Did Adam and Eve have a childhood?

[BCSpace]

I think people get erroneously caught up in a "God can do anything however He wants" mindset. However, I suspect that God acts through natural laws and doesn't just snap His fingers or wrinkle His nose.

Are you suggesting that God must only act through "known" natural laws?

I propose that only God acts through natural laws known and unknown to us.

The atheist scoffs at all the miracles of the scriptures and declare them "impossible" but I do not put my trust in mans puny wisdom or knowledge.

In the spiritual sense, it is unwise to trust in the arm of flesh. But God Himself does indeed trust us with our wisdom and knowledge. D&C 130:19 and al the other verses associated with knowledge and learning.

This is the main reason I reject the theory of evolution as explained as how things began on earth. I realize I am in a minority here and I understand your need to harmonize these theories with the revelations of God, but I find it difficult to do so.

I think it's concetration here is a reaction to a feeling of not being able to discuss it in Church without getting drowned by the Skousen branch of the Fielding-McConkites. I'm certainly not establihing it for doctrine as that is not the case with the Church, which has no doctrine on the matter. But I believe I am arming those who accept evolution with confidence to discuss the issue in Church.

I do not reject all of man's learning or science, but I do not accept all of these theories just because they are popularized today and people are generally marginalized if they dare to disbelieve them.

AGW certainly has been proven not to be science. But evolution has been around for such a long time with no hypothesis or theory arising to seriously challenge it and is so detailed even down to our DNA that it seems quite unlikely to be changed significantly enough to not be a fact.

It's amazing the creative stuff you can come up with when you're not tethered to the pesky scriptures or words of the Prophets and Apostles. Truly, the sky is the limit!

Doesn't seem to be much contradicting them in any official sense. That's what happens when the scriptures and the words of the prophets don't address the issue or are not as detailed as we want.

[rockslider]

I believe B.H. Roberts said they were placed in the garden with Celestial bodies - their "childhood" was as mortals on a different world.

but then that's Adam/God talk

[John Larsen]

The crucial part is that they were the first to sin.

To sin you must

1- know that something is prohibited by God, and have that communicated to you.

2- have agency and the intelligence to use that agency

3- have a motivation to violate the clearly communicated rule, implying the ability to reason consequences

4- go ahead and break the rule deliberately

Such a being is not your ordinary early homo sapiens, the crucial part being communication from God.

But such a being would be in a state of innocence until the sin happened, and then the innocence would be gone. Their "world" would be altered forever along with all their perceptions of it.

If this is true, God could have kept us all perfect and shield the world from sin by merely never communicating that anything was prohibited. All humankind would receive exaltation. Can we then conclude that God's purpose is not to save mankind but rather the opposite, at least for some?

[cinepro]

The crucial part is that they were the first to sin.

To sin you must

1- know that something is prohibited by God, and have that communicated to you.

2- have agency and the intelligence to use that agency

3- have a motivation to violate the clearly communicated rule, implying the ability to reason consequences

4- go ahead and break the rule deliberately

Such a being is not your ordinary early homo sapiens, the crucial part being communication from God.

But such a being would be in a state of innocence until the sin happened, and then the innocence would be gone. Their "world" would be altered forever along with all their perceptions of it.

Did you just make that up?

Honestly, it sounds more like the first 15 minutes of 2001: A Space Odyssey than anything I've ever heard in Church.

Interestingly, the LDS.org description of sin ignores the scores of infants who have died having lived sinless lives:

Other than Jesus Christ, each person who has ever lived on earth has broken commandments or failed to act according to knowledge of the truth.

[mfbukowski]

If this is true, God could have kept us all perfect and shield the world from sin by merely never communicating that anything was prohibited. All humankind would receive exaltation.

This is a variation on the story of "Satan's Plan" to return us all by limiting choice. No revelation, no knowledge, no choice.

Can we then conclude that God's purpose is not to save mankind but rather the opposite, at least for some?

I suppose you are saying rather cryptically that since some supposedly don't receive revelation, or even worse (to you) receive ambiguous revelation, this indicates by my logic that God's purpose is thereby left unaccomplished. Of course I don't buy that premise. The fact that atheists have a conscience and don't go around killing people for fun, and agree that that is not a "good" thing, shows that everyone has a sense of decency which I think comes from God.

Chimpanzees routinely kill and eat other chimps, including babies, but we don't see a whole lot of that even going on here in LA.

I am sure the next step would be to come up with a "utilitarian" argument for ethics, which is fine. The only problem is that even that is just a rationalization for pretty traditional human values supposedly based on rationalism.

[mfbukowski]

Did you just make that up?

Honestly, it sounds more like the first 15 minutes of 2001: A Space Odyssey than anything I've ever heard in Church.

Interestingly, the LDS.org description of sin ignores the scores of infants who have died having lived sinless lives:

I know you have never heard this, but were you aware that one of the main criticisms of critics by TBM's is that they always like to tell us what we believe? And what if I DID "just make it up"?

And honestly, you can do better than pull a quote out of context from some manual which is poorly worded and supposedly contradicts the entire belief that small children are born sinless and are not even in need of baptism. Give me a break. The quote sounds like we believe in original sin, which if you weren't aware, is absurd to assert.

You can do better than this. Not one of your finest hours.

[mfbukowski]

Honestly, it sounds more like the first 15 minutes of 2001: A Space Odyssey than anything I've ever heard in Church.

And could it be that Kubrick was influenced by the same ideas which influenced me around the same time?

Nah. I guess I get full credit for it then.

[cinepro]

I know you have never heard this, but were you aware that one of the main criticisms of critics by TBM's is that they always like to tell us what we believe? And what if I DID "just make it up"?

This being a "Mormon" discussion board, I'm assuming most people are here to discuss what the "Mormon" Church (i.e. the LDS Church) teaches as doctrines, beliefs and practices. When discussing something as fundamental as "sin" and "The Fall of Adam", it would probably be assumed by most readers that the beliefs being expressed in some way reflect the teachings of the LDS Church.

Obviously, the fourth tenet of apologetics is that LDS can believe almost anything they want, but the wording of your post was such that it would be easy for someone to mistake it for a claimed expression of LDS beliefs.

Traditionally, LDS have usually tried to tie their theories about gospel subjects into the teachings of the Church, but obviously it's up to each individual.

And honestly, you can do better than pull a quote out of context from some manual which is poorly worded and supposedly contradicts the entire belief that small children are born sinless and are not even in need of baptism. Give me a break. The quote sounds like we believe in original sin, which if you weren't aware, is absurd to assert.

It wasn't "some manual".

If you go to the LDS.org website, there is a section called "Gospel Topics" (accessible from the "Gospel Library" or "Prepare a Talk" sub-menus). This section is described this way:

This section provides information about the doctrine, policies, practices, and history of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (commonly called "the Mormon church" or "Mormons"). In addition to helping Church members, this section can also be a great resource for answers to questions about Mormon beliefs. Click on a letter to view a list of topics starting with that letter.

The quote was taken from the entry on "Sin" ("Additional Information"). If you merely search for "Sin" on the website, this section comes up first. I'm not sure what additional context I was supposed to provide. Don't shoot the messenger.

And there's an entry for "Original Sin" as well, just in case there was any confusion.

(As for the quote itself, I'm assuming most LDS would say that even infants need the atonement of Christ; they are saved through the atonement as well. Their entry into the Celestial Kingdom is still predicated on Christ, not because they are sinless and don't need an atonement. Moroni 8:20 would be the reference for that theory.)

[cinepro]

This is a variation on the story of "Satan's Plan" to return us all by limiting choice. No revelation, no knowledge, no choice.

Of course, the only thing stopping everyone from taking advantage of the D&C 137 doctrine is the fact that reproduction can't happen until after the age of accountability.

Just think, if humans could have babies before the age of accountability, and some sort of virus was introduced that limited the lifespan of every human to die before the age of accountability, then everyone could be saved according to God's plan.

I believe Stephen Covey calls that a "Win/Win".

[Obiwan]

You make it sound as if God just floats around on his all-powerful rug which magically floats in the air and he has all power to shake his magic wand at things and do anything he wants to. You make it sound as if He has a body that serves no real function other than something for the rest of us to look at. Lets get real here.

1. Yes, he can do whatever he wants, and yes he has the power to do so. Of course, he conforms and has mastered "law". Remember, his ways are not our ways.

2. Far from it.... Having a body is central to being and becoming "god/God". Matter and Spirit has been combined into a "living soul", being One. Having a body is central to everything we do and will do and be. You're reading too much into my point.

If we are created in "his image" and we carry "his seed" then it stands to reason that his seed (in his sperm) is pretty much the same as my seed (in my sperm). In the resurrection we shall rise with a perfect body which includes all functioning parts, which include the reproductive organs.

I understand this.... However, you're still ignoring what the scriptures fully say on the matter. Latter-day Doctrine still must conform to scripture. You're taking the latter-day doctrine and making it go beyond the mark becoming contrary to scripture. Our Heavenly parents didn't "birth" us the same way we birth because they simply are not mortal anymore. Did you miss the point I made that if our Heavenly parents "had" birthed us the same, we would in fact be more powerful than Christ Himself??? Think about it.... Note also, that even Christ to have lived on this earth, he had to have a "mortal" mother, i.e. being born of "earthly matter". So, tell us why that is??? Our bodies are of this earth, not our Heavenly parents. Remember also, this earth is going to become "Celestialized".... It will be in some form our Celestial Kingdom. Clearly then, their are some "laws" that God must abide when it concerns the bodies of our children. Understand, I understand what you are saying, and see how you arrive at that view, but there is much more on the subject that you are not seeing, and so your view is simplistic and flawed.

As for "blood", we do not know exactly how immortal bodies work or operate. There have been many opinions on this but it stands to reason that an immortal body has both "flesh" and "blood" of some type. I would like to see some scriptural proof of immortals having not bodies of flesh or that of not having blood of some type.

Yes, we will have bodies of "flesh" i.e. matter.... But, no there is no blood. Something replacing it? No, not really.... Remember something else.... Our "bodies" go back to the earth and remain there forever as bass elements. "From dust we are, from dust we return." The bodies of matter we possess after being resurrected are a "spirit based" combination of matter that we gather unto us from the universe and spirit. Matter connects to our spiritual selves unto perfected bodies of spirit/matter.

I am made from the "dust of the earth". What does this mean? It means that my father and mother ate food which came from the dust of the earth, then their bodies turned that food into the right sequence of matter which then grew into the shape and form of their bodies. Is God not capable of eating and drinking? Did not the resurrected Christ eat and drink with his apostles to prove to them he was no ghost? Certainly his body had to have the same fuctionality if he was able to eat.

Yes, good thought.... However, your assuming a resurrected body would function the same way as a mortal body would. That simply is not the case. A resurrected being "eating" would do nothing other than be for show, not to perform any sort of life sustaining functions. It's possible that while on earth the body would have some sort of functioning, I won't deny you that, we don't know. And I suppose if you are taking that view that our Heavenly Father & Mother was also in the Garden, that you assume that they would have "birthed" Adam & Eve in a similar natural way. A reasonable thought, but again, it runs into problems many of which I've already mentioned. Also, if you recall what is taught in the Temple, nothing there seems to go your direction, but otherwise.

I never said anything about whole sex with Mary thing, we are talking about Adam and Eve here.

Just anticipating a potential argument you might make and nipping it in the bud.

Why is it that only "married male and female" can have a continuance of their "seed" in eternity? Is it because they need each others body parts and functions for that to happen? Yes I believe so. Our sexual functions are an eternal part of our being and nature. When we covenant in the temple to only have marital sexual relations with our spouse we make that covenant for eternity, not just for mortality. Life in eternity would be pointless without compassions and desires of the body. This life is where we come to know them passions and desires and learn how to bridal and control them so that we can be trusted in the rest of eternity.

First, remember that none of us are "really" owned by our parents. We exist as "Intelligence" prior to becoming spiritual sons and daughters of God. Yes, but what is their "seed" when it comes to a God???

ummmmmm...... hmmmmmmm..... You know, I think you've caused me to change my view a little. I'm not going to say one way or the other definitively, but in thinking about it, you might be right that our Heavenly parents did create Adam and Eve by some form of birth in the Garden. Several reasons, the Garden was essentially a type of "way-point" between heaven and earth but on earth. They were immortal, no death, thus no blood, they walked with God, we know that we are god's in embryo, the fall created death and blood, and "knowledge", and we know that a person who is really righteous can be "translated" thus not die, thus becoming a full god just like that. So, actually when I think about it, Adam & Eve were clearly born equivalent to Christ, being gods themselves, but the fall created the "vail" in which our powers and knowledge are limited, and we must learn to control them and choose the Light to be worthy of them.

But, then again, I'm still thinking....... Yes, they may have eat, etc. etc. to create the bodies, but, I'm really thinking that they did not have a "birth" in the same way that we mortals do. Yes, I'm quit sure that they use "law" to do everything, but their ways would simply not be our ways. They could simply think it, and our Heavenly parents matter would combine and they create Adam & Eve right there. So, I guess in the end what I'm saying is that I'm sure they may have used the earth in some form such as eating, as well acknowledging that they would have to follow law, I simply do not believe that there way of following law would be the same as our way. As someone else mentioned about, the various miracles Christ or anyone else performs. Yes, I'm sure there is law involved.... But, clearly it IS NOT "natural law" being followed. It is law that is beyond mortality. Thus, trying to claim that Adam & Eve were born according to "natural law" would I think simply not make sense, because God operates according to law that is "beyond mortality".

Just as a snap of the hands heals a blind man, God can snap his hands and create Adam & Eve. Thus, they likely were not ever children physically speaking. They already were children in the garden however intellectually speaking. Anyway, you're still wrong....

[mfbukowski]

(As for the quote itself, I'm assuming most LDS would say that even infants need the atonement of Christ; they are saved through the atonement as well. Their entry into the Celestial Kingdom is still predicated on Christ, not because they are sinless and don't need an atonement. Moroni 8:20 would be the reference for that theory.)

In other words, you are saying that what you implied in the previous post is not correct. Your previous post implied that they were sinners.

I will be sure to add a disclaimer to my posts which may be erroneously construed as conveying LDS doctrine if you do the same.

[mfbukowski]

Of course, the only thing stopping everyone from taking advantage of the D&C 137 doctrine is the fact that reproduction can't happen until after the age of accountability.

Another way of saying this is that Adam could not reproduce until after he left the "garden".

Just think, if humans could have babies before the age of accountability, and some sort of virus was introduced that limited the lifespan of every human to die before the age of accountability, then everyone could be saved according to God's plan.

I believe Stephen Covey calls that a "Win/Win".

Since we are imagining, I can imagine a few hundred more possibilities. Your point?

[cinepro]

I will be sure to add a disclaimer to my posts which may be erroneously construed as conveying LDS doctrine if you do the same.

Or you can do what I try and do, and actually reference a Church publication when discussing Church doctrine or teachings.

[Thorkyll]

Just curious, do you believe that Adam and Eve had a childhood, or were they created as adults? For those who believe the latter, do you consider their lives of in the Garden of Eden their equivalent of a childhood?

The expulsion from Eden represents the transition from childhood to adulthood so my guess is that they were not adults when they were created. I don't know how young they would have been, though. From an evolutionary standpoint, they'd have to have been born as primates and then after birth at some point imbued with a divine soul. They were probably raised by the talking animals. I don't think anyone knows.

[DarkScythe]

Does this comment really make any sense?

Yes it does make sense.

[Tsuzuki]

Of course, the only thing stopping everyone from taking advantage of the D&C 137 doctrine is the fact that reproduction can't happen until after the age of accountability.

Just think, if humans could have babies before the age of accountability, and some sort of virus was introduced that limited the lifespan of every human to die before the age of accountability, then everyone could be saved according to God's plan.

I believe Stephen Covey calls that a "Win/Win".

I don't know where you are, but where I live the age of accountability is 80.

[mfbukowski]

Or you can do what I try and do, and actually reference a Church publication when discussing Church doctrine or teachings.

I appreciate you volunteering to be a role model for me, but I rarely debate about what doctrines are, but how I see them. There's not much in the publications about what I think about the doctrines, darn it all.

President Monson keeps forgetting to call me and ask my advice.