No Death Before The Fall

[mfbukowski]

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!

He may be a critic but that is because he is a fundamentalist.

It's like saying the Gospel has no meaning because donkeys don't talk, and people don't live in whales.

Unbelievable!

"What light thorough yonder window breaks-

Tis Juliette and she is the sun!"

Yep, that was one hot chick, but I guess she was a little large too. Just a big burning ball of gas.

Edited August 4, 2011 by mfbukowski

[Craig Paxton]

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.

Did you miss my qualifier statement? "for me" I believe that I was quite kind in my post...clearly stating that the conclusions were for me and me alone...I clearly allowed or at least inferred that I allowed and even respected that others have come to a different conclusion. As far as philosophy classes...yes I'm quite familor with the teachings of Plato, Aristotle, Augustine, Aquinas, Spinoza, Hume, Kant, Hegel, Schopenhauer, Kierkegaard, Nietzsche, Dewey, and Sartre. Which of these philosopher's views are you lacking an understanding of?

[Craig Paxton]

He may be a critic but that is because he is a fundamentalist.

It's like saying the Gospel has no meaning because donkeys don't talk, and people don't live in whales.

Unbelievable!

"What light thorough yonder window breaks-

Tis Juliette and she is the sun!"

Yep, that was one hot chick, but I guess she was a little large too. Just a big burning ball of gas.

Ummmm...not exactly, all I've ever claimed is that I believe there has been death on this earth since the beginning of time...a period that would have predated the Adam of the Bible by some 4 billion some odd years. And I believe that the scientific evidence supports that reality.

As far as your pejorative fundamentalist assertion...sorry wrong again. While in my world donkeys don't talk nor do people live in whales, I do believe in the irrefutable evidence supporting the proposition that there has been death on this earth for millions if not billions of years..IF that in your world is being a fundamentalist..then perhaps it is you that has the irreducible views.

mfbukowski, I'm not looking to pick a fight with you or your views...but I won't sit back and let your snide comments slide either. Attack my positions all you like. As far as trying to belittling me with your pejoratives ...I think your better than that...

Edited August 4, 2011 by Craig Paxton

[Samurai2012]

Two things your not considering.

1. That the 6,000 years is not actually 6,000 years, but much longer. For example, it's symbolism, like with Genesis. Most don't necessarily believe that there were 7 days related to the creation, that it's symbolic of a longer period.

2. There is a "Adamic Race" i.e. Israel, separate from the children of men, i.e. others of the earth, thus everything happening with Adam and his posterity is referring to that race.

Either one of these is generally how LDS deal with the seeming contradictions with scripture and science.

It's also possible that those (human and animal) in Eden weren't exactly in line with what was going on outside of it. There were places to live outside Eden after they were expelled, those were created too. I am not just talking geologically, but outside Eden there were certainly plants and animals in existence to support Adam and Eve post-fall, entire ecosystems, if you will. If there wasn't humanity would have a really hard time, and weren't those created too? Again, it's possible that years since the fall and leaving Eden vs. years since creation of the Earth are completely different things. At least that's my perspective anyways, from what I read about it, in both Genesis 1 and 2.

I think of the years as years since leaving Eden, there was Earth before then, outside, and after that. Human civilization and farming is incredibly recent compared to the advent of the species we would call modern man (homo sapiens). Eden was pretty much an ideal nursery on Earth as far as the matter was concerned, which served its purpose up until its occupants proved it was time for them to start living as mortals. After that, leave and join the rest of the Earth.

As far as the Earth goes, it could easily be however old, and I think someone mentioned there's no knowing how long an immortal would reckon time spent in Eden either, years, centuries, etc.?

[Craig Paxton]

It's also possible that those (human and animal) in Eden weren't exactly in line with what was going on outside of it. There were places to live outside Eden after they were expelled, those were created too. I am not just talking geologically, but outside Eden there were certainly plants and animals in existence to support Adam and Eve post-fall, entire ecosystems, if you will. If there wasn't humanity would have a really hard time, and weren't those created too? Again, it's possible that years since the fall and leaving Eden vs. years since creation of the Earth are completely different things. At least that's my perspective anyways, from what I read about it, in both Genesis 1 and 2.

I think of the years as years since leaving Eden, there was Earth before then, outside, and after that. Human civilization and farming is incredibly recent compared to the advent of the species we would call modern man (homo sapiens). Eden was pretty much an ideal nursery on Earth as far as the matter was concerned, which served its purpose up until its occupants proved it was time for them to start living as mortals. After that, leave and join the rest of the Earth.

As far as the Earth goes, it could easily be however old, and I think someone mentioned there's no knowing how long an immortal would reckon time spent in Eden either, years, centuries, etc.?

the problem with your theory is that thanks to Joseph Smith, we know exactly where Eden was. And unfortunately it was subjected to exact same geological consequenses as the rest of the earth. There is absolutely nothing to suggest that it was somehow under some protective bubble and excused from the geological expereicnes of the rest of the earth. Same glacial effects, same fossil record, same evidence of pre-adamic death. In fact there is nothing to suggest that it was Eden other than Joseph Smith's word

Edited August 4, 2011 by Craig Paxton

[cdowis]

the problem with your theory is that thanks to Joseph Smith, we know exactly where Eden was. And unfortunately it was subjected to exact same geological consequenses as the rest of the earth. There is absolutely nothing to suggest that it was somehow under some protective bubble and excused from the geological expereicnes of the rest of the earth. Same glacial effects, same fossil record, same evidence of pre-adamic death.

Well, a few things for all of us to think about.

1. Where exactly was the boundary that Adam crossed when he went from the Garden and "the world".

2. I agree there was no bubble, but my particular view is that death was suspended when the Garden was created on the sixth day.... the previous five days were a preparation for that special creation.

3. There were individuals who brought us new concepts, such as Freud and Darwin, but they did not give us the picture that we have today. I agree that not all the answers are forthcoming, but we are asking the right questions rather than ignoring this fundamental (apparent) discrepency between the two views of the creation process. I think we are closer to reconciling them when we question our assumption about that "no death before Adam" doctrine/assumption. When we questioned the "one Hill Cumorah" concept, that brought us closer to a real geography of the BOM.

I think that there is a doctrine, and an assumption, and those two can be separated. It's just a matter of patience, asking the right questions, research and we will eventually get there.

Edited August 4, 2011 by cdowis

[mfbukowski]

Did you miss my qualifier statement? "for me" I believe that I was quite kind in my post...clearly stating that the conclusions were for me and me alone...I clearly allowed or at least inferred that I allowed and even respected that others have come to a different conclusion. As far as philosophy classes...yes I'm quite familor with the teachings of Plato, Aristotle, Augustine, Aquinas, Spinoza, Hume, Kant, Hegel, Schopenhauer, Kierkegaard, Nietzsche, Dewey, and Sartre. Which of these philosopher's views are you lacking an understanding of?

Well then let me just ask you about two

First, I am a Pragmatist as Dewey is, so certainly you know how I view religous truth and how Mormonism fits well into that framework. You didn't see that before?

Or what about Kierkegaard?

Even Wikipedia knows this about his views:

http://en.wikipedia....ren_Kierkegaard

One of Kierkegaard's recurrent themes is the importance of subjectivity, which has to do with the way people relate themselves to (objective) truths. In Concluding Unscientific Postscript to Philosophical Fragments, he argues that "subjectivity is truth" and "truth is subjectivity." What he means by this is that most essentially, truth is not just a matter of discovering objective facts. While objective facts are important, there is a second and more crucial element of truth, which involves how one relates oneself to those matters of fact. Since how one acts is, from the ethical perspective, more important than any matter of fact, truth is to be found in subjectivity rather than objectivity.^[5]

So clearly the belief of "no death before the fall" can be seen as being "true" for how one relates to the problem, right?

I am not interested in arguing with you either, but all your posts rely on assuming a very literal, non-symbolic understanding of "no death before the fall"- how could that be if you are familiar with Kirkegaard and Dewey??

How could you NOT know that there are other ways of seeing this than the way you see it?

Further, in the same wikipedia article, it quotes K as follows:

We shall not decide which life fights the good fight most easily, but we all agree that every human being ought to fight the good fight, from which no one is shut out, and yet this is so glorious that if it were granted only once to a past generation under exceptional circumstances-yes, what a description envy and discouragement would then know how to give! The difference is about the same as that in connection with the thought of death. As soon as a human being is born, he begins to die. But the difference is that there are some people for whom the thought of death comes into existence with birth and is present to them in the quiet peacefulness of childhood and the buoyancy of youth; whereas others have a period in which this thought is not present to them until, when the years run out, the years of vigor and vitality, the thought of death meets them on their way. Who, now, is going to decide which life was easier, whether it was the life of those who continually lived with a certain reserve because the thought of death was present to them or the life of those who so abandoned themselves to life that they almost forgot the existence of death?^[13]

So suppose Adam was one who did not know of death before the fall? Would it exist for him?

Note that this does not exactly mirror my personal view, but it is close enough to illustrate the idea for you so that perhaps you can at least understand this kind of view and see it as "true".

And we havent started on Dewey yet.

Your assertion of being familiar with these philosophers is totally out of synch with your simple view of what is and is not "true"- that is the concern I am pointing out.

Edited August 5, 2011 by mfbukowski

[Jeff K.]

the problem with your theory is that thanks to Joseph Smith, we know exactly where Eden was. And unfortunately it was subjected to exact same geological consequenses as the rest of the earth. There is absolutely nothing to suggest that it was somehow under some protective bubble and excused from the geological expereicnes of the rest of the earth. Same glacial effects, same fossil record, same evidence of pre-adamic death. In fact there is nothing to suggest that it was Eden other than Joseph Smith's word

There are a couple of interesting points you raise.

First off you posit what we don't know. Was it subject to the exact same geological consequences as the rest of the earth? For that matter how do we know when those geological consequences occurred or if they wiped out any lack of consequence as they occurred? No one knew Yellowstone was a giant volcano because no one observed the caldera until much later. My point with Yellowstone is that the information was not obvious or available until our technology rose to a sufficient level of observation. We aren't sure what science came to be used regarding the Garden of Eden.

And I agree with you there is nothing to suggest that it was under a protective bubble, or that it even existed. Much like God, there is little to suggest the existence beyond faith. Almost everything can be somehow explained away by man. We don't know enough to have sure knowledge one way or another beyond faith. But I would like to add I did not take Joseph Smith's word alone. I also prayed about such things and recieved my own witness. It is about the best anyone can do really.

So can a specific area be relegated outside of the normal environment like a bubble? It would take a great deal of energy, but yes, it is possible, not impossible. Evidence is not necessarily forthcoming, and that is really where it ends isn't it?

[David T]

the problem with your theory is that thanks to Joseph Smith, we know exactly where Eden was. And unfortunately it was subjected to exact same geological consequenses as the rest of the earth. There is absolutely nothing to suggest that it was somehow under some protective bubble and excused from the geological expereicnes of the rest of the earth. Same glacial effects, same fossil record, same evidence of pre-adamic death. In fact there is nothing to suggest that it was Eden other than Joseph Smith's word

What we know from Joseph is that Eden was at the planned area of the Missouri Temple - which specific one was never built. Interestingly, all current temples being built with Murals and progressive ordinance rooms have their Garden Rooms painted according to local geography. South American temples have South American jungles and greenery in their Garden Rooms. The Atlanta temple has Georgia-native animals and flora in its Garden Room.

While Missouri was originally designated as Zion, at the end of his life, Joseph expanded his understanding of that definition to designate all of the americas as Zion, with the Nauvoo Temple being the hub, which all should make a pilgrimage to in their life.

Now, we understand the entire world to be Zion, wherever the Saints are gathered together. The full extent of Joseph's revealed knowledge goes right along with that: that Eden is where the Temple is. And there are temples all over the world.

Edited August 5, 2011 by nackhadlow

[Sevenbak]

What we know from Joseph is that Eden was at the planned area of the Missouri Temple - which specific one was never built. Interestingly, all current temples being built with Murals and progressive ordinance rooms have their Garden Rooms painted according to local geography. South American temples have South American jungles and greenery in their Garden Rooms. The Atlanta temple has Georgia-native animals and flora in its Garden Room.

While Missouri was originally designated as Zion, at the end of his life, Joseph expanded his understanding of that definition to designate all of the americas as Zion, with the Nauvoo Temple being the hub, which all should make a pilgrimage to in their life.

Now, we understand the entire world to be Zion, wherever the Saints are gathered together. The full extent of Joseph's revealed knowledge goes right along with that: that Eden is where the Temple is. And there are temples all over the world.

While that's an interesting idea, it's not taught anywhere in the church.

Here's what is, pretty consistently. I think this "I have a question" series, published in the Ensign, sums it up nicely.

What do we know about the location of the Garden of Eden?

Bruce A. Van Orden, “I Have a Question,” Ensign, Jan. 1994, 54–55

Bruce A. Van Orden, associate professor of Church history, Brigham Young University. We must remember that the whole earth was paradisiacal before the Fall. The Garden of Eden was a center place. After the Fall, there was no Garden of Eden or paradisiacal status on earth. Yet relative to the locale of the site of the Garden of Eden, the Prophet Joseph Smith learned through revelation (D&C 57) that Jackson County was the location of a Zion to be and the New Jerusalem to come. The Prophet first visited Jackson County, Missouri, in the summer of 1831. The Prophet visited Jackson County again in April and May 1832. On one of the occasions, or perhaps both, the Prophet Joseph apparently instructed his close associates, and perhaps even a general Church gathering, that the ancient Garden of Eden was also located in Jackson County.

Brigham Young stated, “Joseph the Prophet told me that the garden of Eden was in Jackson [County] Missouri.” (Journal of Wilford Woodruff, vol. 5, 15 Mar. 1857, Archives Division, Church Historical Dept., Salt Lake City.) Heber C. Kimball said: “From the Lord, Joseph learned that Adam had dwelt on the land of America, and that the Garden of Eden was located where Jackson County now is.” (Andrew Jenson, Historical Record, 9 vols., Salt Lake City: Andrew Jenson, 1888, 7:439; see also Orson F. Whitney, Life of Heber C. Kimball, Salt Lake City: Bookcraft, 1967, p. 219.) Other early leaders have given the same information.

Unfortunately, we do not have primary source documentation for all of Joseph Smith’s revelations or doctrinally related declarations. This is especially true for the periods when he did not have a scribe to keep a record of his daily activities. His 1831 and 1832 trips to Missouri fit into this category.

One of the early Latter-day Saint residents of Jackson County was Emily Austin. Remembering her first year there, she reminisced, “Our homes in this new country presented a prosperous appearance—almost equal to Paradise itself—and our peace and happiness, we flattered ourselves, were not in a great degree deficient to that of our first parents in the garden of Eden.” (Mormonism; or, Life among the Mormons, New York:AMS Press, 1971, p. 67.) She was reflecting a commonly held belief among the Saints that Eden was in Jackson County.

It wasn’t until May 1838 that revelation (D&C 116) identified Adam-ondi-Ahman, a site near the Garden of Eden, to be in Daviess County, Missouri, some seventy miles from present-day Kansas City. (Encyclopedia of Mormonism, 4 vols., New York City: Macmillan, 1992, 1:19–20.) Other revelations referring to Adam-ondi-Ahman were D&C 78:15–16 and D&C 107:53–57.

President Joseph Fielding Smith said: “In accord with the revelations given to the Prophet Joseph Smith, we teach that the Garden of Eden was on the American continent located where the City of Zion, or the New Jerusalem, will be built. When Adam and Eve were driven out of the Garden, they eventually dwelt at a place called Adam-ondi-Ahman, situated in what is now Daviess County, Missouri. … We are committed to the fact that Adam dwelt on [the] American continent.” (Doctrines of Salvation, 3 vols., comp. Bruce R. McConkie, Salt Lake City:Bookcraft, 1956, 3:74. Compare Answers to Gospel Questions, 5 vols., Salt Lake City: Deseret Book Co., 1957–75, 2:93–95, 4:19–24; and Alvin R. Dyer, in Conference Report, Oct. 1968, pp. 108–9.)

[illustration] Adam and Eve in the Garden, by Lowell Bruce Bennett

http://lds.org/ldsorg/v/index.jsp?vgnextoid=2354fccf2b7db010VgnVCM1000004d82620aRCRD&locale=0&sourceId=ba4e425e0848b010VgnVCM1000004d82620a____&hideNav=1

Edited August 5, 2011 by Sevenbak

[David T]

While that's an interesting idea, it's not taught anywhere in the church.

Here's what is, pretty consistently. I think this "I have a question" series, published in the Ensign, sums it up nicely.

What do we know about the location of the Garden of Eden?

Bruce A. Van Orden, “I Have a Question,” Ensign, Jan. 1994, 54–55

Bruce A. Van Orden, associate professor of Church history, Brigham Young University.

Actually, as I pointed out, it's taught pretty consistently in the Temple.

Which, for me, authoritatively trumps Bruce Van Orden any day. And the musings of individual General Authorities. Neither of which tend to take into consideration Joseph's later teachings on the matter, specifically during the period of Temple development - in fact, some of the last - and most profound - things he ever taught.

Edited August 5, 2011 by nackhadlow

[Sevenbak]

Actually, as I pointed out, it's taught pretty consistently in the Temple. Which, for me, authoritatively trumps Bruce Van Orden any day. And the musings of individual General Authorities.

Not so. But it's a nice idea.

I've actually had the opportunity to do more than a few stories and documentaries on various temples both inside the US and out. The Garden Rooms, as well as other features of the newer temples are designed to reflect the history and beauty of the regions in which they are built and represented. They are not painted to reflect the teaching that Eden was where the temples are.

Edited to add... I'd be happy to entertain teachings that reflect your position, "musings" or otherwise, from church publications, doctrinal or not. I've not seen such.

Edited August 5, 2011 by Sevenbak

[Jeff K.]

Actually, as I pointed out, it's taught pretty consistently in the Temple.

Which, for me, authoritatively trumps Bruce Van Orden any day. And the musings of individual General Authorities. Neither of which tend to take into consideration Joseph's later teachings on the matter, specifically during the period of Temple development - in fact, some of the last - and most profound - things he ever taught.

That seems consistent to me.

[David T]

Not so. But it's a nice idea.

I've actually had the opportunity to do more than a few stories and documentaries on various temples both inside the US and out. The Garden Rooms, as well as other features of the newer temples are designed to reflect the history and beauty of the regions in which they are built and represented. They are not painted to reflect the teaching that Eden was where the temples are.

Edited to add... I'd be happy to entertain teachings that reflect your position, "musings" or otherwise, from church publications, doctrinal or not. I've not seen such.

The Endowment is a ritual drama. It takes place nowhere, and everywhere. It does indicate that we are to understand ourselves as Adam and Eve. We're not watching a play - we're living the play.

Edited August 5, 2011 by nackhadlow

[David T]

I recently participated in a Boy Scout Leader Training experience called Wood Badge. The prototype for the training took place at a location called Gilwell Park, in England. Now, every Wood Badge has field designated 'Gilwell'. During this, you take on the ritual role of a young troop advancing from Cub Scouts through Boy Scouts. You are not the leaders, you are the troop. And for us, that is Gilwell. They refer to it in song and in ritual as us going "back to Gilwell". Those who go through the experience talk about their experiences "At Gilwell". That doesn't mean they were in England. While some may mistakenly believe that the ritual location is the actual name of the place and the original, that doesn't make it true.

I hold that Missouri was revealed as a Ritual Eden to Joseph, a living temple without walls, where the saints were to learn and grow viewing their lives as part of a Sacred Drama. Although the significance of that wasn't made clear and understood until Joseph was in Nauvoo, and introduced others to Eden in the Red Brick Store.

I've never been to Jackson County, Missouri. Or Mesopotamia. But I can say that I've been to Eden.

Edited August 5, 2011 by nackhadlow

[Sevenbak]

The Endowment is ritual a drama. It takes place nowhere, and everywhere. It does indicate that we are to understand ourselves as Adam and Eve. We're not watching a play - we're living the play.

That may be so, but it doesn't speak to a watered down definition of what or where the garden was. Your definition is not in harmony with the teachings of the church. You might think what I posted are mere "musings", but they are consistently taught throughout the church.

Here's more, from the Seminary and Institute manuals.

Moses 3:8. Where Was the Garden of Eden?

President Brigham Young taught: “In the beginning, after this earth was prepared for man, the Lord commenced his work upon what is now called the American continent, where the Garden of Eden was made” (Discourses of Brigham Young, 102).

President Heber C. Kimball, who was a counselor in the First Presidency, said: “The spot chosen for the garden of Eden was Jackson County, in the State of Missouri, where [the city of] Independence now stands; it was occupied in the morn of creation by Adam” (in Journal of Discourses, 10:235).

https://lds.org/si/bc/seminary/content/library/manuals/institute-student/pearl-of-great-price-student-manual_eng.pdf

[JeremyOrbe-Smith]

Seminary and Institute manuals are written and re-written by fallible human beings who are doing the best they can with what understanding they have. If further evidence comes to light which effects a specific teaching, they may be modified to accord with the new information. In this case, the information is actually old - though often passed-over. It is not a "watered-down" definition of the Garden - it's getting closer to the original source and context of the teaching, and is therefore more meaty and harmonious than what has traditionally been passed down. All Temples are Sacred Centers to their communities - we are not literally becoming Adams and Eves ourselves, falling from the actual Garden - we are reenacting a simplified version of the great Drama which allows us to contextualize all our actions on this earth.

[Nenahnezad]

That may be so, but it doesn't speak to a watered down definition of what or where the garden was. Your definition is not in harmony with the teachings of the church. You might think what I posted are mere "musings", but they are consistently taught throughout the church.

Here's more, from the Seminary and Institute manuals.

Moses 3:8. Where Was the Garden of Eden?

President Brigham Young taught: “In the beginning, after this earth was prepared for man, the Lord commenced his work upon what is now called the American continent, where the Garden of Eden was made” (Discourses of Brigham Young, 102).

President Heber C. Kimball, who was a counselor in the First Presidency, said: “The spot chosen for the garden of Eden was Jackson County, in the State of Missouri, where [the city of] Independence now stands; it was occupied in the morn of creation by Adam” (in Journal of Discourses, 10:235).

https://lds.org/si/b...-manual_eng.pdf

If I may interject here,

But according to "Shaken Faith Syndrome," the Journal of Discourses should be not quoted: http://www.mormonfor...m/journal2.html

"Anti-Mormon arguments which rely on quotations from the Journal of Discourses are often straw-man arguments, attempting to claim Mormon doctrine from speculative remarks by early leaders."

Because anti-mormons quote from the Journal of Discourses, we should ignore anything anti-mormons quote from. LOL! Next, of course will be the Book of Mormon and the Bible.

But I digress. On with the discussion!

[Nenahnezad]

double entry. my apologies. "gateway timeout" was returned.

Edited August 5, 2011 by Nenahnezad

[MAsh]

If I may interject here,

But according to "Shaken Faith Syndrome," the Journal of Discourses should be not quoted: http://www.mormonfor...m/journal2.html

"Anti-Mormon arguments which rely on quotations from the Journal of Discourses are often straw-man arguments, attempting to claim Mormon doctrine from speculative remarks by early leaders."

The height of irony! This is precisely the type of "straw-man" argument that, as I point out, critics use in their attempt to malign the Church. Nowhere do I state that the JD should "not" be quoted. The "straw-man" of such a statement is the argument that I would claim such a thing-- simply to shoot down the self-serving fabrication.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

The height of irony! This is precisely the type of "straw-man" argument that, as I point out, critics use in their attempt to malign the Church. Nowhere do I state that the JD should "not" be quoted. The "straw-man" of such a statement is the argument that I would claim such a thing-- simply to shoot down the self-serving fabrication.

Ha, that is too funny.

[thesometimesaint]

Nenahnezad:

I have no problem with quoting from the JoD. I do have a problem with anyone claiming that everything in it is recognized as doctrine of the Church. IT ISN'T. Further we have a long established method for whom gets to interpret the Scriptures for the Church and nonmembers, critics, and the vast majority of members don't qualify. I sure don't. That is reserved for the First Presidency in unanimus agreement with The Quarom of the Twelve Apostles.

Edited August 5, 2011 by thesometimesaint

[BCSpace]

If I may interject here,

But according to "Shaken Faith Syndrome," the Journal of Discourses should be not quoted: http://www.mormonfor...m/journal2.html

"Anti-Mormon arguments which rely on quotations from the Journal of Discourses are often straw-man arguments, attempting to claim Mormon doctrine from speculative remarks by early leaders."

Because anti-mormons quote from the Journal of Discourses, we should ignore anything anti-mormons quote from. LOL! Next, of course will be the Book of Mormon and the Bible.

You can quote from the JoD as official doctrine IF the same quote or concept is found in a work published, as doctrine, by the Church. Usually that's a pretty BIG if when it comes to antiMormons quoting from it.

Edited August 5, 2011 by BCSpace

[Sevenbak]

Seminary and Institute manuals are written and re-written by fallible human beings who are doing the best they can with what understanding they have. If further evidence comes to light which effects a specific teaching, they may be modified to accord with the new information. In this case, the information is actually old - though often passed-over. It is not a "watered-down" definition of the Garden - it's getting closer to the original source and context of the teaching, and is therefore more meaty and harmonious than what has traditionally been passed down. All Temples are Sacred Centers to their communities - we are not literally becoming Adams and Eves ourselves, falling from the actual Garden - we are reenacting a simplified version of the great Drama which allows us to contextualize all our actions on this earth.

And yet they are correlated by a committee that establishes doctrine and curriculum for the church.

[Sevenbak]

Nenahnezad:

I have no problem with quoting from the JoD. I do have a problem with anyone claiming that everything in it is recognized as doctrine of the Church. IT ISN'T. Further we have a long established method for whom gets to interpret the Scriptures for the Church and nonmembers, critics, and the vast majority of members don't qualify. I sure don't. That is reserved for the First Presidency in unanimus agreement with The Quarom of the Twelve Apostles.

I agree completely!

The correlation committee that used quotes from the JoD in manuals means much more than someone quoting stuff off the cuff on their own. If the Church establishes in it's current manuals that the entire earth was paradisiacal before the fall, then it's a teaching of the Church.

Heck, even ol Bruce R.'s Mormon Doctrine is quoted extensively in such basic manuals of the Church as Gospel Essentials and Gospel Principles.