No Death Before The Fall

[HeatherAnn]

For what it's worth, I think it is one of several perfectly plausible explanations which satisfy all the requirements conceptually. It isn't my personal first choice, but I have no problem with it at all.

The reality here is that we are talking about the supernatural, and none of us were there. Either we are going to limited what God wanted to do or not.

Yeah, lots of possibilities of "his story."

I'm having too much fun with the smileys, somebody ought to stop me.

Please excuse me if this has been mentioned already, but isn't it pretty clear in the temple that Adam & Eve represent US, male & female respectively?

[Rivers]

Yeah, lots of possibilities of "his story."

I'm having too much fun with the smileys, somebody ought to stop me.

Please excuse me if this has been mentioned already, but isn't it pretty clear in the temple that Adam & Eve represent US, male & female respectively?

It is pretty clear to me. An allegorical understanding of Adam and Eve is actually my favorite hypothesis.

Unfortunately Cinepro has pulled out enough quotes from church publications to prove that myself and many others are in apostasy for believing in evolution.

Edited August 2, 2011 by Rivers

[mfbukowski]

Yeah, lots of possibilities of "his story."

I'm having too much fun with the smileys, somebody ought to stop me.

Please excuse me if this has been mentioned already, but isn't it pretty clear in the temple that Adam & Eve represent US, male & female respectively?

1- In German, the word "Geschichte" means "History" and just "story" as well. If you were raised with that word, your concept of history would be radically different than ours. A made up story can be called a "Geschichte".

2- Re: Adam & Eve- it is not only "clear", it is specifically and blatantly stated in no uncertain terms- at least twice

Edited August 2, 2011 by mfbukowski

[mfbukowski]

It is pretty clear to me. An allegorical understanding of Adam and Eve is actually my favorite hypothesis.

Unfortunately Cinepro has pulled out enough quotes from church publications to prove that myself and many others are in apostasy for believing in evolution.

From previous experience, I don't think that is clear to Cinepro.

[katherine the great]

I don't think we need to understand Adam and Eve as strictly allegorical. I think the word "Adam" is used scripturally both to refer to the literal person (and I do believe he was a literal person), and also to refer to mankind "earth man" in general. I tend to to think of Adam as the first man that God made His covenant with and the literal father of the Israelite nation (and all related nations.) My beliefs that reconcile what I believe I know from science with what I believe religiously are much more simple than BC Space's interesting hypothesis.

[David T]

) My beliefs that reconcile what I believe I know from science with what I believe religiously are much more simple than BC Space's interesting hypothesis.

I agree. I think BCSpace's theory actually makes very clear how difficult and stretching it is to defend a literal historical biologically deathless garden state, with all that it implies. It certainly requires having God working out of his observed modus operandi.

Edited August 3, 2011 by nackhadlow

[mfbukowski]

I don't think we need to understand Adam and Eve as strictly allegorical. I think the word "Adam" is used scripturally both to refer to the literal person (and I do believe he was a literal person), and also to refer to mankind "earth man" in general. I tend to to think of Adam as the first man that God made His covenant with and the literal father of the Israelite nation (and all related nations.) My beliefs that reconcile what I believe I know from science with what I believe religiously are much more simple than BC Space's interesting hypothesis.

In the off chance anybody cares, I agree. That is indeed what I BELIEVE. But I also think that there is nothing wrong with seeing him in alternative ways either.

There are many possible explanations all of which in my opinion, are consistent with the scriptures and "doctrine". Whichever one of these we pick, in my opinion, frankly doesn't matter much.

Fortunately, there is nothing on the temple recommend interview or baptismal interview on the nature of Adam and Eve or evolution. Seen symbolically, one could even see several of these possibilities as true simultaneously.

For example, I see the problem of death before the fall both linguistically, as I posted earlier in this thread AND as you have described it above. There was no context for the word "death" before the person Adam defined the word.

But that position could also be held by one who saw Adam as an allegory- not my personal belief- but still consistent with the overall view.

So one point of view is not necessarily inconsistent with the others. When you walk around the other side of the mountain, the peak is now on the right instead of the left. Which is "true"? Both, depending on your perspective.

[katherine the great]

In the off chance anybody cares, I agree. That is indeed what I BELIEVE. But I also think that there is nothing wrong with seeing him in alternative ways either.

I agree. I do think there is something wrong with casting a wide, condescending net upon science in general for contradicting a literal interpretation of Genesis. I just think in the age of information, there is just no excuse for that.

[mfbukowski]

I agree. I do think there is something wrong with casting a wide, condescending net upon science in general for contradicting a literal interpretation of Genesis. I just think in the age of information, there is just no excuse for that.

Agreed!

[blarsen]

Evolution in humans is still ongoing.

http://www.upi.com/S...62771279837272/

But so is human devolution. Question is, which is going to win out.

[BCSpace]

I agree. I think BCSpace's theory actually makes very clear how difficult and stretching it is to defend a literal historical biologically deathless garden state, with all that it implies. It certainly requires having God working out of his observed modus operandi.

I'm still wondering how my hypothesis stretches anything at all. I didn't have to make anything up. I simply put the pieces together in a way that fits. Pray tell.

[David T]

I'm still wondering how my hypothesis stretches anything at all. I didn't have to make anything up. I simply put the pieces together in a way that fits. Pray tell.

I think positing a complete halt in natural biological death after the processes have been going on for billions of years - for either a small location or the entire world - seems to be a completely unnecessary halting and bypassing of the laws of nature. If the mortal bodies were already there, what would be the purpose of creating a newly immortal biological deathless state?

While I can see the setting apart of a location as a for-all-intents-and-purposes Temple for symbolic teaching, ritual, and initiation of Covenant, I see absolutely no benefit or reason for needing to actually and completely change the biological processes of life for this to occur.

Even if we do posit at the very least an Adam which was the first biological homosapien to be granted what we understand as a Human Spirit, and that he found himself in a Garden where he received a Theophany and was instructed by God, I don't see a need for the bio transformation.

In fact, the mindset that required the explanation of an immortal Adam (and earth) in the first place was the concept that God, being perfect, could not create anything imperfect - or corrupt that would die - , therefore, Man must have done something to screw it up and bring the biological corruption into the world. Thus, the difficulties in the world were not a fault of God, but came as a result of man's misstep.

This was further developed in developing early Mormonism, where Adam becomes posited as the literal physical offspring of Perfected Deity, being transplanted from elsewhere. Since perfection would give birth to perfection, then Adam must originally have been the same as his parents, and must have done something to change that.

Right now, there's still two "orthodox" views on the matter - that Adam's body was literally physically sired by God the Father, and then fell, or that the body was created in some other way as a Special Creation, but still in a deathless state.

Using our modern understanding of the beautiful processes of biology and organic evolution, these theological explanations for how we got to a state where things (including humans) died, or where thorns and thistles and carnivores came from are not necessary.

These explanations can go the way of other as hoc theological explanations and speculations based on the limited knowledge and understanding of day's past, trying to bridge the gap between revealed Theological nuggets.

To sum up, the theological tradition of beginning in a state of immortality and deathless perfection is based on a deprecated understanding and philosophy and science as to how the world actually works.

Edited August 3, 2011 by nackhadlow

[Craig Paxton]

This has been a very insightful thread for me. I find it fascinating to learn how different posters wrestle with this question of death before Adam (as I have) and seemingly find a way to reconcile that question with their religion and the scientific record. (of which I was not able to do)

While, for me, it seems quite clear that the church holds to a doctrine that cannot be true in any sense of the word, I understand their need to do so and respect those of you that also hold to this orthodox belief….and have found a way to hold on to your belief.

I just wanted to thank all of those who have made contributions to this thread…it has been a lesson in understanding how people find belief in what for me are unbelievable things.

I guess it all boils down to whether or not one holds a belief in other Mormon claims. If one believes that Mormonism is what it claims to be…then it must follow that one is more likely to find a way to reconcile this question in order to maintain a belief in the rest of Mormonism’s claims. In other words if a believer is more invested in Mormonism, they would have more motivation to find a way to believe those parts of a religion that someone on the outside might find unbelievable. But then that could be said about anyone on the outside of any religion looking in with skepticism and doubt regarding other religions claims.

[Ahab]

This has been a very insightful thread for me. I find it fascinating to learn how different posters wrestle with this question of death before Adam (as I have) and seemingly find a way to reconcile that question with their religion and the scientific record. (of which I was not able to do)

While, for me, it seems quite clear that the church holds to a doctrine that cannot be true in any sense of the word, I understand their need to do so and respect those of you that also hold to this orthodox belief….and have found a way to hold on to your belief.

I just wanted to thank all of those who have made contributions to this thread…it has been a lesson in understanding how people find belief in what for me are unbelievable things.

I guess it all boils down to whether or not one holds a belief in other Mormon claims.

Not necessarily "other" what you refer to as "Mormon" claims. What is boils down to is if you really believe what you believe despite people who don't believe it.

If one believes that Mormonism is what it claims to be…then it must follow that one is more likely to find a way to reconcile this question in order to maintain a belief in the rest of Mormonism’s claims. In other words if a believer is more invested in Mormonism, they would have more motivation to find a way to believe those parts of a religion that someone on the outside might find unbelievable. But then that could be said about anyone on the outside of any religion looking in with skepticism and doubt regarding other religions claims.

Right, but just to be clear I want to state that what you refer to as "Mormonism" involves what I know as what God has communicated to his children through Jesus Christ and the Holy Ghost to all of us here on this Earth... and not only in this dispensation, but since the days of Adam and Eve.

There are and probably always will be skeptics who don't believe what God has revealed, just as there always will be people who do believe what he has told us.

[thesometimesaint]

duplicate

Edited August 3, 2011 by thesometimesaint

[thesometimesaint]

blarsen:

Evolution works in both directions.

It is what ever best meets the environment. IE; Pandas do quite well in their natural environment, but man is quickly changing the environment of the Pandas. So fewer and fewer Pandas survive to reproduce.

[Samurai2012]

Exactly.... Only in the Garden was their no "death", and they were immortal. Leaving the Garden, they went into the lone and dreary world, where they must survive by the sweat of their brow.

There is no LDS doctrine, contrary to the OP which states that the entire earth there was no death or life outside of Adam. In fact, LDS doctrine states the opposite. This leaves plenty room for other possibility's, such as the one I lean toward, which is my #2 above. Seems the OP doesn't know his scriptures and doctrine well enough? This is basic stuff.

Yes, and the fact that there was a "world" already outside of Eden shows that whatever the status, their existence was a little separate from what was going on in the remainder of the world.

I also believe that the "days" referred to in Genesis was referring to time periods or eras, but I am a little short on my footnotes for the moment on the language.

[Samurai2012]

I think positing a complete halt in natural biological death after the processes have been going on for billions of years - for either a small location or the entire world - seems to be a completely unnecessary halting and bypassing of the laws of nature. If the mortal bodies were already there, what would be the purpose of creating a newly immortal biological deathless state?

While I can see the setting apart of a location as a for-all-intents-and-purposes Temple for symbolic teaching, ritual, and initiation of Covenant, I see absolutely no benefit or reason for needing to actually and completely change the biological processes of life for this to occur.

Even if we do posit at the very least an Adam which was the first biological homosapien to be granted what we understand as a Human Spirit, and that he found himself in a Garden where he received a Theophany and was instructed by God, I don't see a need for the bio transformation.

To sum up, the theological tradition of beginning in a state of immortality and deathless perfection is based on a deprecated understanding and philosophy and science as to how the world actually works.

The big argument I usually find is the failure to separate Eden from the remainder of the world. In Eden, Adam, Eve, and whatever other animals lived in that same area with them did not die until the fall. However, they were ultimately expelled into a world outside of whatever Eden was. In other words, there was a world with a different condition from that in Eden, which was sort of a "crib" for the development of intelligent civilized human beings. The fact that there was a world outside of Eden, doesn't always mean that it was created in the same way, or time frame. Whatever the time frame is, I don't know. But I do think that one way or another, we are among the youngest species on Earth, plants came before animals evolutionarily, and so on.

[David T]

I also believe that the "days" referred to in Genesis was referring to time periods or eras, but I am a little short on my footnotes for the moment on the language.

In the first creation account in Genesis 1, the account is speaking of days. As the kind of which there are seven in a week. There's nothing in the language that would hint towards a deeper extended time sensitive meaning. The ancients had no thought of the creation being a process taking aeons. In the ancient Genesis 1 story, all is called forth by God then and there.

While there are useful ways to use the symbols of the first creation story to teach other truths, there's no indication that attempts to harmonize with modern understanding of science and theology would have had anything to do with original intent or language.

Hence, see the different ways the basic symbols have been adapted, even in modern scripture and ritual. the Temple Creation Story is NOT the Genesis creation story, even though many of the same props , characters, and sets are used to tell the tale.

Edited August 4, 2011 by nackhadlow

[Samurai2012]

In the first creation account in Genesis 1, the account is speaking of days. As the kind of which there are seven in a week. There's nothing in the language that would hint towards a deeper extended time sensitive meaning. The ancients had no thought of the creation being a process taking aeons. In the ancient Genesis 1 story, all is called forth by God then and there.

While there are useful ways to use the symbols of the first creation story to teach other truths, there's no indication that attempts to harmonize with modern understanding of science and theology would have had anything to do with original intent or language.

Not neccessarily, just making sure there wasn't vocabulary out there that I should be forgetting. I was thinking about the words used for days. Whose days are we talking about? God's days? 24-hours, what kind of days? Although based on logic of Eden being a separate little nursery from the rest of the world, the confusion gets there a little.

Hence, see the different ways the basic symbols have been adapted, even in modern scripture and ritual. the Temple Creation Story is NOT the Genesis creation story, even though many of the same props , characters, and sets are used to tell the tale.

Which might agree with what I had said, that there was a world, or domain of existence outside of Eden, with it's own occurrences, events, etc.

[David T]

Not neccessarily, just making sure there wasn't vocabulary out there that I should be forgetting. I was thinking about the words used for days. Whose days are we talking about? God's days? 24-hours, what kind of days? Although based on logic of Eden being a separate little nursery from the rest of the world, the confusion gets there a little.

Well, the confusion comes when you link the Genesis 1 account as being the same narrative as the Genesis 2 story. The Genesis 2 story, which includes Yahweh the gardener forming man as a laborer to till his planted seeds and then forming animals out of the earth afterwards, is distinct from and separate from the story of Elohim speaking forth the creation in Genesis 1, where the simultaneous creation of man and woman comes after all other animal life.

The 7 Days Creation Story (which run parallel to the Exodus account of the setting up of the Tabernacle) does not appear to initially have been part of the Garden Story.

Edited August 4, 2011 by nackhadlow

[HeatherAnn]

This has been a very insightful thread for me. I find it fascinating to learn how different posters wrestle with this question of death before Adam (as I have) and seemingly find a way to reconcile that question with their religion and the scientific record. (of which I was not able to do)

While, for me, it seems quite clear that the church holds to a doctrine that cannot be true in any sense of the word, I understand their need to do so and respect those of you that also hold to this orthodox belief….and have found a way to hold on to your belief.

I just wanted to thank all of those who have made contributions to this thread…it has been a lesson in understanding how people find belief in what for me are unbelievable things.

I guess it all boils down to whether or not one holds a belief in other Mormon claims. If one believes that Mormonism is what it claims to be…then it must follow that one is more likely to find a way to reconcile this question in order to maintain a belief in the rest of Mormonism’s claims. In other words if a believer is more invested in Mormonism, they would have more motivation to find a way to believe those parts of a religion that someone on the outside might find unbelievable. But then that could be said about anyone on the outside of any religion looking in with skepticism and doubt regarding other religions claims.

That is profound... not just for this topic, but generally.

How often I've negotiated & justified in order for truth to fit my beliefs... mostly because I don't want to be wrong! Too much invested!

It's humbling to admit that we don't know... it can be unsettling to not have it all carved out before us...

Yet, pretending otherwise denies various possibilities, including that which may be best for us.

One of the GA's said we believe in being "born again & again"... & each birth is preceded by a death to limiting perspectives.

[David T]

One of the GA's said we believe in being "born again & again"... & each birth is preceded by a death to limiting perspectives.

I like that a lot, actually.

[mfbukowski]

While, for me, it seems quite clear that the church holds to a doctrine that cannot be true in any sense of the word, ....

Please do me a favor and take at least one philosophy class in your life, OK?

There are many many ways to use the word "true" other than in describing objective scientific evidence. You really need to learn that.

[HeatherAnn]

Please do me a favor and take at least one philosophy class in your life, OK?

There are many many ways to use the word "true" other than in describing objective scientific evidence. You really need to learn that.

That's true!

I'm guessing he meant "literally true."

Still, it's good to remember, as you mentioned previously, that there are many valid perspectives to look at the same mountain!