No Death Before The Fall

[Craig Paxton]

As a young missionary I taught investigators that prior to the Fall of Adam there was no death in the world. This concept came directly from the missionary discussions...yet I never had any investigator even question this belief. If I taught this concept today I would be laughed out of every home.

Put in simple terms, this concept makes some sense IF Adam was a real human being who left his garden kingdom some 6,000 years ago. For if this did in fact take place...of course there would not have been death since it was Adam who through his disobedience to God brought upon us all a temporal existence and introduced death.

But reality does not support this belief...at least not as it is taught or was taught by the church. Plus science has come a long way since I was a missionary some 30 years ago...anyone who claims a belief in a young earth is not taken seriously nor is anyone who suggests that there was no death prior to 6,000 years ago.

Despite this fact...there still remain members of the church both believe and are taught that there was no death prior to the fall some 6,000 years ago.

So I have two questions.

Is there anyone here who holds to a belief of no death prior to the fall (which according to the LDS Biblical chronology took place some 6,000 years ago)

If you do hold to this belief...how do you reconcile it with reality ie (fossil record)

I hate to admit that I was one of those members who actually believed that the fossils were matter brought from other planets...Oh I was soooooo nieve and trusting then...

Edited July 20, 2011 by Craig Paxton

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

Is there anyone here who holds to a belief of no death prior to the fall (which according to the LDS Biblical chronology took place some 6,000 years ago)

I guess there is no way to reconcile this. Right? None, what so ever. We must abandon belief.

Edited July 20, 2011 by Mola Ram Suda Ram

[cinepro]

Is there anyone here who holds to a belief of no death prior to the fall (which according to the LDS Biblical chronology took place some 6,000 years ago)

If you do hold to this belief...how do you reconcile it with reality ie (fossil record)

I hate to admit that I was one of those members who actually believed that the fossils were matter brought from other planets...Oh I was soooooo nieve and trusting then...

We've gone the whole 12 rounds on this several times in the past, so there may be some residual fatigue from long-time members of the forum.

The standard-bearer for the traditional (and as far as I can tell, still official) teaching about "No Death Before the Fall" is this blog by Gary Shapiro:

No Death Before the Fall

It is an interesting issue, and regardless of what some may claim, this is still a huge blind spot in the Church's teachings. Official publications still casually and consistently teach that until Adam's fall ~4,000 BC, there were no other humans (which means no other cultures and civilizations) on the planet.

[Avatar4321]

Yes. There are still people who believe it.

[Craig Paxton]

Yes. There are still people who believe it.

Ok...I'll grant that there are people who believe it....so answer my second question...HOW in light of reality do you believe it?

Edited July 20, 2011 by Craig Paxton

[DavidC]

This isn't a direct answer to your question, but my approach to a compromise is to believe Adam is the father of the human family in the same sense that Abraham is the father of the faithful, partly by descent and partly by adoption. Believing I'm a descendant of Adam is a matter of faith. Believing I also descend from at least one Neanderthal is now just a matter of taking a DNA test.

[Mark Beesley]

Ok...I'll grant that there are people who believe it....so answer my second question...HOW in light of reality do you believe it?

Define reality.

[blackstrap]

Perhaps Craig can answer a couple of questions about fossils

1. How is a fossil made?

2.How long does it take to make a fossil?

3. How is the age of a fossil determined?

[Ahab]

Is there anyone here who holds to a belief of no death prior to the fall (which according to the LDS Biblical chronology took place some 6,000 years ago)

I do.

If you do hold to this belief...how do you reconcile it with reality ie (fossil record)

I haven't quite figured that out yet, but there are possibilities which wouldn't require me to abandon my faith that there was no death on this Earth before Adam and Eve fell.

I hate to admit that I was one of those members who actually believed that the fossils were matter brought from other planets...Oh I was soooooo nieve and trusting then...

Rather than being "brought" here as if they were deposited onto this Earth after it was created for Adam and Eve and all of us through them, I believe it's more likely that what later became this Earth was part of another planet before that and on that planet there were living creatures which we now only have parts of... like fossils and what they left to produce gases and oils, etc.

That's only one of the possibilities that could be true, though, and there are probably better possibilities.

Dating carbon based on how carbon is now isn't necessarily an accurate way to date carbon, you know. Carbon is an element and elements have been around forever.

Edited July 21, 2011 by Ahab

[blackstrap]

Radio carbon dating does not date carbon exactly,it dates the change from carbon 14 to carbon 12 .It is claimed to be accurate to no more than about 50,000 years. Other radiometric dating uses substances which science claims to be useful to date back millions or billions of years.

[Jeff K.]

How is the longevity of patriarchs any harder to believe than Christ rising from the dead?

[Craig Paxton]

Define reality.

Reality = Scientific evidence

[Nathair/|\]

Reality = Scientific evidence

How sad, how limited.

[Craig Paxton]

Perhaps Craig can answer a couple of questions about fossils

1. How is a fossil made?

2.How long does it take to make a fossil?

3. How is the age of a fossil determined?

Really? You want me to answer these questions Ummmm..ok

While there are many ways to preserve ancient organic material, the most common way to form a fossil is through permineralization. This is the process where minerals replace the cell material and then crystallizes and form a solid form in the shape of its former organic host. You really didn't know this? But I should add that there are many ways to preserve ancient organic matter...think Jurassic park...remember the old mans cane? He had a pre-historic insect in amber which is just ancient tree sap that has hardened under pressure.

How long does it take to form a fossil? Well that's like asking how high is a balloon...it depends...some form in a short time period while others take millions of years.

How is their age determined? Through a process known as radiometric age dating...but I seriously doubt you are really interested in these answers...or believe their results.

[Craig Paxton]

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

[Sevenbak]

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.

Edited July 21, 2011 by Sevenbak

[ken27]

This is a topic in which Mormons and other Christians get confused. We assume that the world took 6,000 years to create. Then another 1,000 added on for rest. Immediately after this (Another assumption) Adam and Eve were placed on the Earth in the Garden of Eden.

We do not know what was going on outside the Garden of Eden and we have no idea how long Adam and Eve were in the Garden of Eden. The Earth is at least 6,000 years old, but could also be billions or trillions of years old. The time period bewteen the creation and the fall is not known. You have to figure that if Adam and Eve were in close contact with God, then it probably took a very long time for Satan to tempt them successfully.

If it was billions of years, then there were very possibly dinosaurs, meteors, the Grand Canyon was formed, Creatures lived and became extinct, Fossels were created, etc.

Adam and Eve were the first humans.

Science and religion are actually consistent with each other on this concept.

Of course there is the typical seminary teacher concept that all of the fossels are left over materials from other worlds that were used to create this world. Someday we will know.

[Storm Rider]

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 reconcile their belief. Do you just ignore science? Think its flawed? Will you just help me understand HOW

The way that my beliefs are I don't have a problem. 1) I don't believe the human family began 6,000 years ago. I don't know when Adam was on the earth, only that he was. 2) Science does not equal reality and never has. Science is fluid; the knowledge of man is limited and growing. Science one brought us the absolute theory of spontaneous generation. Fortunately, science grew and found out that you could not create rats by putting corn in an old cloth. I do not put my faith in the arm of flesh; I recognize that our knowledge is finite and we do not "know" nearly as much as you think we do.

Do you actually think that science is infallible? To me that is as foolish as you think having faith in God is.

[Sevenbak]

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.

[BCSpace]

If you do hold to this belief...how do you reconcile it with reality ie (fossil record)

Here's how to reconcile it and accept evolution exactly as scientists do. Start with 2 Nephi 2:22:

And now, behold, if Adam had not transgressed he would not have fallen, but he would have remained in the garden of Eden. And all things which were created must have remained in the same state in which they were AFTER they were created; and they must have remained forever, and had no end.

This verse shows us a creative period of time BEFORE the garden state of no death. This prior period does not have a state of no death as one of it's properties So here is where evolution can swim. So.....

----------------------------------

Big Bang 14 billion years ago.

Creation of solar system and earth 4.5 billion years ago.

Evolution of all living things begins.

Evolution of homo sapiens ~ 1 million years ago. Their spirits are not yet literal spirit children of God.

When all is ready, literal spirit children of God are born into a pair of homo sapiens and at some time placed into the garden state of no death to await the Fall. Everything prior to this is the aforementioned creative period from 2 Nephi 2:22.

The Fall. Because there was a garden state of no death prior, one can truthfully say there was no death before the Fall.

Life and evolution proceeds apace. Compared to geologic or even evolutionary time, a garden state lasting up to several hundred years or so will likely not be evident in any fossil or DNA record.

-----------------------------------

Now you have a basic framework that does not conflict with LDS doctrine. Certainly no conflict with D&C 77 which we have doctrine on that also allows for this. All other details and questions become more minor and can be worked out or are just something we don't know because God or science hasn't revealed it.

One I will briefly address is the change in spirits. If true, this could explain the sudden rise of civilization. Why would big-brained modern homo sapiens go several hundred thousand years before civilization arises? Because their spirits weren't capable of utilizing the available resources. This pushes back the fall date closer to 8000-10,000 B.C. but I think it not unreasonable.

If one does not like a change in spirits, one could substitute the revealed knowledge of God.

I will be gone most of the day but will be happy to explain further when I get back. I'm sure cinepro, who actually would love to agree with me, will be happy to try and throw wrenches into the system.

Edited July 21, 2011 by BCSpace

[Jeff K.]

Craig Paxton, on 20 July 2011 - 10:31 PM, said:

Reality = Scientific evidence

How sad, how limited.

Ptolemy would be laughing in his grave hearing that reality equals scientific evidence given that scientific evidence is open to interpretation. The great rennaissance astronomer Tycho Brahe said it best. He related how he and an assistant were walking at night. His assistant was talking about how silly people were to believe the geocentric model that had long been dismissed. Brahe stopped and looked into space for a moment, and his assistant asked what was amiss. He replied "I wonder what the universe looked like then"?

Reality is scientific evidence only when everything is known. Dark matter existed long before scientific evidence posited its existence. Scientific evidence can also be wrong, unique, or hidden. But evidence does not create reality, anymore than a blind man creates the color yellow.

[Craig Paxton]

How sad, how limited.

What I was trying to say was that reality is the state of things as they actually exist, rather than as they may appear or might be imagined. Scientific evidence acts as a foundation upon which someone can build reality. It provideds something that can be tested. Something that can be scrutinized. Something that can be measured against other truth claims.

Religion can not meet this standard since the existance of God can not be tested in a scientific manner. I am NOT saying that the existance of God can't be tested by indiviuals who have personally expereinced something and belief that they have discovered God. But if there is a God, He/She did not want His/Her existance to be able to be tested by any known scientific measurement.

Edited July 21, 2011 by Craig Paxton

[Jeff K.]

Science is not an idol to worship, nor is the scientific method without its flaws, nor is the scientific method the ulitmate arbiter of reality. I don't think any scientist believes in its objective infallibility.

[Craig Paxton]

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.

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.

Edited July 21, 2011 by Craig Paxton

[Craig Paxton]

Science is not an idol to worship, nor is the scientific method without its flaws, nor is the scientific method the ulitmate arbiter of reality. I don't think any scientist believes in its objective infallibility.

Jeff I completely agree with you...but...it's theroies can be tested and scrutinized and accepted or rejected based on repeatable imperical evidence.

Edited July 21, 2011 by Craig Paxton