How literally do you take the creation story?

[Hestia]

Nope. It's when the low-watt fundamentalists steal the terms of the discussion from the intelligent believers.

Stop the name calling because you don't agree with beliefs.

[changed]

no one commented on my previous wild speculations .... I was hoping that someone would say if it was a crazy idea or not

Does it have the possibility of making everyone happy? it has Adam/Eve, perfect eden, the fall.... and it also has pre-Adamites etc. etc.

one thought, perhaps much of it happened in the celestial sphere - that they were perfect/celestial beings - Eden was the perfect heaven, and that being cast out of Eden was akin to being cast out of the celestial sphere...

That Eden is at the same place as the chariots of fire:

(Old Testament | 2 Kings 6:17)

17 And Elisha prayed, and said, LORD, I pray thee, open his eyes, that he may see. And the LORD opened the eyes of the young man; and he saw: and, behold, the mountain was full of horses and bchariots of fire round about Elisha.

Adam and Eve had their eyes opened too... I think they came from the realm of the chariots of fire so to speak.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~`

worlds without number...

I don't think that we are the first "world" on this planet.

(Book of Mormon | Ether 13:9)

9 And there shall be a anew heaven and a new earth; and they shall be like unto the old save the old have passed away, and all things have become new.

I think new earths get build on the ruins of older ones... that Adam and Eve coming to Earth started a new world, a new age.

or was it not clear enough? That perhaps those who lived before Adam/Eve were part of another world (same planet, different world) and that Adam/Eve/Eden started out in the celestial sphere - or whatever sphere that is that beings like Elisha's army were in?

[noel00]

Just a question. A lot of LDS scholars now believe in a limited flood story. That is the flood was in their world. If so why did one of Noah's son's have to marry Egyptus to perpetuate the seed of Cain. Cain's descendents could have already been down in Africa away from the flood area."In Latter-day Saint theology, Egyptus is the name of two women in the Book of Abraham in the Pearl of Great Price[1]. One is the wife of Ham, son of Noah, who bears his children. The other is their daughter, who discovers Egypt" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Egyptus

[mapman]

Just a question. A lot of LDS scholars now believe in a limited flood story. That is the flood was in their world. If so why did one of Noah's son's have to marry Egyptus to perpetuate the seed of Cain. Cain's descendents could have already been down in Africa away from the flood area."In Latter-day Saint theology, Egyptus is the name of two women in the Book of Abraham in the Pearl of Great Price[1]. One is the wife of Ham, son of Noah, who bears his children. The other is their daughter, who discovers Egypt" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Egyptus

The speculations as to why the priesthood ban was instituted are definitly not doctrine. The Book of Abraham makes no connection between Cain and Egyptus or dark-complexioned Africans.

[cinepro]

You know what really pushes people toward atheism? Believers creating the false dichotomy that in order to have faith in God, you must also accept all these silly tangential ideas that are demonstrably false. If you associate something false like YEC with God, and insist that true believers must accept both, don't be surprised when the intelligent people reject it and God along with it. Fundamentalism destroys faith.

I'd be careful. If this board can teach us anything, it's that one man's "gospel truth" is another man's "demonstrably false". To some, Adam and Eve and a literal "fall" are a pillar of the Gospel; to others, they might just be a "silly tangential idea".

And people tend to classify the importance of doctrines in direct proportion to the degree in which they believe in those doctrines.

I've seen scriptures that warn us of depending on the "arm of the flesh", which some people think refers to "man's reasoning" or science. I've never seen one that warned us about relying too much on the scriptures and Prophets.

Trust in the Lord with all thine heart; and lean not unto thine own understanding.

Proverbs 3:5

[semlogo]

One of the chief issues here is the definition of "all powerful".

All powerful, to most non-LDS Christians, is logically impossible. (That leads to the classic, mocking, questions "Can God make a rock so heavy He can't lift it?" or "Can He make a one-sided piece of paper?")

We Saints see God's omnipotence as having absolute control over matter and energy, using the laws of physics (although many of those laws are beyond our understanding). He can order matter and energy to do His will by the power of faith and of the Priesthood He holds.

Now, if one or more Saints applies the non-LDS definition and says "God is not all-powerful", he is, in that realm, correct. But he would be wholly incorrect if he meant that God cannot control energy and matter to implement His will.

I have not posted in this topic until now because the term has not been clearly defined.

Lehi

There is that, but there's also the fact that there are certain things that God cannot do - otherwise He'd cease to be God.

[semlogo]

Stop the name calling because you don't agree with beliefs.

Sorry - I got carried away.

[Rob Osborn]

no one commented on my previous wild speculations .... I was hoping that someone would say if it was a crazy idea or not

Does it have the possibility of making everyone happy? it has Adam/Eve, perfect eden, the fall.... and it also has pre-Adamites etc. etc.

or was it not clear enough? That perhaps those who lived before Adam/Eve were part of another world (same planet, different world) and that Adam/Eve/Eden started out in the celestial sphere - or whatever sphere that is that beings like Elisha's army were in?

I believe that all of the fossils found in this earth dies at some point after the fall of Adam. There really isn't any evidence that is factual that would state otherwise.

As for the "old earth" and the new earth spoken of, it is probably speaking of the old world that existed before the flood and the new world to come is speaking of the world when the millennium starts.

Personally i do not believe that this earth was previously inhabited before Adam and Eve came along.

[Rob Osborn]

Just a question. A lot of LDS scholars now believe in a limited flood story. That is the flood was in their world. If so why did one of Noah's son's have to marry Egyptus to perpetuate the seed of Cain. Cain's descendents could have already been down in Africa away from the flood area."In Latter-day Saint theology, Egyptus is the name of two women in the Book of Abraham in the Pearl of Great Price[1]. One is the wife of Ham, son of Noah, who bears his children. The other is their daughter, who discovers Egypt" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Egyptus

LDS scholars who reject the global flood for a localized event set themselves and the church up as a laughing stock. How many times have there been localized floods since the time of Noah? Too many to count! If this were the case then it makes God to be a liar, too many times to count! How scholars can set themselves up this way is beyond me! Can they not see the problems of establishing this? It seeks to undermine Gods entire will.

[urroner]

LDS scholars who reject the global flood for a localized event set themselves and the church up as a laughing stock. How many times have there been localized floods since the time of Noah? Too many to count! If this were the case then it makes God to be a liar, too many times to count! How scholars can set themselves up this way is beyond me! Can they not see the problems of establishing this? It seeks to undermine Gods entire will.

Blah, blah, blah, blah. Where is the solid physical evidence of a global flood?

[changed]

I believe that all of the fossils found in this earth dies at some point after the fall of Adam.

So, you believe that before Adam, nothing died? Do you think that ours is the first world? That there were no other worlds before ours, and that death did not exist prior to 6,000 years ago? If so, do you have lds.org doctrinal statements that say that ours is the first world?

As for the "old earth" and the new earth spoken of, it is probably speaking of the old world that existed before the flood and the new world to come is speaking of the world when the millennium starts.

Yes, that is what that script is talking about. It is however an example of a new world built on the top of an older world. The flood is another example of a wipe/reset - a new start on a world.

Personally i do not believe that this earth was previously inhabited before Adam and Eve came along.

So the dinosaurs lived after Adam and Eve? the oil we get out of the ground is only 6,000 years old? hmmmm....

[DonBradley]

I have not been able to read through the entire thread and I know that some of this has already been suggested (perhaps all of it), but here is how I understand the Fall story.

In the story of the Fall, Adam (meaning "man" and "many") and Eve (meaning "life"), who represent each of us, begin in a pre-mortal life. (They have not yet become mortal.) In this paradise "Adam and Eve" live in the presence of God, are immortal, do not experience pleasure or pain, good or bad, or the vicissitudes of mortal life, and are unable to have children or to become like God.

They then "partake of the fruit" of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, a symbolic action, not literally eating fruit, as even the great LDS literalist Bruce R. McConkie argued in the Ensign. The partaking of the fruit is, as Elder McConkie indicated, figurative of the action or choice by which Adam and Eve moved from immortality to mortality. (Note that I'm not suggesting Elder McConkie would agree with my overall interpretation, but rather that even one of Mormonism's most literalistic readers of scripture could recognize the fruit as figurative rather than literal.)

In fact, as LDS doctrine clearly indicates, each of us, similar to what is said of Adam and Eve in LDS scripture and doctrine, once lived in the presence of God, but were unable to become like Him. We were there immortal but unable to feel pleasure and pain, or good and evil, or to have children.

But we each made a choice, which could readily be symbolized by the partaking of the fruit in the Eden story, to leave His presence and take on ourselves mortality.

This is what we know as the Fall.

Don

[changed]

I have not been able to read through the entire thread and I know that some of this has already been suggested (perhaps all of it), but here is how I understand the Fall story.

In the story of the Fall, Adam (meaning "man" and "many") and Eve (meaning "life"), who represent each of us, begin in a pre-mortal life. (They have not yet become mortal.) In this paradise "Adam and Eve" live in the presence of God, are immortal, do not experience pleasure or pain, good or bad, or the vicissitudes of mortal life, and are unable to have children or to become like God.

They then "partake of the fruit" of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, a symbolic action, not literally eating fruit, as even the great LDS literalist Bruce R. McConkie argued in the Ensign. The partaking of the fruit is, as Elder McConkie indicated, figurative of the action or choice by which Adam and Eve moved from immortality to mortality. (Note that I'm not suggesting Elder McConkie would agree with my overall interpretation, but rather that even one of Mormonism's most literalistic readers of scripture could recognize the fruit as figurative rather than literal.)

In fact, as LDS doctrine clearly indicates, each of us, similar to what is said of Adam and Eve in LDS scripture and doctrine, once lived in the presence of God, but were unable to become like Him. We were there immortal but unable to feel pleasure and pain, or good and evil, or to have children.

But we each made a choice, which could readily be symbolized by the partaking of the fruit in the Eden story, to leave His presence and take on ourselves mortality.

This is what we know as the Fall.

Don

I agree that it represents each of us, and that the fall may have been symbolic of passing through the veil from the premortal world, to this one....

I do think though, that for our world, (and there are many worlds, I think multiple worlds exist on the same planet, that we live on the ruins of previous worlds) but for our world there was a first "couple" to pass through - that there was an Adam, and that there was also an Eve....

(Guide to the Scriptures | A Adam.:Entry)

Adam is the Ancient of Days and is also known as Michael (Dan. 7; D&C 27:11; 107:53

[Calm]

I believe that all of the fossils found in this earth dies at some point after the fall of Adam.

Then the fossilizing process should be fast enough for us to be able to observe at least in part.

[Ceeboo]

Then the fossilizing process should be fast enough for us to be able to observe at least in part.

Hi cal,

Although clearly a hotly debated topic, there are examples today of "claimed" fossils. Things like a bag of flour, cooking pot, cowboy boot/with leg, etc, etc.

At the very least, IMHO, the claim that it takes millions of years for something to fossilize does seem to be being challenged.

AGAIN, Ceeboo is agnostic concerning the age of the earth BUT there are surely some VERY interesting things put on public dispaly from those in this camp that kinda make you go "hmmmmmmmmm" concerning what we have all read in school text books.

Just sayin,

Peace,

Ceeboo

[David T]

I have not been able to read through the entire thread and I know that some of this has already been suggested (perhaps all of it), but here is how I understand the Fall story.

In the story of the Fall, Adam (meaning "man" and "many") and Eve (meaning "life"), who represent each of us, begin in a pre-mortal life. (They have not yet become mortal.) In this paradise "Adam and Eve" live in the presence of God, are immortal, do not experience pleasure or pain, good or bad, or the vicissitudes of mortal life, and are unable to have children or to become like God.

They then "partake of the fruit" of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, a symbolic action, not literally eating fruit, as even the great LDS literalist Bruce R. McConkie argued in the Ensign. The partaking of the fruit is, as Elder McConkie indicated, figurative of the action or choice by which Adam and Eve moved from immortality to mortality. (Note that I'm not suggesting Elder McConkie would agree with my overall interpretation, but rather that even one of Mormonism's most literalistic readers of scripture could recognize the fruit as figurative rather than literal.)

In fact, as LDS doctrine clearly indicates, each of us, similar to what is said of Adam and Eve in LDS scripture and doctrine, once lived in the presence of God, but were unable to become like Him. We were there immortal but unable to feel pleasure and pain, or good and evil, or to have children.

But we each made a choice, which could readily be symbolized by the partaking of the fruit in the Eden story, to leave His presence and take on ourselves mortality.

This is what we know as the Fall.

Don

Don, I've expressed the exact same sentiment a few times in this thread. I agree completely. The Fall is something personal we each participate in, and yet we all still individually need a Savior to raise us from it.

[thesometimesaint]

Ceeboo:

Hotly debated: Yes. Age of the earth: Not doctrine.

However all the physical evidence to-date shows a very old earth(4.5 billions of years). With life starting about 1/2 of billion years after it was formed.

[Hughes]

Not sure, though. Moot point - God isn't all powerful. If I were God, I'd do it the most efficient way possible - let natural processes do their work.

God isn't all powerful? Uh?

[thesometimesaint]

Hughes:

Lots depends on the interpretation of "All Powerful" you mean. In the LDS concept he is not "All Powerful" means he can not lie, violate our agency, do something that illogical. IE. God can not make a rock so big that he can't lift it.

[mfbukowski]

no one commented on my previous wild speculations

I think new earths get build on the ruins of older ones... that Adam and Eve coming to Earth started a new world, a new age.

or was it not clear enough? That perhaps those who lived before Adam/Eve were part of another world (same planet, different world) and that Adam/Eve/Eden started out in the celestial sphere - or whatever sphere that is that beings like Elisha's army were in?

I totally agree with you and know that you are onto something- and essentially we are saying the same thing. I just think that most here are too literal minded to get it.

I link each "world" with a cultural milieu which defines the way we see and think and everything about us- but essentially we are in agreement. There was no "death" before the fall, because death as we know it literally did not exist. They (the pre-adamites) were from a different milieu in which its meaning had no significance. Wherever they came from, they had no understanding of "death"- they understood how to kill and eat. The analogy I use- because we use the word "death" to apply to animals as well as people- is that a hungry tiger does not "murder" its prey. We make the distinction about the form of death in the moral sphere, but use the same word for the cessation of life for both animals and people.

In my opinion, this confusion leads to the notion that animals should have "rights" which is an entirely different direction.

But I think that you are totally right.

There were many worlds on this planet before and will be at least one more in the future. And we are the embryos to bring on those beings which will follow, those we now call "resurrected".

[David T]

Hughes:

Lots depends on the interpretation of "All Powerful" you mean. In the LDS concept he is not "All Powerful" means he can not lie, violate our agency, do something that illogical. IE. God can not make a rock so big that he can't lift it.

If you define All-Powerful as All Power that is possible, then yes, God is All Powerful.

If you define All-Powerful as All Power that I can imagine, including creating logical contradictions, then the answer would be 'no'.

[semlogo]

God isn't all powerful? Uh?

Of course He isn't.

Alma 42:14

Now the work of justice could not be destroyed; if so, God would cease to be God.

[David T]

I totally agree with you and know that you are onto something- and essentially we are saying the same thing. I just think that most here are too literal minded to get it.

I link each "world" with a cultural milieu which defines the way we see and think and everything about us- but essentially we are in agreement. There was no "death" before the fall, because death as we know it literally did not exist. They (the pre-adamites) were from a different milieu in which its meaning had no significance. Wherever they came from, they had no understanding of "death"- they understood how to kill and eat. The analogy I use- because we use the word "death" to apply to animals as well as people- is that a hungry tiger does not "murder" its prey. We make the distinction about the form of death in the moral sphere, but use the same word for the cessation of life for both animals and people.

In my opinion, this confusion leads to the notion that animals should have "rights" which is an entirely different direction.

But I think that you are totally right.

This is the essential point in Nibley's Before Adam.

[DonBradley]

I agree that it represents each of us, and that the fall may have been symbolic of passing through the veil from the premortal world, to this one....

Agreed! And this constitutes an enormous strength of LDS theology over traditional Christian theology.

Since, in our doctrine, each of us lived with God in a perpetual paradise before our earth lives, it follows that each of us followed the same path ascribed to Adam and Eve--each of us "fell." If we didn't each individually fall from God's presence, immortality, and innocence, then it's unclear why we would each need to be redeemed. Traditional Christian theology locates the Fall in some previous person or couple, requiring a "genetic" explanation for why need redemption. But if my g-g-g-g...grandpa lived in God's presence, and I never did, then talk of my being "restored" to that presence is pure babble.

Note also that traditional Christians who accept the scientific evidence and consensus on humans sharing common descent with other species have to reject that genetic theology, and any kind of real Fall, anyway. However far back scientists look at our human ancestors, they had substantially the same genes--and therefore the same mortal, flawed--"fallen"--human nature as us, and not a nature that was suddenly constructed when an early human ate the wrong fruit, but one they largely inherited from pre-human ancestors--the "natural man."

Traditional Christian theology of fall and redemption is thus at odds with science. If a traditional Christian accepts the science regarding human origins, he implicitly, if not explicitly, rejects the idea that our mortal, natural condition outside the presence of God results from human choice. This was not a matter of choice, but imposed upon us. It is only a choice for any humans if some human or other once lived in immortality and innocence in the presence of God and voluntarily left it. And it is only a choice for each human (and therefore there was only a Fall for each human) if we all once lived in that state and voluntarily left it. For traditional Christians, only the first of these options was the case--the original humans had such a choice. But for traditional Christians who accept what science says about human origins, neither of these things happened: there was no Fall.

For Latter-day Saints, the situation is very different. Not only was there a first fall of humans into mortality, but each of us has so fallen--in a way the science is completely compatible with.

I do think though, that for our world, (and there are many worlds, I think multiple worlds exist on the same planet, that we live on the ruins of previous worlds) but for our world there was a first "couple" to pass through - that there was an Adam, and that there was also an Eve....

Interesting! Yes, you're making me think about this more deeply. So the first spirit children of God who made this choice to come into mortal bodies were the individuals Adam and Eve.

(Guide to the Scriptures | A Adam.:Entry)

Adam is the Ancient of Days and is also known as Michael (Dan. 7; D&C 27:11; 107:53

[changed]

Yea! I