No Death Before The Fall

[cinepro]

You struggle mightily and fail on two levels....

You try hard to convince everyone that opinion is the same as doctrine. And it is a leitmotif in your repertoire. Unfortunately it is both out of tune and without any substance.

The other level is one in which you presume that the why, and analogy is equivalent of the how, making parables literal when in fact they are not.

I'm sorry you misunderstood.

I'm not trying to convince "everyone" that "opinion is the same as doctrine". I am only suggesting that if we believe that the teachings of the Church mean anything, then this teaching might also mean something. If we are to set standards for Church teachings based on when, where and how things are taught, then it is important to understand when, where and how this has been taught.

On a personal level, I can almost guarantee you that for anything ever said by a Church leader ever, if you want to argue that the statement was made without supernatural input and is most likely solely a result of the mortal faculties of that man (or men), I would agree with you and probably believe it more surely than you do.

But from a practical standpoint, if you try to say the Church doesn't teach something when in fact there's good reason to believe it does, I will certainly offer all the reasons to believe they do in counterpoint to whatever argument you are making that they don't. Even if I think the Church is wrong.

That's why I'm not an apologist. I can't say the Church doesn't teach something when all the evidence in Church teachings and publications says they do. And that's why I'm not a Chapel Mormon, because I think it's possible for the Church leaders to clearly, consistently and officially teach something and yet be totally wrong.

Edited July 29, 2011 by cinepro

[Jeff K.]

But I'm also trained in and have worked in geology most of my life. The fossil record for me is very real and is clearly a record of continuous death going back eons. I"ve read a lot of the attempts to reconcile the idea that the fall of Adam brought the first death into the world, with the fossil record, and with various scrlptural passages, but they all come across as strained and convoluted. Something is missing. But I'm willing to wait for the gaps to be filled in and to do so without wearing blinders to hide scientific facts.

Strained and convoluted?

TX Huxley disliked Darwin's theory of evolution in that Darwin insisted that huge amounts of geological time was needed. Huxley as a saltationist... someone who believed evolution changes occur rapidly. Considering the various massive die offs in our geolgical history, I would say rapid change might very well be the order, or rather less slow than Darwin imagined. But does that change the core doctrine of evolution thus making evolution false, or is it merely a difference of how evolution might occur?

It would be convoluted to say that changes in the understanding, knowledge or perception of how, changes the meaning of "why".

Consider the famous "Lucy".... 3.2 million year old australopithecine. She is small, around 3.5 feet tall, her skull is almost entirely missing, nothing is known of her brain size, the human bone has about 200 parts to it, much of it redundant (left ulna, right ulna and so on) Take out the redundant and you still have around 120 bones. Much of Lucy was found with only the slightest bone fragments (which was counted as a full bone), Lucy then only had 28 percent of a half skeleton (or 14% of a full skeleton). Johanson states it was 40% because he discounted hand bones and feet bones (for a tool user this seems "convoluted"). Her sex is only assumed because of diminutive size.

Now if I only used 14% of the last paragraph... Or roughly 14 words, or 14 words some of which are parts of words....

Consider fa L She t redundant o out then percent Johanson feet her d

From this we can rebuild the entire paragraph..... Or is that too convoluted?

We as humans classify many things as "convoluted" and accept them as normal, often because someone tells us to. A man rising from the dead, to many of us is accepted on faith. A forgiveness of sins, two concepts that are entirely immaterial and without form is also accepted on faith.

If you placed every bone fragment and bone of humans found in our entire treasury of discovery, it wouldn't fill the back of a pick up truck. Yet we have libraries and libraries of videos, books, specials on TV that tell us exactly what each on looked like, and how they relate.

Convoluted is a term that is not over the top when it comes to mans knowledge of the universe around him. Both material and spiritual.

Was Adam the first man to live in a special place like the Garden of Eden, a small world unto itself where death did not exist, while the rest of our planet evolved, until such point where Adam and Eve left, and the specialness of that small world ceased to be?

Convoluted? Is Lucy in the Sky with diamonds convoluted?

[Senator]

Field is white, but not ready to harvest, it is snow and you stare at the winter of your misgivings realizing that there is no depth in your vision, only emptiness.

Oh pleeeease...

[Jeff K.]

Poor Senator still seems to be recovering from his rhetorical wounds. He is still forced to endure a simple fair, anything stronger or with greater meat is difficult for his delicate metabolism.

[thesometimesaint]

Jeff K.:

Unfortunately for Huxley, Darwin was more correct. The scientific consense is now that it was/is a punctuated gradual change. The actual masssive die off's aren't as common as Huxley would imply.

[Jeff K.]

Jeff K.:

Unfortunately for Huxley, Darwin was more correct. The scientific consense is now that it was/is a punctuated gradual change. The actual masssive die off's aren't as common as Huxley would imply.

Of course Huxley wasn't completely correct (I do think mutations will increase rapidly given the right environments and Darwins stately "life changes slowly" view wasn't completely right either). But the point is that we accept some pretty convoluted things with nary a thought to the leaps needed to reach those conclusions. There is much there that is "convoluted".

[thesometimesaint]

cinepro:

I think the point is that as there is no unaminity amongst The Brethren. No doctrine is established. TTBOMK NO revelation from God has come to the Church as to the how God did it.

Back more years ago than I like to remember there was a heated discussion of evolution at BYU. It pitted facility against facility and students against students. There remained an uneasy truce(AFAIK it is still an uneasy truce) As my geology teacher at BYU told me: I teach the science of geology in the Geology Department. If you want religion go to the Religion Department.

[Senator]

Poor Senator still seems to be recovering from his rhetorical wounds.

Rhetorical wounds ???

[blarsen]

Strained and convoluted?

TX Huxley disliked Darwin's theory of evolution in that Darwin insisted that huge amounts of geological time was needed. Huxley as a saltationist... someone who believed evolution changes occur rapidly. Considering the various massive die offs in our geolgical history, I would say rapid change might very well be the order, or rather less slow than Darwin imagined. But does that change the core doctrine of evolution thus making evolution false, or is it merely a difference of how evolution might occur?

It would be convoluted to say that changes in the understanding, knowledge or perception of how, changes the meaning of "why".

Consider the famous "Lucy".... 3.2 million year old australopithecine. She is small, around 3.5 feet tall, her skull is almost entirely missing, nothing is known of her brain size, the human bone has about 200 parts to it, much of it redundant (left ulna, right ulna and so on) Take out the redundant and you still have around 120 bones. Much of Lucy was found with only the slightest bone fragments (which was counted as a full bone), Lucy then only had 28 percent of a half skeleton (or 14% of a full skeleton). Johanson states it was 40% because he discounted hand bones and feet bones (for a tool user this seems "convoluted"). Her sex is only assumed because of diminutive size.

Now if I only used 14% of the last paragraph... Or roughly 14 words, or 14 words some of which are parts of words....

From this we can rebuild the entire paragraph..... Or is that too convoluted?

We as humans classify many things as "convoluted" and accept them as normal, often because someone tells us to. A man rising from the dead, to many of us is accepted on faith. A forgiveness of sins, two concepts that are entirely immaterial and without form is also accepted on faith.

If you placed every bone fragment and bone of humans found in our entire treasury of discovery, it wouldn't fill the back of a pick up truck. Yet we have libraries and libraries of videos, books, specials on TV that tell us exactly what each on looked like, and how they relate.

Convoluted is a term that is not over the top when it comes to mans knowledge of the universe around him. Both material and spiritual.

Was Adam the first man to live in a special place like the Garden of Eden, a small world unto itself where death did not exist, while the rest of our planet evolved, until such point where Adam and Eve left, and the specialness of that small world ceased to be?

Convoluted? Is Lucy in the Sky with diamonds convoluted?

What isn’t convoluted about ‘Lucy in the sky with diamonds’, is that the bones (from 13 individuals according to Johanson) represented a hominid type that lived approximately 3-4 million years ago based on biostratigraphic fossil determinations. The knee joints indicate bi-pedal locomotion and the teeth have distinctive humanoid characteristics, though the reconstructed skull was extremely prognathous with a brain capacity close to modern chimps. Bipedal footprints were also found in associated strata.

These are fairly straight forward facts. And speculation about the find being ancestral to modern humans starts out as being just a simple assertion, not convoluted at all. It’s the arguments in support of that assertion that are apt to become a bit convoluted.

The aspect of Lucy pertinent to this discussion, however, is that her debris represents remains of an entity that died apparently thousands and even millions of years before Adam is said to have brought death into the world, and is a good example of this controversy.

And yes, attempts to reconcile the controversy can get very convoluted, and certainly to the point of violating the ‘law of parsimony’.

[Jeff K.]

What isn’t convoluted about ‘Lucy in the sky with diamonds’, is that the bones (from 13 individuals according to Johanson) represented a hominid type that lived approximately 3-4 million years ago based on biostratigraphic fossil determinations. The knee joints indicate bi-pedal locomotion and the teeth have distinctive humanoid characteristics, though the reconstructed skull was extremely prognathous with a brain capacity close to modern chimps. Bipedal footprints were also found in associated strata.

Well deciding the depth of sediment or rock to be the determining factor of age does seem relatively straightforward. Convoluted though is a few bones from 14 distinct entities making up one individual. Would that seem a bit convoluted?

The aspect of Lucy pertinent to this discussion, however, is that her debris represents remains of an entity that died apparently thousands and even millions of years before Adam is said to have brought death into the world, and is a good example of this controversy.

No the aspect of Lucy is also the question of "convoluted" and how we "convolute" many things, sometimes in determining our understanding of religion, and sometimes in determining our understanding of science. The controversy you imply is more manufactured than actual.

[Craig Paxton]

Craig, because you posed the question, just wondering where you stand on reconciling the idea there was no death before the fall, with the fossil record? Is this a show stopper for you with regard to maintaining your faith in the restored Gospel and that Joseph Smith was God's instrument in restoring it?

It's certainly one of the many pieces of the Mormon jig saw puzzle that I can't seem to make fit with the rest of the puzzle pieces.

But I'm also trained in and have worked in geology most of my life. The fossil record for me is very real and is clearly a record of continuous death going back eons. I"ve read a lot of the attempts to reconcile the idea that the fall of Adam brought the first death into the world, with the fossil record, and with various scrlptural passages, but they all come across as strained and convoluted. Something is missing. But I'm willing to wait for the gaps to be filled in and to do so without wearing blinders to hide scientific facts.

While I can appreciate your willingness to wait it out...I chose not to wait...I no longer believe the church is what it claims to be. While I do not believe in Mormon claims nor view its leadership has having any power or authority, it still runs through my blood and is a major influence in my daily life.

But I also see life as something short and something to be enjoyed to its fullest. In some bizaar way, my life actually became meaningful and real after I came to the conclusion that Mormonism was not what it claimed to be.

I love Mormon's and I respect the church as a fine institution with many wonderful qualities...but I do not believe that it will ever payoff on the promised blessings its members are sacraficing their lives to attain.

[Craig Paxton]

duplicate post...is there a way to delete a post?

Edited July 29, 2011 by Craig Paxton

[mfbukowski]

And yes, attempts to reconcile the controversy can get very convoluted, and certainly to the point of violating the ‘law of parsimony’.

Which of course we have as much reason to believe as any of the other commandments.

[Craig Paxton]

Darwins stately "life changes slowly" view wasn't completely right either).

Sorry Jeff I can't allow you get away with this statement. Darwin was absolutly spot on in his view that natual selection took long periods of time to occur. It wasn't until years later that he was vindicated when the means to measure the age of the earth were developed to the point that his views could be validated.

[mfbukowski]

I love Mormon's and I respect the church as a fine institution with many wonderful qualities...but I do not believe that it will ever payoff on the promised blessings its members are sacraficing their lives to attain.

And yours will?

Yes, it is a tremendous sacrifice living the best possible life style one could live to achieve happiness.

Woe is me!!

[Jeff K.]

Sorry Jeff I can't allow you get away with this statement. Darwin was absolutly spot on in his view that natual selection took long periods of time to occur. It wasn't until years later that he was vindicated when the means to measure the age of the earth were developed to the point that his views could be validated.

long periods of time is a relative term. My point was that mutations can and have happened rapidly, not in a "steady state".

[Jeff K.]

But I also see life as something short and something to be enjoyed to its fullest. In some bizaar way, my life actually became meaningful and real after I came to the conclusion that Mormonism was not what it claimed to be.

I love Mormon's and I respect the church as a fine institution with many wonderful qualities...but I do not believe that it will ever payoff on the promised blessings its members are sacraficing their lives to attain.

Well, we all choose the kingdom in which we are the most comfortable I suppose.

In regard to the payoff. If the promised blessings somehow do not occur for me, I am already doubly blessed by my membership in the church, with a wonderful wife, family, responsibilities, children that are growing up to be moral and true. These things are the immediate blessings that exist for me now.

[cdowis]

It's certainly one of the many pieces of the Mormon jig saw puzzle that I can't seem to make fit with the rest of the puzzle pieces.

In another thread, this link was given where Orson Scott Card talks about evolution and creationism, (about two thirds of the way). But listen to the whole thing -- please trust me when I say that you will find this very interesting and entertaining.

Edited July 29, 2011 by cdowis

[thesometimesaint]

Jeff K.:

Agreed, further IF our atheistic friends are correct, and it is the Abyss, NONE of us will know any differently anyway.

[cinepro]

cinepro:

I think the point is that as there is no unaminity amongst The Brethren.

CFR that there is any living Apostle or Seventy that has publicly stated that Adam's body may be the result of an evolutionary process, or that there may have been physical death on the planet before the Fall of Adam.

Bonus points if they said it in a Church setting. Jackpot if the Church actually published it.

I'd also like someone to explain to me how "personal opinion" works with correlation and manuals.

If Elder XYZ stands at a pulpit and says "The sky is green", I can understand how that statement can be a man's personal opinion.

But how can a lesson manual or other publication prepared by committee be an "opinion"? For example, we read the following in a lesson manual for an Aaronic Priesthood class:

physical death, known also as temporal death, was introduced into the world as a consequence of the Fall. As a result of the Fall, all people and all forms of life upon the earth must suffer a physical death, a separation of spirit and body.

There is no author attributed to the quote, or the lesson. On the first page of the manual, we find the following:

Published by The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints

© 1995 by Intellectual Reserve, Inc. All rights reserved Printed in the United States of America

English approval: 1/92 Translation approval:xx/xx Translation of Aaronic Priesthood: Manual 3 Language 34822 xxx

So in what way can this manual be considered an "opinion"? Whose "opinion" is it? The manual has been approved by the correlation process, for which we are told the first job of the correlation process is this:

The First Presidency and Quorum of the Twelve oversee correlation in the Church. Correlation includes:

a. Maintaining purity of doctrine.

So are we saying that statements in correlated manuals are the "personal opinion" of the FP and Q12? And if incorrect statements about the doctrine of the Creation are being made, is this a case where the FP and Q12 have failed in their objective to "maintain the purity of doctrine"?

Ultimately, invoking "personal opinion" (which, let's be frank, its just a euphemism for "they're wrong") doesn't clear up the matter, it only allows us to present our own opinion in contrast to theirs. So in effect, we are saying "It is my opinion that Elder XYZ was wrong when he taught this". So now we are asking someone to choose who they are going to believe: the Church leader (and disbelieve my claim that they are wrong), or are they going to believe me and classify the Church leader's statement as "opinion" (i.e. probably wrong)?

We believe in fallible Church leaders, but we also believe in fallible Church members, with the advantage usually given to the leaders when it comes to doctrine.

Edited July 29, 2011 by cinepro

[BCSpace]

Bonus points if they said it in a Church setting. Jackpot if the Church actually published it.

Do you think there aren't any Church published statements that admit the Church doesn't know how the physical body was created?

But how can a lesson manual or other publication prepared by committee be an "opinion"? For example, we read the following in a lesson manual for an Aaronic Priesthood class:

physical death, known also as temporal death, was introduced into the world as a consequence of the Fall. As a result of the Fall, all people and all forms of life upon the earth must suffer a physical death, a separation of spirit and body.

It's doctrine of course, but how does it preclude evolution, especially in a scenario where evolution exists in the doctrinal/scriptural concept of time outside temporal time and an undefined state before Adam was placed in the garden?

Edited July 29, 2011 by BCSpace

[Ahab]

Do you think there aren't any Church published statements that admit the Church doesn't know how the physical body was created?

Storks bring them in bags, don't cha know.

Haven't you been told about the birds and the bees yet?

Maybe when you eventually see it happen, you'll understand.

[BCSpace]

Haven't you been told about the birds and the bees yet?

Maybe when you eventually see it happen, you'll understand

Well, if you're refering to an Adam-God or an Adam Sr./Jr. theory or anything like unto it where HF and HM beget the physical bodies of Adam and Eve, we already know those aren't doctrine. But the birds and the bees do speak to evolution.......

[thesometimesaint]

cinepro:

Irrelevent.

Show me any living prophet that argues that Pi is equal to exactly three, as stated in the Bible. We're really not in the business of correctiing every single(non theological) error of dead prophets, let alone living ones.

The Bible is published by the Church. It is part of our Standard Works of the Church. It obviously contains errors, and the GA's continually exhort us to read, study, and ponder about its message. In our Sunday School classes fully 1/2 of the time we are studying the Bible. Go figure.

[Ahab]

Well, if you're refering to an Adam-God or an Adam Sr./Jr. theory or anything like unto it where HF and HM beget the physical bodies of Adam and Eve, we already know those aren't doctrine. But the birds and the bees do speak to evolution.......

As cinepro has repeatedly tried to tell you, and in a very nice way I must say, someone saying "it isn't doctrine" is basically just saying "I don't believe it" in another way.

Brigham Young actually "taught" that our "HF" and "HM" came here and ate food grown on this planet by which elements of this Earth were taken into their bodies and from them Adam's and Eve's "physical" bodies were created for their "spiritual" bodies to inhabit.

You're simply one of those folks who doesn't believe what he "taught" on that issue is actually the "truth", and to justify your position you're saying you don't need to believe it because it's not included in the "standard" works.

That doesn't mean what he taught isn't scripture, though, and it doesn't mean that what he taught isn't the truth, either.

Someday I hope you figure that out as you continue to learn how you're supposed to find out what is true.

Edited July 29, 2011 by Ahab