove God the Father had dark skin for this kind of an argument to work.

Sorry I have no biases toward or against people with darker skin, but I can't stomach theology based on political correctness.