No Death Before The Fall

[Jeff K.]

JeremyOrbe-Smith, on 04 August 2011 - 10:49 PM, said:

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.

Correlation committee does not establish doctrine. Care to show us where it states so?

Edited August 7, 2011 by Jeff K.

[Jeff K.]

thesometimesaint, on 05 August 2011 - 11:45 AM, said:

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.

Seems to me you don't agree at all, you seem confused. Note the portion emboldened. "Reserved for the First Presidencey in unanimous agreement with the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles." That is the only way. So your statement regarding the manuals stating something, anything for that reason, is NOT, nor ever has been a method of establishing doctrine. I think our understanding of our church is deeply flawed based on that assumption.

[Sevenbak]

Seems to me you don't agree at all, you seem confused. Note the portion emboldened. "Reserved for the First Presidencey in unanimous agreement with the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles." That is the only way. So your statement regarding the manuals stating something, anything for that reason, is NOT, nor ever has been a method of establishing doctrine. I think our understanding of our church is deeply flawed based on that assumption.

You do know that the 3 most senior Apostles head up the Correlation Committee, right?

The other Apostles head up 3 other committees, each having 3 Apostles. The Missionary Executive Council, the Priesthood Executive Council and the Temple and Family History Executive Council.

To try to say that the correlation committee doesn't approve of doctrinal issues for the church is a losing proposition.

Edited August 7, 2011 by Sevenbak

[Sevenbak]

Correlation committee does not establish doctrine. Care to show us where it states so?

I disagree. Here's the reference.

"While the content of the approved Church publications identified above does not claim the same endorsement that the standard works receive, nonetheless they are prepared with great care and are carefully screened before they are published. Writers of curriculum materials must be cleared by the First Presidency and the Council of the Twelve. Their product is reviewed closely by the heads of the organizations that are responsible for their implementation. Correlation Review committees check carefully for doctrinal accuracy and for harmony with established Church policies and procedures."

http://lds.org/ensign/1977/08/i-have-a-question/i-have-a-question?lang=eng&query=correlation+doctrine

[JeremyOrbe-Smith]

Exactly. They're carefully-prepared study-helps, not doctrine.

More telling, I think, is the fact that, as you quoted:

"The content of the approved Church publications identified above does not claim the same endorsement that the standard works receive." (emphasis added)

They are fallible, non-doctrinal, and subject to change. We believe in continuing revelation, in which many great things will be made manifest to the Saints as they search for truth line upon line, precept upon precept. The Lord is expanding the Saints' understanding.

[Sevenbak]

Exactly. They're carefully-prepared study-helps, not doctrine.

More telling, I think, is the fact that, as you quoted:

They are fallible, non-doctrinal, and subject to change. We believe in continuing revelation, in which many great things will be made manifest to the Saints as they search for truth line upon line, precept upon precept. The Lord is expanding the Saints' understanding.

They may not carry the same weight as the standard works, which rightly so should be elevated above the rest, but as quoted above, Correlation Review committees check carefully for doctrinal accuracy.

To start from the viewpoint that they err because they are not scripture is asking for trouble, IMO.

For that matter, why use any manuals in the church at all? Let's just trust the scriptures. That's essentially what you are saying.

[JeremyOrbe-Smith]

Personally, I would prefer that, actually. *grin*

They're checked carefully for doctrinal accuracy. That doesn't mean the checking is infallible, and to start from the viewpoint that they're essentially inerrant seems like asking for far more trouble.

[Sevenbak]

Personally, I would prefer that, actually. *grin*

They're checked carefully for doctrinal accuracy. That doesn't mean the checking is infallible, and to start from the viewpoint that they're essentially inerrant seems like asking for far more trouble.

We believe in living prophets, that's why.

There's a really easy way to get to the bottom of this... Law of Witnesses.

I bet I could find at least a half a dozen references to no death before the fall in the entire world. That includes the correlated indexed scriptures (Bible Dictionary)

If we go on the assumption that the correlation committee is not to be trusted from the get go, where does that leave us?

[HeatherAnn]

I bet I could find at least a half a dozen references to no death before the fall in the entire world. That includes the correlated indexed scriptures (Bible Dictionary)

If we go on the assumption that the correlation committee is not to be trusted from the get go, where does that leave us?

Would that leave us having to study it out, use common sense acquired through our experiences & harmonizing it with the spirit?

[cdowis]

I bet I could find at least a half a dozen references to no death before the fall in the entire world. That includes the correlated indexed scriptures (Bible Dictionary)

OK, and I see this entry as referring to the sixth day of creation, not the previous five days. I envy your absolute certitude, but your interpretation is not so clear to me. Specifically, the Garden of Eden was "prepared" on the sixth day specifically for Adam and Eve, and did not exist in the previous five days. Adam was expelled from the Garden and crossed some undefined boundary into the "world" as we know it. (If you ask me for a reference, I suggest that you can find it yourself if you are an active member of the church.

In my mind, the world was a very different place on that sixth day, the previous five days as a preparation for the Garden. That preparation included death during those five days (actually two days), just as the earth itself changed during those five days.

Anyway, I have clicked on the feedback page, and requested clarification. We shall see what we shall see.

Edited August 7, 2011 by cdowis

[Jeff K.]

You do know that the 3 most senior Apostles head up the Correlation Committee, right?

The other Apostles head up 3 other committees, each having 3 Apostles. The Missionary Executive Council, the Priesthood Executive Council and the Temple and Family History Executive Council.

To try to say that the correlation committee doesn't approve of doctrinal issues for the church is a losing proposition.

The three most senor Apostles do not determine doctrine. The Prophet, and all the apostles in unanimity determine doctrine.

A tire does not make a car, nor does an engine.

[Jeff K.]

They may not carry the same weight as the standard works, which rightly so should be elevated above the rest, but as quoted above, Correlation Review committees check carefully for doctrinal accuracy.

To start from the viewpoint that they err because they are not scripture is asking for trouble, IMO.

For that matter, why use any manuals in the church at all? Let's just trust the scriptures. That's essentially what you are saying.

As to their best understanding, but not towards the determination of it being doctrine. It seems you are creating something that isn't there.

Edited August 7, 2011 by Jeff K.

[JeremyOrbe-Smith]

Sevenbak said:

There's a really easy way to get to the bottom of this... Law of Witnesses.

I bet I could find at least a half a dozen references to no death before the fall in the entire world. That includes the correlated indexed scriptures (Bible Dictionary)

The Bible Dictionary, while included in some printings of our scriptures, is "not intended as an official or revealed endorsement by the Church of the doctrinal, historical, cultural, and other matters set forth. Many of the items have been drawn from the best available scholarship of the world and are subject to reevaluation based on new research and discoveries or on new revelation."

I'd be interested in seeing a half dozen scriptural references to no death before the Fall. I'm pretty sure they don't exist, tho. And I think we're starting to go in circles at this point - the usual verses used to support a no-death-on-Earth-before-the-Fall (2 Nephi 2:22, Moses 6:48) have been discussed and found to be compatible with organic evolution and death before the Fall, depending on how one interprets 'em.

(Edit: whoops, that's not quite accurate. I was conflating this thread with the Galapagos & Darwin one, which dealt with the same issue.)

To recap: if we think of spiritual death as separation from God, then we all "die" when we are poured into our mortal bodies during this mortal probation, and in that sense, death is "brought into the world" for our family. This does not preclude death and organic evolution before the Fall, since God could have used them to form our bodies for this life. It is also far more consonant with scientific evidence such as geology and genetics.

If we go on the assumption that the correlation committee is not to be trusted from the get go, where does that leave us?

Personally, I do trust them from the get-go to be doing their best with what understanding they have. I merely disagree that they are infallible or that every decision they make is based on revelation. God does not call people to be sock-puppets - he let's em exercise their own free will and use their best learning to come to conclusions.

I don't think that their current understanding of death is correct, but that doesn't mean they're untrustworthy. Merely mistaken on an issue that is more academic than essential for our salvation.

I think Jeff K's posts and HeatherAnn are right on the money:

"That [would] leave us having to study it out, us[ing] common sense acquired through our experiences & harmonizing it with the spirit."

Edited August 7, 2011 by JeremyOrbe-Smith

[DonBradley]

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)

LOL--nicely put.

Clearly there was death on our planet long before the first humans arrived.

But suppose that the Fall is actually the transition from the deathless premortal world to the mortal world--i.e.,the first spirit children of God coming into bodies, and, for us, our individual "falls" from premortality into mortal bodies. Then, indeed, there is no death before the Fall, since there is no death in the premortal world.

Just a thought.

Don

[DonBradley]

To recap: if we think of spiritual death as separation from God, then we all "die" when we are poured into our mortal bodies during this mortal probation, and in that sense, death is "brought into the world" for our family. This does not preclude death and organic evolution before the Fall, since God could have used them to form our bodies for this life. It is also far more consonant with scientific evidence such as geology and genetics.

Cool.

Don

[DonBradley]

Define reality.

LOL! Just getting around to reading these. Fun...

Don

[SeattleGhostWriter]

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...

Then the Apostle Paul is wrong:

12Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, anddeath by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all havesinned:

13(For until the law sin was in the world: but sin is not imputed when there is no law.

14Nevertheless death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over them that had not sinned after the similitude of Adam’stransgression, who is the figure of him that was to come.

15But not as the offence, so also is the free gift. For if through the offence of one many be dead, much more the grace of God, and the gift by grace, which is by one man, Jesus Christ, hath abounded unto many.

16And not as it was by one that sinned, so is the gift: for the judgment was by one to condemnation, but the free gift is of many offences unto justification.

17For if by one man’s offence death reigned by one; much more they which receive abundance of grace and of the gift of righteousness shall reign in life by one, Jesus Christ.) Romans 5: 12-17

Paul apparently held to the idea that prior to the fall there was no mortal death. This is because the fall of Adam brought about both Sin and Death with it. The Genesis account also states that God told Adam and Eve would surely die if they partook of the tree of knowledge of good and evil. We find out that they did die immediately, because transgression brings spiritual death (separation from God) as well as the fall bringing mortal death.

So, if this concept is wrong, then the entire Bible is in error because it actually supports this.

[JeremyOrbe-Smith]

We've actually been talking about those very verses in the other thread referenced: http://www.mormondia...__p__1209032474

I think it's always good to keep in mind that we only believe the Bible insofar as it was translated correctly, and the Book of Mormon teaches that many plain and precious truths have been lost. Of course the Bible is in error, as is every human document. Joseph Smith had no problem with the idea that there were mistakes and contradictions and all manner of non-inerrant flubs in the Good Book, and yet he still loved it for all its imperfections. He taught us that God's revelations were given to men in their weakness, after the manner of their language. Just because there are errors in our compilation of writings doesn't mean we should treasure it any less. It just means it was written by humans with limited understanding, using the symbols and cultural models available to them. We don't have to jettison the Bible the moment we find one of the many inevitable flaws.

We also don't have to read Paul as saying that Adam's Fall is the reason we die. Personally, I think he's just using the old story to teach a true principle. Certainly our second Article of Faith makes this very clear: "We believe that men will be punished for their own sins, and not for Adam’s transgression." If God is literally killing us based on the sins of others, then He is an evil God. But I don't think He is, because I don't think He does.

Verse 12 is - as in the Temple - a type-scene; we can read him as saying: "When we sin, we separate ourselves from God, which is a kind of death. Just like the first child of God in this dispensation, all men who are born into this life have sinned. We repeat the type of sin of that first person, and so are born into this world of mortality in the same way."

And yet, from our Book of Moses, we see that our time in mortality is not a punishment, but rather a necessary step onto the path of our eternal progression. As Eve said: if we hadn't sinned, we could not have chosen between good and evil, and therefore we would not have had joy because we wouldn't even have understood it. We reject the idea of any kind of Original Sin; we reject the idea of a stain that can be transferred from person to person.

What Paul was doing was teaching us correct principle by likening us to Adam. "That guy sinned the same way we did. Christ, on the other hand, chose to die to save us when He didn't have to, so let's honor Him."

There is simply too much scientific evidence of bodily death in the plants and animals of this world before we arrogant homo sapiens were around for us to just dismiss it with a faith-affirming wave of a hand. The nice thing is, there's no reason we have to! We just need to interpret things in light of the evidence which has accumulated in the two thousand years since the first Apostles were preaching. Instead of saying that every creature on earth dies because our great-great-grandparents ate a bad apple (Why did trees have to reproduce by fruiting if there was no death? Why did Adam and Eve have skin and hair if there were no dead cells to form such things?), we can say that by sinning, we suffer a spiritual death which separates us from God. With this first death, we Fall and are born into this world of mortality, inhabiting our current bodies. As it is in the Temple, the story of Adam and Eve can be used not as a detailed scientific description of the causes of physical death and biological breakdown, but rather as the Sacred Drama in which we become Adams and Eves ourselves in order to contextualize our actions in this world.

Edit: the idea of a preexistence inhabited by us uncreated intelligences is crucial for any of this to work, which is why this is one of the most important of Mormonism's many revolutionary concepts.

Edited August 9, 2011 by JeremyOrbe-Smith

[cdowis]

So, if this concept is wrong, then the entire Bible is in error because it actually supports this.

I would re-phrase your question: "Is it possible that I do not understand what the Bible is telling me, that I am in error in how I interpret it."

Genesis is a combination story of the spiritual and physical creation -- it is set as a temple drama rather than a detailed account of the creation. Some of it is in symbols, such as Adam created from the dust of the earth, and Eve from his rib. As a temple drama, it is meant as a teaching aid, rather than a scientific exposition.

Perhaps your understanding of the Bible is mistaken, rather than "the Bible is wrong".

Edited August 9, 2011 by cdowis

[David T]

Then the Apostle Paul is wrong:

Would that substantially bother you?

Would it bother you to find out that the modern Apostle Parley P Pratt was wrong in some of his doctrinal assertions in his Missionary Booklet "A Voice of Warning", which in many ways was intended and delivered as an extended apostolic Epistle?

Edited August 9, 2011 by nackhadlow

[Jeff K.]

Would that substantially bother you?

Would it bother you to find out that the modern Apostle Parley P Pratt was wrong in some of his doctrinal assertions in his Missionary Booklet "A Voice of Warning", which in many ways was intended and delivered as an extended apostolic Epistle?

Given that we are not sure what the process was in declaring doctrine in the primitive church or that the Bible was put together during the fall, I can see why "far as it was translated correctly" and no, it would not disturb me greatly if there was error. We can see the conflicts between Peter and Paul in the epistles (as well as their last album together).

[BCSpace]

I bet I could find at least a half a dozen references to no death before the fall in the entire world. That includes the correlated indexed scriptures (Bible Dictionary)

That's not the issue because if you have death before the garden state you can still truthfully say there was no death before the Fall, local or global. Scriptures (2 Nephi 2:22) and doctrine (on D&C 77) already state that such a creative period exists and there are no properties, such as no death, applied to it. Contextually, "world" or "earth" can mean the already created world or earth. Also, if the Church states it has no details on the physical creation, then evolution can't be precluded because that would speak to the existence of details.

[cinepro]

The Bible Dictionary, while included in some printings of our scriptures, is "not intended as an official or revealed endorsement by the Church of the doctrinal, historical, cultural, and other matters set forth. Many of the items have been drawn from the best available scholarship of the world and are subject to reevaluation based on new research and discoveries or on new revelation."

While that is generally true, the case of "no death before the fall" is a little more nuanced than the disclaimer might lead us to believe.

The most pointed example of this is the "Preach My Gospel" manual.

For those who are unfamiliar with this manual, the "Preach My Gospel" manual was released in 2004, and is the reference used by every LDS Missionary for study and preparation. In addition to providing advice and instruction on teaching and sharing the gospel, the manual also serves to teach missionaries the doctrine.

In addition to the missionaries, LDS members in general have been strongly encouraged to study from this manual as well. For example:

Preach My Gospel—the Unifying Tool between Members and Missionaries

So what does "Preach My Gospel" have to do with the Bible Dictionary? Interestingly (but not surprisingly), there is a chapter devoted to the Plan of Salvation that discusses the doctrines of the Fall and Atonement. And as part of their "Scripture Study" for this section (p.52), missionaries are directed to the Bible Dictionary entry on "Death", which is where we read:

Latter-day revelation teaches that there was no death on this earth for any forms of life before the fall of Adam. Indeed, death entered the world as a direct result of the fall (2 Ne. 2:22; Moses 6:48).

I heartily agree that the Bible Dictionary is generally non-doctrinal, but considering the prominence of the "Preach My Gospel" manual in training and directing the missionaries (who are on the front line as name-tagged teachers of the doctrine), the fact that they are directed to this entry indicates to me that it is deemed doctrinally accurate by those who are best suited to judge such things.

The numerous other supporting statements made by General Authorities and official Church publications and curriculum only serve to indicate further the "official" and "doctrinal" status of this teaching, but for the specific entry in the Bible Dictionary, this serves as a good indicator.

Edited August 9, 2011 by cinepro

[mfbukowski]

The entire question is not whether or not there "was death before the fall", the question is what that phrase means.

Repeating over and again that GA's reaffirm that phrase without considering what it means is just silly. It indicates no understanding what has been said on this thread.

Edited August 9, 2011 by mfbukowski

[Craig Paxton]

I heard this story on NPR earlier today (yes I'm one of those) found it relavant to our conversation here thought you might enjoy.

Of particular interest to me are the following points:

01. Evangelicals are struggling to reconcile this same probelm with their doctrine as are many Mormons

02. The evidence found through the Human Genome project is pretty much a death nail to the notion of a real Adam and a real Eve. Well if you believe in evidence.

Here's a quote from the broadcast:

"Asked how likely it is that we all descended from Adam and Eve, Dennis Venema, a biologist at Trinity Western University, replies: "That would be against all the genomic evidence that we've assembled over the last 20 years, so not likely at all."

Venema says there is no way we can be traced back to a single couple. He says with the mapping of the human genome, it's clear that modern humans emerged from other primates as a large population — long before the Genesis time frame of a few thousand years ago. And given the genetic variation of people today, he says scientists can't get that population size below 10,000 people at any time in our evolutionary history.

To get down to just two ancestors, Venema says, "You would have to postulate that there's been this absolutely astronomical mutation rate that has produced all these new variants in an incredibly short period of time. Those types of mutation rates are just not possible. It would mutate us out of existence."

Here's the rest of the article/broadcast for those interested...

http://www.vpr.net/npr/138957812/

Edited August 9, 2011 by Craig Paxton