No Death Before The Fall

[David T]

nackhadlow:

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

I'm looking for some of the MormonAds to sit next to the Facsimiles in the PoGP.

Edited August 10, 2011 by nackhadlow

[thesometimesaint]

cinepro:

There really is no disagreement on how the Church establishes doctrine, and unless/until there is unanimus agreement between the First Presidency AND the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles it is NOT doctrine. No death anywhere for anything on this planet prior to the fall of Adam is NOT doctrine.

[David T]

cinepro:

There really is no disagreement on how the Church establishes doctrine, and unless/until there is unanimus agreement between the First Presidency AND the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles it is NOT doctrine. No death anywhere for anything on this planet prior to the fall of Adam is NOT doctrine.

Except, that, as pointed out, such is stated in Preach My Gospel, the guide for the Missionaries introducing Church Doctrine to investigators, which opens with an endorsement of the First Presidency, and has been regularly been said to have been gone over with a fine tooth comb and micromanaged by the brethren.

I wish that weren't the case, but it is. Currently, it is a teaching/doctrine of the official publications of the Church (see also the CES manuals). I hope that will change.

Edited August 10, 2011 by nackhadlow

[thesometimesaint]

I eagerly await its inclusion in our D&C.

Actuall I don't. Much like the Catholics rejection of Heliocentrism during Galileos' time. I hope it doesn't take us some 500 years to recognize the truth.

[David T]

I eagerly await its inclusion in our D&C.

Actuall I don't. Much like the Catholics rejection of Heliocentrism during Galileos' time. I hope it doesn't take us some 500 years to recognize the truth.

I don't await its inclusion. I actively hope against such a thing ever happening. I'm worried enough about the eventual Teachings of Presidents of the Church: Joseph Fielding Smith manual. Fortunately we'll have at least 1+ years to worry about that (we get George Albert Smith next year).

There have been many things its clear the brethren are agreed upon, believe together, and are willing to have taught as official doctrine, but yet are not prepared to make it a definitive matter of Canonized Scripture.

Edited August 10, 2011 by nackhadlow

[JeremyOrbe-Smith]

I don't think it will. We've got some pretty good "get out of jail free" cards, like continual revelation, an open canon, etc.

My main concern is to keep people from becoming bitter about modifications to their paradigms. We seem to suffer mass apostasies every time something significant is changed, because people have gotten so locked down in a particular way of thinking. It's not a product of Church culture, really, it's just kinda human nature - same thing happens in science, when the Old Guard has to die off before the new Theory of Everything gets a fair shake in the Academy. I think that's why continual revelation is so important in every field, not just the little clump of our stories about reality which we've designated as "religious".

That's why we should emphasize our teachings which show how Prophets are people too, and they learn line upon line along with the rest of us. Hammer home D&C 1: inasmuch as we err, we'll be corrected if we search out wisdom. It doesn't prove that a man isn't a good because he errs in doctrine, and no one is exempt. When we use our Priesthood as an authority rather than persuasion, the heavens are withdrawn. We just need to be diligent about giving each other a theoretical space where death and evolution before the Fall can be integrated into the Sacred Drama. It's doable!

[thesometimesaint]

Agreed.

[Craig Paxton]

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!

Cinepro, I've adopted a new policy to help me define "Mormon Doctrine". Save my self a whole lot of time and frustration...and just go to the one true arbiter of what is Mormon Doctrine...Jeff K. See problem solved.

[Jeff K.]

Except, that, as pointed out, such is stated in Preach My Gospel, the guide for the Missionaries introducing Church Doctrine to investigators, which opens with an endorsement of the First Presidency, and has been regularly been said to have been gone over with a fine tooth comb and micromanaged by the brethren.

I wish that weren't the case, but it is. Currently, it is a teaching/doctrine of the official publications of the Church (see also the CES manuals). I hope that will change.

The purpose of preach my gospel is not to establish doctrine or covenants. It is a teaching aide but not an establishment of doctrine. As such its purpose is distinct. It may delve into some doctrines but it will also delve into analogies and opinions, reviewed by the first presidency and the quorum of the twelve all of this looks to be within reason in order to teach doctrine. However as to it being doctrine exclusively and establishing the doctrinal precedence for all to accept in a General Conference? I do not think so.

[Jeff K.]

I don't think it will. We've got some pretty good "get out of jail free" cards, like continual revelation, an open canon, etc.

My main concern is to keep people from becoming bitter about modifications to their paradigms. We seem to suffer mass apostasies every time something significant is changed, because people have gotten so locked down in a particular way of thinking. It's not a product of Church culture, really, it's just kinda human nature - same thing happens in science, when the Old Guard has to die off before the new Theory of Everything gets a fair shake in the Academy. I think that's why continual revelation is so important in every field, not just the little clump of our stories about reality which we've designated as "religious".

That's why we should emphasize our teachings which show how Prophets are people too, and they learn line upon line along with the rest of us. Hammer home D&C 1: inasmuch as we err, we'll be corrected if we search out wisdom. It doesn't prove that a man isn't a good because he errs in doctrine, and no one is exempt. When we use our Priesthood as an authority rather than persuasion, the heavens are withdrawn. We just need to be diligent about giving each other a theoretical space where death and evolution before the Fall can be integrated into the Sacred Drama. It's doable!

Well said

[Craig Paxton]

The purpose of preach my gospel is not to establish doctrine or covenants. It is a teaching aide but not an establishment of doctrine. As such its purpose is distinct. It may delve into some doctrines but it will also delve into analogies and opinions, reviewed by the first presidency and the quorum of the twelve all of this looks to be within reason in order to teach doctrine. However as to it being doctrine exclusively and establishing the doctrinal precedence for all to accept in a General Conference? I do not think so.

I rest my case...cinepro...do what I do...I pound my head into a brick wall...the results are alot more fruitful and alot less painful

Edited August 10, 2011 by Craig Paxton

[Jeff K.]

Revelation combined with purpose and procedure are what make the doctrine as we know it, not lesson books, even those written by prophets and apostles.

The revelation reveals itself for a purpose. Then the prophet and apostles follow the procedure of seeking acknowledgement of revelation, with this they present the revelation and doctrine to the general membership of the church. The doctrine is then placed within the Doctrine and Covenants (handy name no?) of our church.

I don't know why you wish to change it, it seems to work just fine.

22 Of the Melchizedek Priesthood, three Presiding High Priests, chosen by the body, appointed and ordained to that office, and upheld‍ by the confidence, faith, and prayer of the church, form a quorum of the Presidency of the Church. 23 The twelve‍ traveling councilors are called to be the Twelve Apostles, or special witnesses‍ of the name of Christ in all the world—thus differing from other officers in the church in the duties of their calling. 24 And they form a quorum, equal‍ in authority and power to the three presidents previously mentioned. 25 The Seventy‍ are also called to preach‍ the gospel, and to be especial witnesses unto the Gentiles and in all the world—thus differing from other officers in the church in the duties of their calling. 26 And they form a quorum, equal in authority‍ to that of the Twelve special witnesses or Apostles just named. 27 And every decision made by either of these quorums must be by the unanimous‍ voice of the same; that is, every member in each quorum must be agreed to its decisions, in order to make their decisions of the same power or validity one with the other— 28 A majority may form a quorum when circumstances render it impossible to be otherwise— 29 Unless this is the case, their decisions are not entitled to the same blessings which the decisions of a quorum of three presidents were anciently, who were ordained after the order of Melchizedek, and were righteous‍ and holy men. 30 The decisions of these (#26:22 -30 )

Doctrine and Covenants 107

[mfbukowski]

I rest my case...cinepro...do what I do...I pound my head into a brick wall...the results are alot more fruitful and alot less painful

Hard to imagine how that would be less painful.

But keep it up, the pain will be over soon.

[blackstrap]

Suppose ,for the sake of argument, that the First Presidency decides,unanimously,that there was no death before the fall.Then the Quorum of the 12 decide,unanimously that there was,then the Seventy decide,unanimously that there was not. Who wins?Do we get to vote on it?

I'm relatively sure that the OP leads to the rejection of any and all miraculous events as recorded in the scriptures because,well, who really believes that unscientific stuff anymore.Resurrection? forget it. Parting the Red Sea?,preposterous!Curing the blind with mud?,please!. The sun standing still?,come now! These things obviously never could happen,never have happened,and never will. Leave your false traditions behind and embrace truth.And we have spent 26 pages arguing the merits of speculation and personal opinion on the matter.Wow!!!

[mfbukowski]

Suppose ,for the sake of argument, that the First Presidency decides,unanimously,that there was no death before the fall.Then the Quorum of the 12 decide,unanimously that there was,then the Seventy decide,unanimously that there was not. Who wins?Do we get to vote on it?

I'm relatively sure that the OP leads to the rejection of any and all miraculous events as recorded in the scriptures because,well, who really believes that unscientific stuff anymore.Resurrection? forget it. Parting the Red Sea?,preposterous!Curing the blind with mud?,please!. The sun standing still?,come now! These things obviously never could happen,never have happened,and never will. Leave your false traditions behind and embrace truth.And we have spent 26 pages arguing the merits of speculation and personal opinion on the matter.Wow!!!

Responses are not required. Nothing bad will happen to you if you remain silent.

[thesometimesaint]

blackstrap:

As LDS doctrine is established only by uninimity amoung the FP AND Qo12. No total agreement means no doctrine. We individual member don't get a vote per say. But we can accept or reject to sustain them. Also an individual has the right and duty to determine for themselves what they really believe.

[Sevenbak]

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.

This is really getting old. First you try to say it's just a little Sunday School Committee, and doesn't matter, then, when I point out it's the entire FP and 12 that approves of Correlation, you now completely change the goalposts and say that Correlation is irrelevant. How very nice.

Simply put, this is not an argument you are going to win, no matter how much you don't agree with how the Church is run or doctrines are established. The doctrines of the Gospel are outlined in both the scriptures and the words of the living prophets, which are contained in the manuals, which have been thoroughly vetted and correlated year after year, after year, by the entire 12 and FP. I've already given you many references to why they are considered doctrinal. Here's another, this will be my last, as this is not something that we will agree on, apparently and I don't need to argue for the brethren, they have done that already.

"make sure that you use Church-produced materials when you teach. This will help you keep the doctrine pure. Avoid speculation and private interpretations."

Teach the Doctrine - Principles and Methods of Teaching

You can have the last word, I'm done.

[Jeff K.]

This is really getting old. First you try to say it's just a little Sunday School Committee, and doesn't matter, then, when I point out it's the entire FP and 12 that approves of Correlation, you now completely change the goalposts and say that Correlation is irrelevant. How very nice.

Simply put, this is not an argument you are going to win, no matter how much you don't agree with how the Church is run or doctrines are established. The doctrines of the Gospel are outlined in both the scriptures and the words of the living prophets, which are contained in the manuals, which have been thoroughly vetted and correlated year after year, after year, by the entire 12 and FP. I've already given you many references to why they are considered doctrinal. Here's another, this will be my last, as this is not something that we will agree on, apparently and I don't need to argue for the brethren, they have done that already.

"make sure that you use Church-produced materials when you teach. This will help you keep the doctrine pure. Avoid speculation and private interpretations."

Teach the Doctrine - Principles and Methods of Teaching

You can have the last word, I'm done.

I have already won the argument. You may not be aware of it.

Again allow me to illustrate...

Quote

22 Of the Melchizedek Priesthood, three Presiding High Priests, chosen by the body, appointed and ordained to that office, and upheld‍ by the confidence, faith, and prayer of the church, form a quorum of the Presidency of the Church. 23 The twelve‍ traveling councilors are called to be the Twelve Apostles, or special witnesses‍ of the name of Christ in all the world—thus differing from other officers in the church in the duties of their calling. 24 And they form a quorum, equal‍ in authority and power to the three presidents previously mentioned. 25 The Seventy‍ are also called to preach‍ the gospel, and to be especial witnesses unto the Gentiles and in all the world—thus differing from other officers in the church in the duties of their calling. 26 And they form a quorum, equal in authority‍ to that of the Twelve special witnesses or Apostles just named. 27 And every decision made by either of these quorums must be by the unanimous‍ voice of the same; that is, every member in each quorum must be agreed to its decisions, in order to make their decisions of the same power or validity one with the other— 28 A majority may form a quorum when circumstances render it impossible to be otherwise— 29 Unless this is the case, their decisions are not entitled to the same blessings which the decisions of a quorum of three presidents were anciently, who were ordained after the order of Melchizedek, and were righteous‍ and holy men. 30 The decisions of these (#26:22 -30 )

Doctrine and Covenants 107

The procedure has been around a good long time. I apparently agree with the church and how doctrine is established with a greater accuracy than you seem to be able to produce.

First you try to say it's just a little Sunday School Committee, and doesn't matter, then, when I point out it's the entire FP and 12 that approves of Correlation, you now completely change the goalposts and say that Correlation is irrelevant. How very nice.

It is the same goal post. It doesn't matter "because" it is irrelavent to the process of issuing doctrine.

And with all your opinions, the only reference I need comes from the Doctrine and Covenants, not from the clerks at the Church office building or from the business or the imagined dotted lines in developing teaching materials. It comes from the First Presidency and the Quorum of the Twelve who actively delve into revelation and produce it specifically by enquiring of the Lord as to doctrine. Writing a manual is reviewed by the first presidencey and the quorum of the twelve, and it is most likely inspired to be used as an excellent teaching tool, it has much doctrine in it. But it does not produce doctrine, it has not been presented as doctrine to the body of the church, and its purpose was never to replace the Doctrine and Covenants which outlines our doctrine and beliefs quite well.

A ship may be made of wood, but that doesn't make it a tree.

[cinepro]

I'm looking for some of the MormonAds to sit next to the Facsimiles in the PoGP.

Considering the problems some LDS have with non-literal messages, this one might be more appropriate:

[cinepro]

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)

Wow, what an odd thing to include in the New Era.

Thank goodness they didn't include "Plate Tectonics" from Genesis 10:25, or "Newton's First Law of Motion" for Numbers 15:36 ...

Edited August 11, 2011 by cinepro

[mfbukowski]

Considering the problems some LDS have with non-literal messages, this one might be more appropriate:

What about the critics who take everything literally just so they can be critical?

Do you know anyone like that?

Like maybe this?

Wow, what an odd thing to include in the New Era.

Thank goodness they didn't include "Plate Tectonics" from Genesis 10:25, or "Newton's First Law of Motion" for Numbers 15:36 ...

Edited August 11, 2011 by mfbukowski

[Rivers]

I recently went through the Salt Lake temple. And in the Salt Lake Temple, the transitions between the different worlds is much more important.

You start with the creation and then move on to the garden of Eden. Followed by the telestial world, the terrestrial world, and finally the celestial word.

Then I was reminded that the entire earth will eventually go through all these different stages of existence. The earth has gone from a creation period, to a garden of eden, to a lone and dreary world. It will later become a terrestrial world during the thousand years and finally become celestial.

I don't think it is much of a stretch to say that the creation period involved death while the garden state did not have death. Because the same thing will happen in the future. We are now living in a world where things die and it will someday become world without death.

[Samurai2012]

I eagerly await its inclusion in our D&C.

Actuall I don't. Much like the Catholics rejection of Heliocentrism during Galileos' time. I hope it doesn't take us some 500 years to recognize the truth.

Again, the comparison is a little off. You're missing the part where Tycho Brahe actually could come up with real observations and could argue on logical point that the universe was, in fact, heliocentric. That's the part that a lot of people don't get. With the available information at the time of Tycho Brahe and Galileo, it really was debateable as to where the center of the Earth is.

The following details did not bode well for the idea of the heliocentric universe at the time:

1) You couldn't spot any significant parallax at the time

2) The Sun's movement in the sky did not match the perspective it should be taking based on Copernicus' idea that the Earth's orbit around the sun was circular.

Either way, hindsight is always 20/20 or better, and it's easy to forget how the observed data changed from the medieval times until now, and what points of proof got argued over and so on.

The book known as the Measure of Reality by Alfred Crosby, the price at Amazon.com is up there, but hopefully you can borrow it from your local library for cheaper, details a great deal of these scientific debates, along with the ideas and data available.

My personal admission, especially based on the time when Tycho Brahe's model seemed the best, would probably be that I would be hesitant to accept it as your regular scientist at the time, had I lived then, and had I known what your 16th/17th century university student received for an education back then, when they were just barely in the process of sorting out basic mechanics of motion, gravitation, and so on.

Personally, the entire embracing and trying to ask church authorities to give the stamp of approval to every last little scientific claim there is, especially when the scientific claim is incredibly temporary in its scope depending on teachnology to improve the modeling and the observation. Also, thinking that religious leaders, whether LDS, Catholic, or whatever, can't do wrong things is a little bad thinking that doesn't have decent precedent.

Samuel got lectured by God for his questioning about why to visit Jesse's family and choosing a king, not to mention making the mistake of choosing Saul. Peter denied association to Jesus not having the courage then to save his own skin, but at the same time, it was a big mistake that he really learned from. Joshua got tricked by Canaanites during his expedition into the promised land, and Gideon fell away from truth after having miraculously sought out God for the sake of victory. Either way, even the leaders need learning, and honestly, the standard of my leaders as a Latter-Day Saint can do it wrong doesn't make me think that I should be giving the missionary message of the whole heliocentric theory issue, or try to use a oft repeated argument because it doesn't shine well on my academic discipline, and wouldn't really reflect a sincere belief in my own church as a missionary, either way, it's a pretty weak argument.

As far as the doctrines go, I would expect that for the vast majority of what's true scientifically, I don't expect the church authorities to take much of a stance. IMHO, Eden was a separate "nursery" from the rest of the world, Eden only existed up until the fall, when humanity, and whatever else lived in Eden was now transplanted into the world outside, with whatever death, changes, etc., existed there. Unless entire ecosystems could just magically appear, it would appear that Eden was simply a place set aside from the rest of the world, where intelligent, civilized individuals could start, before they left out into the rest of the world, having to deal with the noxious weeds, death, and disease that constituted the "real world" or the world outside of Eden, outside the original nursery where God's creations began. The whole situation is similar to the work I do with gardening, we have our initial growth with the flowers, which then are taken out of this ideal starting condition of their nursery from which they are purchased at some market, and transplanted into the real world of gardens at homes and buildings. Well think of the original plant nursery as analagous to Eden, and all the places where the customers take the plants as analagous to the "real" world outside of it.

[Samurai2012]

Again, the comparison is a little off. You're missing the part where Tycho Brahe actually could come up with real observations and could argue on logical point that the universe was, in fact, heliocentric. That's the part that a lot of people don't get. With the available information at the time of Tycho Brahe and Galileo, it really was debateable as to where the center of the Earth is.

The following details did not bode well for the idea of the heliocentric universe at the time:

1) You couldn't spot any significant parallax at the time

2) The Sun's movement in the sky did not match the perspective it should be taking based on Copernicus' idea that the Earth's orbit around the sun was circular.

Correction, I meant geocentric, as Brahe had a decent model for a geocentric (Earth-centered) universe for a while.

[mfbukowski]

I recently went through the Salt Lake temple. And in the Salt Lake Temple, the transitions between the different worlds is much more important.

You start with the creation and then move on to the garden of Eden. Followed by the telestial world, the terrestrial world, and finally the celestial word.

Then I was reminded that the entire earth will eventually go through all these different stages of existence. The earth has gone from a creation period, to a garden of eden, to a lone and dreary world. It will later become a terrestrial world during the thousand years and finally become celestial.

I don't think it is much of a stretch to say that the creation period involved death while the garden state did not have death. Because the same thing will happen in the future. We are now living in a world where things die and it will someday become world without death.

Moving between rooms, as we also do in LA, does indeed create quite a different experience, and I think you are right that it really underlines the difference between the different "worlds"

We have to remember that scripture speaks of a "new heaven and a new earth" ON THIS PLANET after the millenium- making this in a sense, an "old heaven and old earth".

If THIS world is an "old earth" how many such classifications have there been on this planet before? "Worlds without number have I created"- but how many of these "worlds" were right here where we are now sitting? We often speak of "worlds" referring to a specific context- I was raised watching "The Wonderful World of Disney" on TV without ever once thinking that Disney owned a planet. I had a book titled "The Wonderful World of Chemistry".

In fact, I just googled the worlds "wonderful world of" and got 146 MILLION hits! Try it yourself if you don't believe me.

There are so many ways of seeing this and harmonizing the notion of "no death before the fall" that I actually find it hard that anyone would have a problem with that phrase in the scriptures.

In my opinion, only extreme fundamentalists or those who haven't thought about it much would have a problem at all.