Evolution, Veganism, Death and the Fall

[mfbukowski]

As a TBM member of the LDS church who believes in evolution, I have recently been discussing the "death before the fall" problem in another thread. The argument is sometimes erroneously made that evolution is not compatible with the gospel, because the gospel requires that death came into the world through Adam's transgression or there would be no need for the atonement; evolution dictates that there was death before Adam's fall, therefore if evolution were true, there would be no need for the atonement, and the savior would have died in vain.

My answer to the alleged problem is that there is in fact no problem; that what is important is the human understanding and context of what "death" is, as distinguished from what death "means" to animals, that there was no "death" in a human context before the fall, and that solves the problem. People think of death in a very different way than any other species (I assert) and it is the CONTEXT of the human understanding of the word "death" itself here that is the issue.

To illustrate what I mean, let's talk about Veganism. A Vegan is a person who does not use animal products for health or most usually, for ethical reasons. Vegans believe that their decisions promote a more "caring and humane world".

I don't really want to discuss Veganism here, but use it solely to make a point. Vegans are of course humans, and in my view, illustrate an exaggerated, but very human perspective to what "death" and especially what the death of an animal means, not to animals, but to humans.

Can you imagine a vegan wolf? A vegan dinosaur, raccoon, worm, lion, cow, deer or elephant? For that matter, a vegan plant which refuses to grow in organic material provided by the death of another organism?

The notion is absurd. Animals and plants do not make ethical decisions, much less ethical decisions about death. A wolf who decided not to eat meat for ethical reasons would starve because his entire physical system is designed exclusively for a diet of meat.

Animals do not have a sense of ethics, in the same way that humans do. They do not think of death the way humans do. Vultures see road kill as a meal ticket. We see a dead dog lying by the side of the road and think "Oh, some person's dog got hit- that's too bad" while a coyote relative of the dead dog licks his chops.

You don't have to be a vegan to be squeamish about going out and killing something for dinner. Many many of us have never killed a large animal, removed its internal organs, skinned it, hacked it up and carried it out, loaded it in a car, and taken it home for dinner.

Why are we squeamish about that? Because we have a different sense of death than animals do. I think even those who were raised on a farm, as children probably were squeamish about killing animals.

Death does not mean the same thing to animals as it does to humans.

So I think "no death before the fall" means that there was no understanding of human death before there were humans.

The logic of it seems pretty self evident.

But there is another aspect of this as well.

The theology of "no death before the fall" is backwards.

When we read the scriptures, they tell us that SIN comes before death. "The wages of sin are death".

Animals don't sin. They don't have the understanding to be capable of sin.

The fact that we don't ascribe "sin" to animals further proves that animals are IN A WHOLE DIFFERENT moral context than we are. A tiger which eats a person is not tried for murder. He has done nothing wrong- he is simply following his instinct.

The supposed problem of "no death before the fall" used as a counter-argument to evolution is really a non sequitur.

Theologically, the fact is there was NO SIN BEFORE THE FALL and it was sin that brought death into the world.

Theologically, this states the same point I am making in a slightly different way- sin occurs only witin a human context, and the kind of "death" it brings is "death" in a human context.

Without that human context there can be no human understanding of EITHER "death" OR "Sin". And really if you want to get down to it, both of these are words. Words are meaningful only in language. Language IS the human context which gives both these words meaning to us.

So it is not that there was "no death before the fall", the correct statement is that there was "no SIN before the fall" and animals cannot sin! No humans, no sin, no human context for sin or death.

In this light the whole problem of "no death before the fall" evaporates.

To me, this proves that theologically there is no issue of "no death before the fall", and so the entire question is simply irrelevant to evolution. Theologically, sin is required for there to be death. Animals don't sin, so there could be no "death" before the fall because there were no people The savior saved us from both sin AND death.

What do you think?

[Jason]

Why don't the scriptures say there was no sin before the Fall then, instead of saying there was no death?

And wasn't there still no death in the human sense until Able was slain? Wouldn't it be more accurate to say then that there was no death until there was murder?

[thesometimesaint]

mfbukowski:

Plausible. I haven't really given it that much though. But I do like your idea.

[mfbukowski]

Why don't the scriptures say there was no sin before the Fall then, instead of saying there was no death?

And wasn't there still no death in the human sense until Able was slain? Wouldn't it be more accurate to say then that there was no death until there was murder?

I was actually thinking about that, especially in the example of the tiger eating the person. I think murder is probably the most serious sin because on one hand it totally wipes out another person, but it does so willfully and so it is almost the definition of sin itself. It is denying the importance of "humaness" and turning us effectively into animals who do kill each other without regard.

Do you know of any scriptures which mention "death" specifically without mentioning sin first? Maybe I am wrong, but I don't think there are.

But even if there are, sin as "enmity toward God" is essentially putting one's will ahead of the Giver of Life. I personally feel that sin is closely tied to death. Every sin we commit kills us a little.

That is I think why section 84 speaks of the oath and covenant of the priesthood as being physically renewing. Righteous living renews us, sin brings us closer to death. I really do believe that.

[ERayR]

mfbukowski:

Plausible. I haven't really given it that much though. But I do like your idea.

If there was no sin before the fall then what was it when satan and 1/3 of the hosts of heaven rebelled and were punished? Or are you saying the fall was before that?

[Jason]

Do you know of any scriptures which mention "death" specifically without mentioning sin first? Maybe I am wrong, but I don't think there are.

No I don't see any on a cursory search, but that does raise the question of why many of them speak of both sin and death together, if what they really mean is just sin.

But even if there are, sin as "enmity toward God" is essentially putting one's will ahead of the Giver of Life. I personally feel that sin is closely tied to death. Every sin we commit kills us a little.

Certainly that is true in a spiritual sense.

[mfbukowski]

No I don't see any on a cursory search, but that does raise the question of why many of them speak of both sin and death together, if what they really mean is just sin.

Certainly that is true in a spiritual sense.

I like this one:

2Nephi 9:39 O, my beloved brethren, remember the awfulness in transgressing against that Holy God, and also the awfulness of yielding to the enticings of that cunning one. Remember, to be carnally-minded is death, and to be spiritually-minded is life eternal.

That one helps my case significantly I think.

[Facsimile 3]

If there was no sin before the fall then what was it when satan and 1/3 of the hosts of heaven rebelled and were punished? Or are you saying the fall was before that?

1914 (silly)

No, we believe that Satan and his hosts were cast down before the fall. Sin was introduced into the world (world of man being those with a body of flesh and bone (tabernacled beings)) by Adam and Even partaking of the fruit from the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil.

[mfbukowski]

If there was no sin before the fall then what was it when satan and 1/3 of the hosts of heaven rebelled and were punished? Or are you saying the fall was before that?

Oh, good point! Of course that was before the fall.

But I think that proves what I am talking about. Their rebellion led to spiritual death. It was the rebellion which caused their death. Of course they were not human, there were no humans yet.

But certainly it is the act of defying God which caused their spiritual deaths, nothing else.

But of course that is not a problem because those who bring up the whole argument of "no death before the fall" also think that satan rebelled before the fall and brought spiritual death to 1/3 the hosts of heaven.

[ERayR]

Oh, good point! Of course that was before the fall.

But I think that proves what I am talking about. Their rebellion led to spiritual death. It was the rebellion which caused their death. Of course they were not human, there were no humans yet.

But certainly it is the act of defying God which caused their spiritual deaths, nothing else.

But of course that is not a problem because those who bring up the whole argument of "no death before the fall" also think that satan rebelled before the fall and brought spiritual death to 1/3 the hosts of heaven.

I can see what you are saying. But of course there was death before the fall. It is plainly stated that Adam and Eve were ejected from the garden into a world of chos and death. What is not plainly stated is what kind of beings, if any, other than a multitude of animal kinds inhabited that telestial world.

[cinepro]

So I think "no death before the fall" means that there was no understanding of human death before there were humans.

....

Without that human context there can be no human understanding of EITHER "death" OR "Sin". And really if you want to get down to it, both of these are words. Words are meaningful only in language. Language IS the human context which gives both these words meaning to us.

If the scriptures (and prophets) used the word "death" interchangeably to mean both physical death and spiritual death, you might have a point. As it is, the two are distinctly enumerated in the doctrine:

Physical Death

Spiritual Death

Additionally, we know that God (an exalted Man), Jesus and Adam/Michael were around during the creation process. It's also possible that we as spirit children were allowed to watch. So we can't say it was an "unobserved" creation; there was at least one Human to observe it and give it context (especially if God is the source of this knowledge in the first place).

So it is not that there was "no death before the fall", the correct statement is that there was "no SIN before the fall" and animals cannot sin! No humans, no sin, no human context for sin or death.

In this light the whole problem of "no death before the fall" evaporates.

To me, this proves that theologically there is no issue of "no death before the fall", and so the entire question is simply irrelevant to evolution. Theologically, sin is required for there to be death. Animals don't sin, so there could be no "death" before the fall because there were no people The savior saved us from both sin AND death.

What do you think?

Animals might not be able to sin (i.e. "spiritual death"), but they are able to die (i.e. "physical death"). All animals have a spirit in order to live, not just humans. As long as the doctrine defines physical death as "the separation of the spirit from the mortal body" without qualifying it with semantics and metaphysical considerations, I think we'll have to say that animals that had their spirits leave their bodies before the Fall of Adam did experience "physical death".

Ultimately, if you developed your theory into a book, I suspect it would end up on the "New Age" aisle at Borders.

[mfbukowski]

If the scriptures (and prophets) used the word "death" interchangeably to mean both physical death and spiritual death, you might have a point. As it is, the two are distinctly enumerated in the doctrine:

Physical Death

Spiritual Death

Yet both, as we have discussed come from disobedience. I fail to see how this makes any difference whatsoever. The point is that disobedience (sin) leads to death. And yes, it could be spiritual death or physical death. But still sin leads to death.

Additionally, we know that God (an exalted Man), Jesus and Adam/Michael were around during the creation process. It's also possible that we as spirit children were allowed to watch. So we can't say it was an "unobserved" creation; there was at least one Human to observe it and give it context (especially if God is the source of this knowledge in the first place).

I still don't see your point. Observation has nothing to do with it. God may be "human" but most certainly his situation is a little different from ours. We are being tested, in this sense he is the "teacher" who has the answers. If God sinned, he would cease to be God, as has been stated in many places. And if you are saying that God's context of death is the same as a human context, I will say to you the same thing I said to you on the other thread, which is that you are highly mistaken. Can you imagine God mourning at the death of a human? To him it is a simple "reassignment" from one side of the veil to the other. God may be human in a sense but he is certainly NOT in our "context" in any way shape or form. The entire plan of salvation is about how different he is, and what we may become. (ie: becoming like him). To do so is our greatest aspiration, in the most literal sense of that word.

Animals might not be able to sin (i.e. "spiritual death"), but they are able to die (i.e. "physical death"). All animals have a spirit in order to live, not just humans. As long as the doctrine defines physical death as "the separation of the spirit from the mortal body" without qualifying it with semantics and metaphysical considerations, I think we'll have to say that animals that had their spirits leave their bodies before the Fall of Adam did experience "physical death".

Well as usual, it is all in the definitions isn't it? The whole point of this is that animal "death" is not the same as human "death".

Another way of putting this is that animal spirits leaving animal bodies is different than human spirits leaving human bodies.

I am not asserting that no animals ceased to be alive (or "died" if you want)before the fall, I am asserting that such "death" has LITERALLY "no meaning" to humans. On the previous thread you tried to make the same point by posting a photo of dinosaur bones which appeared in a museum. I said:

I cannot think of anything which puts this death in a human context MORE than 1- having a human dig it up -2- process it, assemble it, cover it with plastic or whatever,3- put it in a museum for people to see, then 4- take its photograph, and then post it on the internet! I think there is just a tad bit of human intervention there.

Perhaps I phrased it poorly. Instead of saying "Do you know of any deaths which happened before humans were here to experience them?" I really should have said "any evidence of deaths that humans have not put in a human context", and that would include present as well as past.

If we don't put phenomena into a human context, we cannot experience or know it. In fact, that is what we mean by those words! The minute you see something or say it, you have organized it into a human context! Your optic nerve is part of your brain- by the time it gets that far, it's "too late"- it has already been ordered by the rods and or cones in your retina into a picture.

Using ANY definition is putting it into a human context.

It would be nice if you came up with some new arguments instead of re-hashing the old ones. I don't learn anything from old arguments.

Ultimately, if you developed your theory into a book, I suspect it would end up on the "New Age" aisle at Borders.

OH NO! Please don't throw me in that briar patch!

You need to get out more. All this contexualism stuff comes out of pretty pedantic modern philosophy. You should read some. It's mostly out of the notion of "language games" in Wittgenstein. Not exactly new age.

[Vance]

I don't know if I buy your thesis, but;

1 Cor. 15:39 All flesh is not the same flesh: but there is one kind of flesh of men, another flesh of beasts, another of fishes, and another of birds.

Although the context of this chapter is the resurrection, this verse may be evidence in favor of your thesis.

[mfbukowski]

About Wittgenstein's language games:

http://users.sfo.com/~rathbone/word.htm

The idea is that if we think in terms of language games, that is, if we ask how our language games are taught and how they are used, then we will begin to see past certain myths in our culture that trap us in misleading pictures of language processes and communication. Getting past these pictures will enable us to see human psychology with fresh eyes, but what we see with fresh eyes is not predetermined. Wittgenstein does not tell us what we will see. He simply helps us see past these ancient pictures because --.

115. A 'picture' held us captive. And we could not get outside it, for it lay in our language and language seemed to repeat it to us inexorably.

His purpose is simiply to help us see pass these muddles. He says:

464. My aim is: to teach you to pass from a piece of disguised nonsense to something that is patent nonsense

This is precisely the problem. The 'picture' of "no death before the fall" is holding us captive and we are repeating it inexorably.

[mfbukowski]

I don't know if I buy your thesis, but;

1 Cor. 15:39 All flesh is not the same flesh: but there is one kind of flesh of men, another flesh of beasts, another of fishes, and another of birds.

Although the context of this chapter is the resurrection, this verse may be evidence in favor of your thesis.

Thank you.

I definitely consider it "evidence" and have practically worn a hole in the page underlining it in 17 colors in my scriptures.

And I think it is highly relevant that this quote appears in this chapter on the resurrection as well. This is the chapter where the difference between celestial terrestrial and telestial bodies are described as well.

I think exaltation is becoming "one celestial flesh" with Heavenly Father through the resurrection and that Adam himself was "new flesh" which is one way this thesis I am presenting fits into a larger picture, and that Paul was seeing it just as I am describing it, though he was speaking in veiled language. In short, I am suggesting that Paul saw this concept of becoming "new flesh" as a great mystery. In fact, if you search the epistles for the word "flesh" you will see that within a verse or two if not in the same verse, you will find the word "mystery" nearly always associated with the word "flesh".

I think that the concept of the "body of Christ" is linked to this, as well as becoming "one flesh" with our wives or husbands when we are sealed. We become one flesh with the Bridegroom, the Second Adam, through the Church of the Firstborn.

But that is for another day. But thanks again for pointing that out.

Edit: Let me just throw this out there. If God directed evolution, and caused it to go as it has, this becoming "new flesh" is simply the process of eternal progression in which the dust of the earth ultimately becomes God himself, as our bodies become celestialized.

I hate the word "evolution"; to me it is a directed transformation of flesh

[cinepro]

Another way of putting this is that animal spirits leaving animal bodies is different than human spirits leaving human bodies.

That is the crux of your argument, and you need to find some support for it in the scriptures or the statements of the Prophets, because so far, they have been pretty uniform in stating that there weren't any human or animal deaths before the fall.

"2 Nephi 2:22. ' All Things' Were Affected by the Fall of Adam.

"Elder Bruce R. McConkie explained how all things were connected to the Fall of Adam: ' Then comes the Fall; Adam falls; mortality and procreation and death commence. Fallen man is mortal; he has mortal flesh; he is "the first flesh upon the earth." And the effects of his fall pass upon all created things. They fall in that they too become mortal. Death enters the world; mortality reigns; procreation commences; and the Lord's great and eternal purposes roll onward....'

" ' Mortality and procreation and death all had their beginnings with the Fall....

" ' ...An infinite Creator, in the primeval day, made the earth and man and all forms of life in such a state that they could fall. This fall involved a change of status. All things were so created that they could fall or change....

" '...In the primeval and Edenic day all forms of life lived in a higher state than now prevails.... Death and procreation had yet to enter the world.' " (Book of Mormon Student Manual, Religion 121-122, 2009, pp.53-54.)

Notice the date on that manual. This is a brand new publication from the Church, and presumably reflects the most up-to-date doctrine on the subject.

I would challenge you to "Dueling Quotes", but I sincerely doubt you can find a single quote anywhere in the Church website to support your view.

[mfbukowski]

That is the crux of your argument, and you need to find some support for it in the scriptures or the statements of the Prophets, because so far, they have been pretty uniform in stating that there weren't any human or animal deaths before the fall.

Notice the date on that manual. This is a brand new publication from the Church, and presumably reflects the most up-to-date doctrine on the subject.

I would challenge you to "Dueling Quotes", but I sincerely doubt you can find a single quote anywhere in the Church website to support your view.

You know you are wrong here. You know that evolution is taught at BYU, you know that the church refuses to take a stand on evolution, and even has guidelines published for what is and what is not doctrinal on the subject. And you also know that the very manual you quoted does not teach that evolution is wrong.

I agree with every word of that manual.

You are not understanding any of this.

I agree with every word of your quote, and disagree with the objective of your post.

The church website has no articles on the nature of language. You are mixing two different contexts for the words you use, and I can prove it. You supposedly believe that there was no "death before the fall" and yet you show dead dinosaurs to prove there WAS. You really should make up your mind; you are being totally inconsistent.

General authorities do not teach about logic or the nature of language. They are not teaching philosophy, they are teaching religion, thank God.

They teach spiritual truths, not logical or scientific truths. I am attempting to reconcile spiritual and scientific "language games", nothing more, nothing less. This whole thread is about language contexts and how we can confuse them. I wouldn't expect to find that on the church website.

Edit: I went to the supermarket tonight, and passed down the pet aisle. I noticed a package of some kind of triangular leathery things, and wondered what they were. They were pork ears, cut off and dried, and sold as chewy things for dogs to play with and chew on.

I thought for a disgusting second what it would be like to live in a world where human ears were treated the same way.

If you think that animal death and human death are the same thing, I would suggest you rethink your position.

[Mighty Curelom]

It's been a close contest, and I want to congratulate all the nominees. This has been another fantastic year, with truly astounding efforts of the utmost quality, but there can be only one winner. So, without further delay, the Nibley award for most the contrived, heretical, bizarre attempt to reconcile Mormon doctrine with observable reality goes to....

MFBUKOWSKI!

Congratulations, and keep up the good work.

[mfbukowski]

It's been a close contest, and I want to congratulate all the nominees. This has been another fantastic year, with truly astounding efforts of the utmost quality, but there can be only one winner. So, without further delay, the Nibley award for most the contrived, heretical, bizarre attempt to reconcile Mormon doctrine with observable reality goes to....

MFBUKOWSKI!

Congratulations, and keep up the good work.

Ok Mr. Smarty pants, I guess you could not come up with an argument, so you just lobbed an insult. Par for the course.

Let's talk a little about observable reality, shall we?

Human observable reality or someone else's? I am going to enjoy this one immensely.

I only know what humans observe - do you know something else?

[Vance]

This may be a bit of a tangent.

I believe that these verses are very significant but that a little bit gets missed in the translation.

1 John 4:2 Hereby know ye the Spirit of God: Every spirit that confesseth that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is of God:

3 And every spirit that confesseth not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is not of God: and this is that spirit of antichrist, whereof ye have heard that it should come; and even now already is it in the world.

Obviously, to John, the taking on of flesh (in a permanent fashion, notice the tense) was so significant that the antichrist would deny, at all costs, that it had occurred.

This has implications regarding the apostasy and the corruption of the true nature of God and His Christ.

John also said this;

2 Jn. 1:7 For many deceivers are entered into the world, who confess not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh. This is a deceiver and an antichrist.

As well as this;

John 1:14 And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth.

[mfbukowski]

As well as this;

John 1:14 And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth.

What is interesting also is in this verse the Greek word for "dwelt" is translatable as "tented" or "tabernacled" (as in the Feast of Tabernacles)implying a temporary dwelling place. Human flesh was not to be his permanent abode. Look it up in Strong's.

[BCSpace]

As an accepter of complete evolution and as a TBM LDS person, I reconcile death and sin before the Fall on this wise:

1. There was no death before the Fall.

2. There was death before the Garden (2 Nephi 2:22 implies that the state of no death came about on the completion of the creation).

3. Homo sapiens before Adam did not have as spirits, literal children of God.

4. Hence the spirits they did have were not subject to sin as it applies to us, perhaps in an animal sense or perhaps in the sense that not being children of God, the Atonement of Christ has nothing to do with them.

Simple as that. No twisting, no convoluted justification. Just the application of existing doctrinal principles to details that have not been revealed by God.

I think mfbukowski's hypothesis is a somewhat different explaination, but that now makes at least two valid and noncontradictory possibilites for full and complete evolution within the context of existing LDS doctrine and scripture.

[Rob Osborn]

As an accepter of complete evolution and as a TBM LDS person, I reconcile death and sin before the Fall on this wise:

1. There was no death before the Fall.

2. There was death before the Garden (2 Nephi 2:22 implies that the state of no death came about on the completion of the creation).

3. Homo sapiens before Adam did not have as spirits, literal children of God.

4. Hence the spirits they did have were not subject to sin as it applies to us, perhaps in an animal sense or perhaps in the sense that not being children of God, the Atonement of Christ has nothing to do with them.

Simple as that. No twisting, no convoluted justification. Just the application of existing doctrinal principles to details that have not been revealed by God.

I think mfbukowski's hypothesis is a somewhat different explaination, but that now makes at least two valid and noncontradictory possibilites for full and complete evolution within the context of existing LDS doctrine and scripture.

You just twisted and contorted current doctrine to fit into your worldview. #1 is correct. #2 is not correct. The doctrine does not teach that there was death during the creation or after it but before the fall. #3 is incorrect. Adam was the first homosapien of all homosapiens. #4 is built off of #3 and is a contorted and incorrect interpretation.

[BCSpace]

You just twisted and contorted current doctrine to fit into your worldview. #1 is correct. #2 is not correct. The doctrine does not teach that there was death during the creation or after it but before the fall.

No doctrine against it.

Adam was the first homosapien of all homosapiens.

Not doctrine. Adam was the first man and the only definition of man is a body and spirit (child of God).

#4 is built off of #3 and is a contorted and incorrect interpretation.

It's a hypothesis that does not contradict LDS doctrine.

[Uncertain]

Hi Mfbukowski,

We have discussed this before and I am not sure I have much new to add. I myself find your solution problematic for various reasons. First you claim there is no contradiction between the church teaching of no death before the fall and evolution because no death before the fall can be defined in ways besides the literal straightforward meaning. Actually I agree somewhat, as you understand the term no death before the fall it does not contradict evolution. Your interpretation of no death before the fall means creatures could quite literally still be dieing and in some sense there is "no death". I must say I find your interpretation somewhat convoluted Ad hoc and strained. But strictly speaking there is no logical contradiction between your interpretation of no death before the fall and evolution. However I am not sure how you have demonstrated there is no contradiction between the churches teaching of no death before the fall and evolution.

What the church means by no death before the fall is not what you mean by no death before the fall. Demonstrating a particular interpretation of "no death before the fall" does not contradict evolution is all well and good. But it does not means the churches interpretation of no death before the fall does not contradict evolution unless you can demonstrate the churches interpretation of no death before the fall matches your interpretation of no death before the fall. I do not believe you can do so therefore showing a particular interpretation of no death before the fall does not contradict evolution does not get you any closer in showing how the church understanding of no death before the fall does not contradict evolution. To put it another way when church manuals teach mortality and procreation commences with the fall when in General Conference GA's teach physical death was absent before the fall what they meant was very different than how you interpret no death before the fall. You are essentially arguing how the authors of the no death before the fall teaching understood that phrase were wrong because how they understood it was wrong. Yes I know you would view the GAs job as teaching "spiritual teachings" however the fact remains they had a definite understanding of what no death before the fall means spiritual teaching or not and their meaning is contradictory to how you interpret no death before the fall.

Secondly there have been modern humans living and dieing on this earth long before Adam so even if we accept your argument there have been humans on this earth to place death into "context" long before Adam fell.

All the Best,

Uncertain