No Death Before The Fall

[Sevenbak]

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.

Of course they do! Who do you think these 3 senior apostles report to? Each of the Executive Committees has no more than 3 apostles at their head, and each of them report to the entire body of the 12 and first Presidency. There is no other method.

How do you suppose such a controversial topic as this one has slipped through countless printings, and different editions of the manuals without it being brought up? Are you suggesting it never has, and they, the body of the whole are ignorant of the issue? Look how many times the subject pops up on this site alone.

The 12 and Church administration and curriculum is highly organized, and very little is not scrutinized carefully.

[Sevenbak]

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

"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)."

:good:

Another great example, thanks.

(Although I do understand you're agreeing with me for different reasons)

[Jeff K.]

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/

There is no way the dead can rise either. There are many things that science cannot explain or research.

[Jeff K.]

Of course they do! Who do you think these 3 senior apostles report to? Each of the Executive Committees has no more than 3 apostles at their head, and each of them report to the entire body of the 12 and first Presidency. There is no other method.

How do you suppose such a controversial topic as this one has slipped through countless printings, and different editions of the manuals without it being brought up? Are you suggesting it never has, and they, the body of the whole are ignorant of the issue? Look how many times the subject pops up on this site alone.

The 12 and Church administration and curriculum is highly organized, and very little is not scrutinized carefully.

You still do not know how doctrine is established. It isn't through the Sunday School committee.

The purpose of the Sunday school is to give general clarity and understanding. It is not to establish doctrine. You can insist that it does if you wish, but everyone here knows you would be wrong. Revelation and doctrine found in the Doctrine and Covenants for the church are what we look to. The Sunday School manuals are what others look to for weaknesses. They have failed to find any in the Doctrine and Covenants and so are forced to seek any ancilliary method possible. It makes their failure all that much obvious.

[thesometimesaint]

cinepro:

I don't belioeve that the Church will choose to die on the "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" cross. Any more than Pi is exactly equal to 3 argument the Bible makes, or that the world is flat according to the Bible, or that the earth is 7000 years old argument of the Protestants, or that man will never go into space, or land on earths moon of Joseph Fielding Smith.

[Sevenbak]

You still do not know how doctrine is established. It isn't through the Sunday School committee.

The purpose of the Sunday school is to give general clarity and understanding. It is not to establish doctrine. You can insist that it does if you wish, but everyone here knows you would be wrong. Revelation and doctrine found in the Doctrine and Covenants for the church are what we look to. The Sunday School manuals are what others look to for weaknesses. They have failed to find any in the Doctrine and Covenants and so are forced to seek any ancilliary method possible. It makes their failure all that much obvious.

I honestly don't know how to respond to this. If you seriously believe this conversation is about the Sunday School Committee, then we aren't going to get anywhere. I first thought you were joking, because of your smiley, then you went on, so I can only assume you are serious.

Here's what I'm talking about. The Correlation Executive Council. This is even higher up than the main Correlation Department, and it reviews the work of the three other councils and also directs the Correlation Department, which evaluates and approves of manuals to all the church, Priesthood, RS, SS, CES, etc... EVERYTHING. This is NOT just a Sunday School committee. This is the only way correlation happens in the church, period. It's done with the full stewardship and oversight of the entire 12 and First Presidency.

President Packer put it this way in a talk to correlation worker bees.

"The Council of the Twelve Apostles is the Correlation Committee, with the President of the Twelve and the two senior members acting as the executive committee. .... They represent the Brethren in pointing out to you areas where you, in one detail or another, might, in the interest of the overall program, need to make an adjustment or two."

You may not like the fact that the teachings are correlated, but they are, they are taught every day or week to our youth in Seminary, our adults in Gospel Doctrine, and yes... even sometimes in (ahem) Sunday School.

Edited August 10, 2011 by Sevenbak

[blackstrap]

What is the point of Christ's physical resurrection if death only refers to spiritual death? Only a spiritual resurrection would be required ie an atonement. Do we now wish to distance ourselves from an actual resurrection because that flies in the face of scientific knowledge?The Sadducees await a response >

[Craig Paxton]

There is no way the dead can rise either. There are many things that science cannot explain or research.

Wow Jeff I didn't think we'd ever agree on any point...yet I believe that you've found two things I am in complete agreement on

[Jeff K.]

I honestly don't know how to respond to this. If you seriously believe this conversation is about the Sunday School Committee, then we aren't going to get anywhere. I first thought you were joking, because of your smiley, then you went on, so I can only assume you are serious.

Here's what I'm talking about. The Correlation Executive Council. This is even higher up than the main Correlation Department, and it reviews the work of the three other councils and also directs the Correlation Department, which evaluates and approves of manuals to all the church, Priesthood, RS, SS, CES, etc... EVERYTHING. This is NOT just a Sunday School committee. This is the only way correlation happens in the church, period. It's done with the full stewardship and oversight of the entire 12 and First Presidency.

President Packer put it this way in a talk to correlation worker bees.

"The Council of the Twelve Apostles is the Correlation Committee, with the President of the Twelve and the two senior members acting as the executive committee. .... They represent the Brethren in pointing out to you areas where you, in one detail or another, might, in the interest of the overall program, need to make an adjustment or two."

You may not like the fact that the teachings are correlated, but they are, they are taught every day or week to our youth in Seminary, our adults in Gospel Doctrine, and yes... even sometimes in (ahem) Sunday School.

No, the teachings are correlated, ie a mechanism in which a level of consistency is found. You confuse such correlation with the establishment of doctrine. They do not propose new doctrine, they do not create doctrine, indeed I have never heard of doctrine being made by the correlation committee. If you have a source in which a revelation was brought before the body of the priesthood by the correlation committee, I would gladly enjoy seeing it.

Perhaps you may believe that the interpretation of doctrine plays a part? Or are you perhaps confusing issues related such as the idea that all words spoken by prophets and apostles or written, are somehow doctrine? Even in a correlation meeting? And is there unanimity when the meetings are held, or can and has there been disagreement?

All of this plays into it.

You my friend are stuck in a self created rut. Because Sunday school manuals are writtend does not mean they are establishing or have established doctrine. They might be written with the oversight of the apostles and prophets, but then many things are, it does not make all those things doctrinal.

Unlike you I don't see every act taken by the first presidency and apostles, every word they have spoken as the establishment of doctrine. It is only when they follow a prescribed method and it is presented before the general body of the church do I take a serious position such as doctrine.

You put too much emphasis on the correlation committee and presume too much authority in their place. Much as the early Jews did with the various clerks who became interpreters of the word instead of followers of Jehovah.

[David T]

What is the point of Christ's physical resurrection if death only refers to spiritual death? Only a spiritual resurrection would be required ie an atonement. Do we now wish to distance ourselves from an actual resurrection because that flies in the face of scientific knowledge?The Sadducees await a response >

Why does death have to be something 'new' begun by Adam for it to be overcome, or made more meaningful? Advancements in medicine and science have done wonders in understanding life-sustaining and prolonging measures. Think of all the resources and brainpower the world has which are wasted on distraction, extravagance, and that which is opposed to God's proposed unity and love. Think what would happen if all humanity banded together all their brainpower and resources in a Zion atmosphere with a common goal of love for each other, under the direction of the Great Scientist.

I really do think that our common metaphors we use for the Atonement can become creedal stumbling blocks if we think they are final and complete, instead of attempts to explain, using the language of their audience, an aspect of the Atonement that would have meaning for them. The Atonement is the process by which Christ enables us to enter into communion with God, and be United with Him. It is the process by which we are raised up from a people of potential, to a community of God. It is a process of shedding imperfection, and not being ruled by the base mechanics of our deterministic biology.

Edited August 10, 2011 by nackhadlow

[thesometimesaint]

Delete

Edited August 10, 2011 by thesometimesaint

[thesometimesaint]

blackstrap:

Non sequitur. Given that the atonement is for eternity in both directions.

[Jeff K.]

I think the death was physical but the geographical scope was narrow.

[cinepro]

cinepro:

I don't belioeve that the Church will choose to die on the "Latter-day revelation teaches that there was no death on this earth for any forms of life before the fall of Adam.

This is like the Seven stages of Apologetic Grief ®:

The Seven Stages of Apologetic Grief ®

When presented with a teaching or doctrine you don't want to believe, either because it is embarrassing, scientifically untenable, or some other reason, follow these six simple steps:

1. Deny that a teaching is taught by the Church

2. When shown it is taught, deny it is commonly or officially taught.

3. When shown it is commonly and officially taught, present unofficial, decades-old teachings to try and show that there is doubt on the subject.

4. When people aren't convinced by the obscure, unofficial counter-references, argue that the teaching isn't a "core doctrine", and that it is "no big deal" (even if the Church teaches that it is a big deal).

5. Make up an impossible standard for "doctrine", and then argue that you don't believe the teaching because it hasn't met the standard you just made up (i.e. "it must be presented to the Church and everyone votes on it"). Only use this standard for things you don't agree with.

6. If the believers and/or critics call you on your shenanigans, accuse them of "wishful thinking".

7. Wait a little while, look for new people to join the conversation, and go back to #1.

Edited August 10, 2011 by cinepro

[Jeff K.]

I have yet to see those steps in action Cinepro, seems like you are engaging in wishful thinking.

[Jeff K.]

This is like the Five stages of Apologetic Grief:

1. Deny that a teaching is taught by the Church

2. When shown it is taught, deny it is commonly or officially taught.

3. When shown it is commonly and officially taught, present unofficial, decades-old teachings to try and show that there is doubt on the subject.

4. When people aren't convinced by the obscure, unofficial counter-references, argue that the teaching isn't a "core doctrine", and that it is "no big deal" (even if the Church teaches that it is a big deal).

5. Make up an impossible standard for "doctrine", and then argue that you don't believe the teaching because it hasn't met the standard you just made up (i.e. "it must be presented to the Church and everyone votes on it"). Only use this standard for things you don't agree with.

6. Wait a little while, look for new people to join the conversation, and go back to #1.

Anti Mormons are bit more simplistic, like shampoo.

1- Claim it is doctrine

2-When shown it is not doctrine, claim it is being taught and therefore doctrine

3-When shown it is merely opinion, claim it is opinion held by some leaders and is therefore being taught and must be doctrine.

4=Finally when shown that other apostles and prophets had differeing views....

This is where the shampoo method comes in... "rinse and repeat".

[Jeff K.]

Make up an impossible standard for "doctrine", and then argue that you don't believe the teaching because it hasn't met the standard you just made up (i.e. "it must be presented to the Church and everyone votes on it"). Only use this standard for things you don't agree with.

Impossible if it isn't revelation.

Your trouble here Cinepro is that everyon on this board is aware of how doctrine comes about. The methodology is narrow and is not to be deviated from. It takes away all of your anti Mormon toys, and for you it is certainly an "impossible standard" since without it you are left with arguing the Doctrine and Covenants, and for some reason, that one is just way too hard for you to argue against.

[cinepro]

Impossible if it isn't revelation.

Your trouble here Cinepro is that everyon on this board is aware of how doctrine comes about. The methodology is narrow and is not to be deviated from. It takes away all of your anti Mormon toys, and for you it is certainly an "impossible standard" since without it you are left with arguing the Doctrine and Covenants, and for some reason, that one is just way too hard for you to argue against.

I agree that "everyone on this board is aware of how doctrine comes about". Sadly, everyone has a different standard, with people's definitions and theories about the origin and status of "doctrine" being all over the map. The only consistency is that everyone assumes that everyone else is in agreement with their theory (or at the very least, should be) and therefore their understanding is the standard against which "doctrine" should be judged.

Thankfully, personal bias for or against a teaching never enters into anyone's equation. Just think what a mess we'd have if that ever happened!

Edited August 10, 2011 by cinepro

[thesometimesaint]

cinepro:

I'm not an absolutest.

I fully allow everyone, including prophets, to be mistaken on occassion. IE. The Church has yet to take a doctrinal position on Pi, and that Biblical statement is thousands of years old. That man will never go into space or land on the moon. Additionally I believe there are countless ideas that while they may be true(or not), are not doctrines of the Church. IE; Scope of The Flood, age of the earth, how old was Adam, how tall was the Tower of Babel, etc., etc., etc..

All that being said. What we do know is of such little amount that it is like comparing a thimbles' worth of knowledge to all the oceans of the world of ignorance.

[cinepro]

Interestingly, if the teachers stick to the manual, everyone in the Church will be taught this in an upcoming Priesthood or RS lesson (depending on the lesson schedule):

Adam and Eve were married by God before there was any death in the world.

Lesson 38: Eternal Marriage

Just so I can see where we all stand on the issue, why don't we all share what we think the manual is trying to convey by using the following words:

"before"

"any"

"death"

"world"

I think when they say "before", they mean from the beginning of the world's existence starting on day one of the creation. When they say "any", I think they mean there was no physical or spiritual death for any creation, including plants, animals and hominids anywhere on the planet. I think "death" is referring to both physical and spiritual death. And I think "world" means the entire planet Earth.

But it's possible I have misread what is meant to be taught. If you think they meant something else, please share.

And this isn't a theoretical question. I'll actually be teaching this lesson on Sunday, and while this obviously isn't the focus of the lesson, I need to be prepared in case anyone asks any questions.

[thesometimesaint]

cinepro:

Simply because that is unsupportable by the evidence.

Second, the whole story can be dismissed as a series of supernatural miracles. There is no way to contradict such an argument. However, one must wonder about a God who reportedly does one thing and then arranges every bit of evidence to make it look like something else happened. It's entirely possible that the creation occurred 6-7000 years ago or even last Thursday, and that God subsequently erased all the evidence, including our memories of it. But even if such stories are true, what's the point?

Edited August 10, 2011 by thesometimesaint

[cdowis]

This is a great post.... really.

When presented with a teaching or doctrine you don't want to believe, either because it is embarrassing, scientifically untenable, or some other reason, follow these six simple steps:

1. Deny that a teaching is taught by the Church

Assert that only your interpretation of that teaching is posssible. Use that clever phrase, "There is only ONE possibility." Throw in a sprinkling of "obviously" and "clearly" to bolster your position.

2. When shown it is taught, deny it is commonly or officially taught.

You continue to assert that your interpretationit is doctrine.... well, because you said so.

3. When shown it is commonly and officially taught, present unofficial, decades-old teachings to try and show that there is doubt on the subject.

When challanged on your interpretation, you simply repeat the same references, pretending that they agree with you. If someone points a reference that disagrees with you, (e.g. McConkie) just ignore it and continue with a long string of citations. Surely if you give us a hundred references, you MUST know what you are talking about. You cannot be wrong if you keep repeating yourself.

"No death before the Fall" is official doctrine. The issue is whether that extends to the five days of creation. When I asked for a reference, you rightfully could not give an answer, because that possibility has not been seriously explored before, with the possible exception of a couple of apostles a few decades ago. But you continue to assert, apparently, that this is not a possibility, only a "minor issue" not worth persuing (as I remember from your post). Not worth bothering with because we cannot consider "all possibilities".

Edited August 10, 2011 by cdowis

[David T]

The Church has yet to take a doctrinal position on Pi, and that Biblical statement is thousands of years old

I don't know...this Month's New Era appears to have a doctrinal declaration that 1 Kings 7:23 is approximately pi!

5 Scriptures Containing Principles of Science or Mathematics

• • 1 Kings 7:23 (pi—approximately)
• • Matthew 7:24–27 (erosion)
• • Helaman 12:15 (heliocentrism)
• • Alma 30:44 (planetary motion)
• • D&C 93:33 (conservation of mass/energy)

[Jeff K.]

I agree that "everyone on this board is aware of how doctrine comes about". Sadly, everyone has a different standard, with people's definitions and theories about the origin and status of "doctrine" being all over the map. The only consistency is that everyone assumes that everyone else is in agreement with their theory (or at the very least, should be) and therefore their understanding is the standard against which "doctrine" should be judged.

Thankfully, personal bias for or against a teaching never enters into anyone's equation. Just think what a mess we'd have if that ever happened!

I simply look to waht the church says regarding doctrine and the standards applies. I also look to the Doctrine and Covenants. It seems anti Mormons avoid both and prefer distractions of opinion over what it says in both the Doctrine and Covenants and through the church's own clarification.

[thesometimesaint]

nackhadlow:

I eagerly await Pi being approximately three becoming part of D&C.