Origins of The 'No Blood Before The Fall' Teaching

[David T]

A popular teaching of Joseph Fielding Smith in his Man, His Origin and Destiny, (and Doctrines of Salvation) later picked up by Bruce McConkie, and also reprinted in the Bible Dictionary and institute manuals, is that prior to partaking the forbidden fruit, Adam did not have blood running through his veins. He didn't reference where the teaching came from, only that 'it has been taught'.

I did some research, and only found two references to it being taught, never by a President of the Church. The first reference I found was by Orson Pratt, Journal of Discourses 7:251, September 11, 1859

Death had no dominion over his (Adam's) tabernacle: the principle of blood which flows in the mortal tabernacles of men did not exist in his immortal body; but his veins and arteries contained a fluid of a far purer nature than

that of blood: in other words, they were filled with the spirit of life, which was calculated to preserve them in immortality. Though they partook of various kinds of fruit in the garden, yet therewas no fruit in that garden, except one

called the forbidden fruit, which would have the least tendency to destroy the principles of immortality that reigned within them. They were organized to endure,bodies and spirits united, millions of ages. By the transgression of that simple

law given to them, they fell from immortality to mortality: their bodies partook of disease; the seeds of death were sown within them; and in the day that Adam ate thereof (reckoning according to the Lord's time), he passed away and

returned to his mother dust.

Years later, Erastus Snow echoed this sentiment, JD 19:271-272, March 3, 1878

death passed upon our first parents, Adam and Eve, through their partaking of the fruits of the earth, their systems became infected by it, and the blood formed in their veins, and composed of the elements of the earth, which they partook, and these contain the seeds of dissolution and decay. And this blood, circulating in their veins, which was made up of the fruits of the earth—those things of which they partook—that formed their flesh, and made the deposits that constituted their muscle, and their bones, arteries and nerves, and every part of the body, became mortal and this circulating fluid in their systems produced friction which ultimately wore out the machinery of their organism, and brought it to decay, that it became no longer tenable for their spirits to inhabit, and death ensued;

Inbetween those quotes, however we have a quote from Brigham Young stating he believed something different:

JD 9:283, February 23, 1862

Man is the offspring of God. Who can fully realize this? Our Heavenly Father orders all things that pertain to this earth and to multitudes of worlds of which we are ignorant. We are as much the children of this great Being as we

are the children of our mortal progenitors. We are flesh of his flesh, bone of his bone, and the same fluid that circulates in our bodies, called blood, once circulated in his veins as it does in ours.

It appears he believed the Blood was inherited directly from God (which ties into his view that the Father himself came down, partook of the 'course material' of the earth, and had his body 'changed' in a way to beget physical tabernacles), which is decidedly different from the Pratt/Snow/Smith/McConkie view.

There's lots of Adam/Creation/Evolution issues that can be discussed, but I'd like to limit this thread to a discussion of and history of this particular teaching (no blood before the fall). Any ideas? any references predating Pratt, or did Pratt coin it, and people ran with it?

[MDalby]

The first reference that I am aware of was by Orson Pratt in The Seer. which was before the JD reference. The Seer I believe was in the early 1850's.

MD

EDIT: I love my friend Google: 1853-1854 is the date for The Seer.

[mercyngrace]

I'm going to show myself an absolute idiot here since I haven't studied this topic so please bear with me... but I don't see how Brigham Young's statement contradicts the first two.

Man is the offspring of God. Who can fully realize this? Our Heavenly Father orders all things that pertain to this earth and to multitudes of worlds of which we are ignorant. We are as much the children of this great Being as we

are the children of our mortal progenitors. We are flesh of his flesh, bone of his bone, and the same fluid that circulates in our bodies, called blood, once circulated in his veins as it does in ours.

The way I read this quote, God ONCE had blood coursing through his veins. That doesn't oppose the idea that Adam and Eve had something different in their veins before the Fall.

So, let's say God once had blood, back when He was progressing through mortality. Let's suppose He did not have blood when Adam and Eve were created or begotten.

Let's just suppose God's offspring, Adam and Eve, inherited the purer substance described by Pratt. Then they partook of the "fruit" and introduced degradation and decay. Could not blood, as we presently have it, be a by-product or symptom of the disease of mortality?

Adam and Eve were immortal prior to the Fall since the scriptures say death was introduced via their transgression. And they would be immortal, being fathered by God, right up until they injected themselves with whatever contagion that turned the very fluid in their veins into a slow-acting poison.

2 Nephi says that had A&E not partaken, they would have "remained forever". Could it be precisely because they would have been immortal albeit ignorant and not like God? It's interesting that when Eve gives birth to Cain she says "I have gotten a man from the Lord" (Moses 5). Wouldn't it be interesting if she spoke thus because she was aware that her son was the first begotten "man" on Earth, she and Adam having been something else before the Fall?

If this is really a dumb idea - could you patiently explain (type very slowly ;-) where my train of thought derailed ;-)

[Joseph Antley]

I agree with Mercyngrace. Brigham Young didn't teach something different, at least not in the quote you provided.

[thesometimesaint]

I think there is a whole lot of speculation going on.

[mercyngrace]

I think there is a whole lot of speculation going on.

Of course there is ;-) I was just trying to illustrate how the ideas expressed in the quotes don't necessarily contradict each other. I do think I've read other quotes that substantiate bits of what I suggested but I haven't taken the time to delve into this topic and I just don't remember them.

[David T]

Here's what appears to be the original speculation by Orson Pratt from the Seer:

The Seer, Volume 1, #5, pg 70. May, 1853

If any living creature, had been subject to death, or any manner of pain, it would not have been perfect in its organization; it could not have been pronounced good ; neither would it have been consistent, as the work of an all-wise and supremely good Being. Perfection characterizes all the works of God, therefore, all the tabernacles

which he made from the dust, must have been capable of eternal endurance.

There must have been something connected with these fleshly tabernacles which was capable of preserving them in immortality. What was this something ? It was doubtless a fluid which circulated through the system in every part thereof; preserving it from decay, and from being impaired by age, renewing, if necessary, any part thereof, that disease, sickness, pain, and death, could have no dominion. The circulating apparatus for the conveyance of this fluid, was, no doubt, the veins and arteries, as they extend forth in innumerable branches, and in minute

ramifications to every extremity of the organization. The fluid, now circulating through this apparatus, is the blood : but the blood does not renew our systems and give immortality to our present bodies ;

Blood, instead of imparting eternal life to the system, only imparts a natural or temporal life, and contains within itself all the ingredients of decay and death or dissolution. It is reasonable to suppose, then, that a fluid of a more refined and life-giving nature, flowed through the bodily organizations of our first Parents, and all the other animal creation—that this fluid was the life-preserving agent, that imparted immortality to all flesh, so long as they retained it in their systems.

As this fluid could not have been blood which contains the seeds of death, What kind of substance was it ? We reply, that it must have been a spiritual substance or fluid, which is the only kind of substance capable of preserving any organization in immortality.

Were there any trees, or fruits, or vegetables of any kind which the Lord had planted, that were calculated, if eaten, to counteract, or subvert the operations of this spiritual fluid, and introduce into the system a fluid of a different nature ! There was only one tree which would produce these deleterious effects—only one tree whose fruit, if taken into the system, would change it from immortality to mortality—all other fruits and vegetables were so constructed as to produce no harm ; hence they were the only food which God gave to the immortal animals which he placed upon this earth. We may suppose that the vegetable creation, with the exception of this one tree, contained, at that time, no poisons—no ingredients of decay and death—no injurious combinations unadapted to immortal flesh and bones. The bodies of Adam and Eve, and of all the fish, fowls, and beasts which God made directly out of the dust, would have been still living as fresh and as fair as when they first came from the hand of their Maker, if Adam had not partaken of the forbidden fruit. All other fruits were good for them, and they might have feasted upon them to all eternity without destroying the immortality of their bodies.

Unless any additional information is brought to light, this appears to be the beginning of this teaching. Not a revelation to Joseph Smith, or Brigham Young, or any other sitting President of the Church.

Interesting enough, In 1865, a majority of the First Presidency and the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles officially condemned some of Pratt's doctrinal declarations contained in The Seer:

"The Seer [and other writings by Pratt] contain doctrines which we cannot sanction, and which we have felt impressed to disown, so that the Saints who now live, and who may live hereafter, may not be misled by our silence, or be left to misinterpret it. Where these objectionable works, or parts of works, are bound in volumes, or otherwise, they should be cut out and destroyed." (Deseret News, Aug. 12, 1865, 373;)

However, it appears Joseph Fielding Smith (before he became President of the Church), revived this teaching as support for his anti-evolutionary teachings in his books that were not Official Publications of the Church. He repeated it, Elder McConkie repeated it, eventually put it in the Bible Dictionary, and thus it became 'accepted'.

[mercyngrace]

The Seer, Volume 1, #5, pg 70. May, 1853

Unless any additional information is brought to light, this appears to be the beginning of this teaching. Not a revelation to Joseph Smith, or Brigham Young, or any other sitting President of the Church.

Interesting enough, In 1865, a majority of the First Presidency and the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles officially condemned some of Pratt's doctrinal declarations contained in The Seer:

"The Seer [and other writings by Pratt] contain doctrines which we cannot sanction, and which we have felt impressed to disown, so that the Saints who now live, and who may live hereafter, may not be misled by our silence, or be left to misinterpret it. Where these objectionable works, or parts of works, are bound in volumes, or otherwise, they should be cut out and destroyed." (Deseret News, Aug. 12, 1865, 373;)

However, it appears Joseph Fielding Smith (before he became President of the Church), revived this teaching as support for his anti-evolutionary teachings in his books that were not Official Publications of the Church. He repeated it, Elder McConkie repeated it, eventually put it in the Bible Dictionary, and thus it became 'accepted'.

Thanks for explaining this! I hadn't ever read the statement condemning The Seer and Pratt's ideas are definitely the like ones I heard from my own father years ago.

So do you interpret the BY quote as support for evolution?

[David T]

So do you interpret the BY quote as support for evolution?

No, based on the context of Brigham Young's teachings.

[ERMD]

I remember hearing this "spiritual fluid" thing back in the 1970's. I think it is specualtion on Pratt's part, and I have never been able to find any scriptural basis for it. I'm kind of surprised it is in the Bible Dictionary, but there it is.

[mercyngrace]

No, based on the context of Brigham Young's teachings.

Young believed man was the natural offspring of God. Got it. But even if we start with BY's belief as a given, I still don't see how the quotes above contradict. That's why I asked the evolution question - trying to figure out where you're going with this train of thought.

[David T]

Young believed man was the natural offspring of God. Got it. But even if we start with BY's belief as a given, I still don't see how the quotes above contradict. That's why I asked the evolution question - trying to figure out where you're going with this train of thought.

One strain of Brigham's teachings seemed to be as follows:

1) God, with Celestial Body, came down to earth, with a wife

2) Partook/ate of the 'course materials' of the earth and charged himself with it

3) With the body charged with such 'earthly' materials, begat the physical bodies of Man.

4) Man born formed from these 'earthly' materials, which is the source of blood.

[Notquitewetyet]

Here's what appears to be the original speculation by Orson Pratt from the Seer:

The Seer, Volume 1, #5, pg 70. May, 1853

Unless any additional information is brought to light, this appears to be the beginning of this teaching. Not a revelation to Joseph Smith, or Brigham Young, or any other sitting President of the Church.

Interesting enough, In 1865, a majority of the First Presidency and the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles officially condemned some of Pratt's doctrinal declarations contained in The Seer:

"The Seer [and other writings by Pratt] contain doctrines which we cannot sanction, and which we have felt impressed to disown, so that the Saints who now live, and who may live hereafter, may not be misled by our silence, or be left to misinterpret it. Where these objectionable works, or parts of works, are bound in volumes, or otherwise, they should be cut out and destroyed." (Deseret News, Aug. 12, 1865, 373;)

However, it appears Joseph Fielding Smith (before he became President of the Church), revived this teaching as support for his anti-evolutionary teachings in his books that were not Official Publications of the Church. He repeated it, Elder McConkie repeated it, eventually put it in the Bible Dictionary, and thus it became 'accepted'.

The reason the Seer was denounced was because it denied that God himself could continue to progress. See Conflict in the Quorum. I don't have a copy of it with me, but it's detailed there. Oddly enough, BRM denounced the idea of an eternally progressing Heavenly Father in his "Heresies" tirade.