No Death Before The Fall

[ldsfaqs]

The Roberts/Smith/Talmage affair is essential to understanding how and why correlation came to be.

As for the Garden-of-Eden-in-a-Bubble theory:

Thank you for that info.

This quote fully supports my position.... From the Presidency of the Church themselves.

Quoting some manuals and some statements does not a doctrine make.

Second, it noted that both Smith and Roberts had produced scientific evidence, scriptural texts, and quotations from previous church authorities to bolster their respective arguments. As far as the First Presidency was concerned, however, neither side was able to carry the day. In this crucial section they wrote: “The statement made by Elder Smith that the existence of pre-adamites is not a doctrine of the Church is true. It is just as true that the statement ‘there were not pre-adamites upon the earth’ is not a doctrine of the church. Neither side of the controversy has been accepted as a doctrine at all.”¹⁷

As with the Roberts-Smith case, the First Presidency again was called on to settle the controversy. This time they ruled in Talmage’s favor. President Heber J. Grant made note of the decision in his journal, 17 November 1931: “At 11:30 Brother James E. Talmage called, and we went over his address delivered in the Tabernacle a number of weeks ago, and authorized its publication and also gave authorization for it to be printed in the same form as the radio addresses, for distribution.”⁴⁴ Four days later the Deseret News “Church Section” carried the text of Talmage’s remarks. It also was issued in pamphlet form.

Publication of “The Earth and Man” marked the final chapter of James Talmage’s involvement with questions of science and religion. He died less than two years later, just before his seventy-first birthday. Coincidentally, the seventy-seven-year-old B. H. Roberts died exactly two months later. The third principal, Joseph Fielding Smith, only fifty-seven at the time, continued as an influential presence for four more decades.

Edited July 24, 2011 by ldsfaqs

[JeremyOrbe-Smith]

There is no necessary contradiction between science and the Gospel. Any true statement will conflict with neither careful empirical measurement nor revealed wisdom. The problem is that in both science and theology, our understanding is woefully incomplete, and in the attempt to ascertain the truth of competing claims, our tendency is often to try to force one or the other out in order to make sense of our stories of the world right now, this very second. This is a very silly thing to do. We are so ignorant in all fields of learning that the attempt to throw out anomalous data just because it cannot be reconciled with our current understanding in a different area is the equivalent of declaring the heavens closed based on the wisdom of men.

When examining ideas, an important principle to keep in mind is that of abeyance. Instead of jettisoning any point of data which is currently understood to be in conflict with another, we should instead keep both ideas in mind and spend our time gathering more information before we make a decision. During this process, while examining theories - theological and secular - I've found it extremely important to keep some quotes from Joseph Smith in mind:

"One of the grand fundamental principles of Mormonism is to receive truth, let it come from whence it may."

"We should gather all the good and true principles in the world and treasure them up, or we shall not come out true Mormons."

"A fanciful and flowery and heated imagination beware of; because the things of God are of deep import; and time, and experience, and careful and ponderous and solemn thoughts can only find them out. Thy mind, O man! if thou wilt lead a soul unto salvation, must stretch as high as the utmost heavens, and search into and contemplate the darkest abyss, and the broad expanse of eternity."

"God himself could not create himself."

"God himself was once as we are now, and is an exalted man, and sits enthroned in yonder heavens! That is the great secret. If the veil were rent today, and the great God who holds this world in its orbit, and who upholds all worlds and all things by his power, was to make Himself visible, - I say, if you were to see Him today, you would see Him like a man in form - like yourselves in all the person, image, and very form as a man."

"You have got to learn how to be Gods yourselves, and be kings and priests to God, the same as all Gods have done before you, namely by going from one small degree to another, and from a small capacity to a great one."

"If you expect perfection out of me, then I will expect it from you."

We are dealing with an very non-inerrant tradition, here. Yet, "it does not prove that a man is not a good man because he errs in doctrine," as Joseph said. "I cannot believe in any of the creeds of the different denominations, though all of them have some truth. I want to come up into the presence of God, and learn all things, but the creeds set up stakes, and say, 'Hitherto shalt thou come, and no further,' which I cannot subscribe to." We are, ourselves, a denomination of Christianity; if we try to come up with a "final word," then that is oftentimes the place where further revelation will overturn our flawed understanding. See: Priesthood for all worthy.

Contemporary science can be wrong, and in many places today probably is. Contemporary religion can be wrong, and in many places today probably is.

With all this in mind, I personally have no trouble reconciling organic evolution - death before the Fall and all - with my understanding of the scriptures. I think that while some staunch atheists are deeply incorrect in their insistence that evolution negates the need for God, some staunch religious believers have with just as much prejudice refused to rigorously examine the compelling arguments in favor of evolution. Some of the most prominent spokespeople among the extremist atheists have simply not been exposed to the Restored Gospel, which - to my mind, anyway - dispenses with most of the knotty philosophical quandaries raised by a post-Apostasy Neo-Platonic version of Deity and exploited by people like Richard Dawkins who try to tear down religious faith. On the other hand, some of the most prominent members of the Church hierarchy have, in the past and present, in all likelihood, simply not been exposed to a decent understanding of the relatively recent genetic arguments in favor of evolution and pre-Adamic death, basing their understanding on a traditional interpretation of the Creation account.

But this does not prove that, because the uninformed atheist and the uninformed Prophets and CES employees are both erring in their incomplete description of reality, they are not good men. It merely proves them to be human, and still in the process of learning. They can be imperfect people and still do good work within their respective fields.

If Genesis and the related chapters in the Book of Mormon and the Pearl of Great Price were instruction manuals for how to create worlds and breathe living souls into our children, then we'd be doing so right now. Instead, they are a record that our world was, in some way that we do not now understand, created for us. The ascription of purposive causation is the crucial element, not the details of exactly how it was done. Nowhere does it say that the history we have received is the only way to create worlds, or that the Most High God is even necessary to create them. What they are is a record that, in this case, He and his Heavenly Council did so.

Think of it this way: a rock can be placed on a beach by a man, or it can be washed up onto the sand by a wave. Without knowing a great deal more information, we cannot be certain, merely from seeing the rock, which event actually happened. We'd have to find out if there were any men with rocks in the area at the time it appeared, whether that type of rock could be carried by sea currents to that spot, etc. In this case, the Scriptures are the equivalent of an eyewitness record that the rock was placed there intentionally. It takes faith to believe it, because at this moment, while we do not have the necessary measuring equipment, we have no way of proving the account true.

Our God, among all the Gods, according to our theology, was once a Man like us, who did not have the power to create Himself. Through an eternal progression of learning, we can become like Him, working with pre-existing material to create Tabernacles of flesh for other pre-existing intelligences in order to engender sympathy in them for their fellow beings. We can use our Priesthood to bless our families and friends by administering healing and covenantal ordinances to them, in order to bind them to a community they are a part of by choice. And we can perform these actions even without understanding all there is to understand; because of the way our minds work in this particular type of body, our learning is most effective and fruitful when conducted through a rigorous process of reproducible experimentation, yet no one lives long enough in this mortal probation to absorb all the knowledge to be had.

God says that his scriptures "were given unto [His] servants in their weakness, after the manner of their language". Therefore, if we have invented no manner of language capable of expressing God's pure understanding, then we are, by definition, incapable of receiving some of what He has to offer. We are left to figure the mechanics of things out on our own, while still having faith in a pre-existing Kingdom in order to live our lives according to what light we have received (primarily, conscious covenants made to our community during Baptism, Sacrament, and Temple-work, in which we promise to be faithful to God and each other).

This leaves plenty of room for both science and faith to flourish. The mutual ignorance of all of humankind, hidden as we are from each other behind a veil of forgetfulness, means that we are free to question everything. Our Priesthood authority is null and void if we attempt to coerce others to believe as we do without persuasion, meekness, and love unfeigned; our scientific authority is useless if we do not allow Truth to "cut its own way," as Brother Joseph would say. We can sustain fallible authorities in both fields, trusting that they are doing their best work with the light and revelation they are able to bear, and that the Lord will eventually correct their inevitable misunderstandings through continual revelation, which we should be compiling from "all the best books".

On the question of pre-Adamites, etc, I like what Hugh Nibley says in his book One Eternal Round, where he discusses the magnificent cave-painting in the Lascaux cave from around 15,000 B.C. which he believes "seems to be describing a holy man's ascension":

"Where do these people (since we cannot deny their existence and can only speculate on their activities) fit into the gospel plan? We can thank the Pearl of Great Price for a clear-cut solution. Abraham and Moses hold the door open to all who desire to enter the company of the Lord, regardless of when and where they lived. The barriers of space and time are removed in both books: "millions of earths like this ... would not be a beginning to the number of thy creations" (Moses 7:30). "There are many worlds that have passed away by the word of my power. And there are many that now stand, and innumerable are they unto man" (Moses 1:35). There are other creatures and other people of whom we know nothing, for the world was designed for multiple use. We are told that the people who made the paintings of Lascaux displayed "high intelligence, cognition, rationality, knowledge and technical skill." And yet apparently they lived in another world from ours - it is safe to say that an Ice Age made this the equivalent of another planet in those days.

When Moses wanted to see what was going on everywhere, God told him: "For mine own purpose have I made these things. Here is wisdom and it remaineth in me" (Moses 1:31). "But only an account of this earth, and the inhabitants thereof, give I unto you" (Moses 1:35). That was none of Moses' business - pity the species in which the human race shows too much interest! Those other worlds need not be all other planets; there have been on this earth "holy men ye know not of" (D&C 49:. The Lord himself has "other sheep," unknown to any of our race (3 Nephi 15:17; John 10:16). There have been occupants here long before our time.

The new perspective which the Books of Abraham and Moses give us is actually the old one, rejected by the doctors of the schools and well-nigh obliterated by the fourth century. And then there is the matter of dispensations. The Pearl of Great Price alone of all our scriptures gives us original testaments from seven great dispensations, all personal testimonies written in the first person: Adam, Enoch, Noah, Abraham, Moses, Jesus Christ, and Joseph Smith.

Fortes erant ante Agamemnonem ["There were mighty men before Agamemnon"]

Are all seven dispensations necessary? Is it impossible for there to be more? After all, they all lay down the same principles and tell the same story, and the countless worlds, "worlds heretofore formed," we are told, are composed of the same substances and on the same pattern and subject to the same physical laws as our own. ...

So, why should those clever people living ages before our Adamic takeover not be permitted to live without our approval? One beauty of the hypocephalus is the broadening of our mean provincial existence. We ignore the fall of the sparrow, but strangely, God does not; we "suffer the hungry, and the needy, and the naked, and the sick and afflicted to pass by [us], and notice them not" (Mormon 8:39). We are not even interested in our own world except where it concerns our immediate success and comfort; we refuse even to consider the doctrines the Prophet Joseph has given us about the lives of other creatures in their respective sphere and element. It is the singular value of the Pearl of Great Price that it recognizes the reality of races, peoples, civilizations, and great empires, which everyone knows have existed through the ages but to which modern Christianity grants no access to salvation - to the Christian world it is as if they had never existed, though they represent at least ninety percent of the world's population."

Additionally - though I don't agree with the entire essay -I'd point out some snippets from his Before Adam ( http://maxwellinstitute.byu.edu/publications/books/?bookid=52&chapid=471 )

"The Latter-day Saints are the only Bible-oriented people who have always been taught that things were happening long, long before Adam appeared on the scene. They have never appreciated just how revolutionary that idea is. It does away with creatio ex nihilo, which, ever since the triumph of the School of Alexandria, has been for Christian and Jewish theologians alike the only possible definition of the word creation. In the April 1980 National Geographic Magazine is a reproduction of a heroic relief sculpture on the wall of the so-called National Cathedral in Washington, D.C., showing eight full-grown human beings popping out of a turmoil of cloud. It is entitled "Creatio ex nihilo - Out of the Void." It should not be hard to confound such an absolute concept, since any alternative will do."

Those who accepted the covenant were called sons of God and also the sons of Adam: "And this is the genealogy of the sons of Adam, who was the son of God." (Moses 6:22.) Only those qualify as Bene-Adam who are still in the covenant. Bene-Adam, however, is the normal Jewish word for human beings. The Septuagint considers Adam a proper noun from Genesis 2:16 on; the Vulgate from 2:19 on; Adam appears for the first time as a proper noun in the standard Hebrew Bible only after Genesis 4:25. In that text twenty-two of the twenty-seven occurrences of the name are accompanied by the article: "the man." They are not proper names. In Genesis, E. Lussier concludes that Adam has four senses:

1. "Man," a particular man, the first man (sixteen times).

2. The first husband (nine times).

3. Generic, "mankind" (two times).

4. As a proper name - once!

So we might well ask: What about those people who lived before Cain and Abel? What about those who disappeared from sight? What about those who were not even warned of the Flood? What about those many, many who visited the earth as resurrected beings? What about the Watchers? What about the sons of God who should not marry the daughters of men, and vice versa? And what about the giants they begot when they did marry? What about the comings and goings of Enoch's day between the worlds?

...

Adam becomes Adam, a hominid becomes a man, when he starts keeping a record. What kind of record? A record of his ancestors - the family line that sets him off from all other creatures. Such records begin very early, to judge by the fabulous genealogic knowledge of the Australian aborigines (A.P. Elkin) or the most "primitive" Africans (L. Frobenius). Even written records go back to ages lost in the mists of time - the Azilian pebbles, the marking of arrows, and the identity of individuals in their relationships with each other. Whether former speculation about life on other worlds is now to be upgraded to life from other worlds remains to be seen, but Adam is wonderful enough [even] without that."

... all of which lines up well with the Pearl of Great Price: "And the first man of all men have I called Adam, which is many." (Moses 1:34, emphasis added) "And Adam called his wife’s name Eve, because she was the mother of all living; for thus have I, the Lord God, called the first of all women, which are many." (Moses 4:26, emphasis added) Many what? Many men and women, just as we learn in the Temple, wherein we ourselves become Adams and Eves in order to reenact every man and woman's Fall and hopeful return to the Atonement offered by those who have gone before us.

FAIR, as usual, has some excellent resources:

http://

Personally, I don't know how it all adds together. I don't think there was anything magical about the Fruit in the Garden, and neither do I believe that the Garden of Eden story is entirely metaphorical; I would actually argue that it is more historical than some Biblical scholars think, and more metaphorical than some inerrantists think. What I've learned about the Gospel persuades me to believe it is a true account of actual, non-metaphorical events which I can become a part of by maintaining my faith in the community based around the scriptures which record our shared history. What I've learned about evolution persuades me to believe it is a true account of actual, non-metaphorical events which I can learn to understand more completely by further experimentation and data-processing.

In neither case, however, am I persuaded that we have all the answers yet. I'm still in the information-gathering stage. I want to know how uncreated souls are placed in bodies by loving Heavenly Parents and saved by our Christ; I want to know how those organic hominid bodies were formed from the natural processes of the laws governing earth; I want to know how we are children yet uncreated, mortal yet immortal, Fallen Men and Women yet Gods In Embryo.

[JeremyOrbe-Smith]

I, for instance, have received no Revelations yet on how the bloody heck I'm supposed to embed videos here, and after trying my hardest and performing many experiments, I still have yet to comprehend the exact methods by which the Heavenly Host here have managed to do so in their own posts.

The vids I wanted to point out are here, a FAIR talk by Trent Stephens speaking about evolution, biological death, and the Gospel:

http://www.youtube.com/user/fairldsorg#p/search/1/8dfnK5-6984

http://www.youtube.com/user/fairldsorg#p/search/0/SgLuKn1eAn0

http://www.youtube.com/user/fairldsorg#p/search/2/nUfAIITu2nY

http://www.youtube.com/user/fairldsorg#p/search/3/VgehrENd3uE

[HeatherAnn]

When we are speaking of such things, there is very little difference, and besides knowing which it was is unknowable.

In other words, you have to take it on faith anyway, so the sense in which it was "real" becomes irrelevant. At least that is the way I see it. Sure it might have happened, maybe not- it doesn't matter to me. The value is in the lessons to be learned from scripture.

Exactly!

Jesus taught in parables.

You wouldn't go to a history book for spiritual lessons.

Why go to a spiritual book for history lessons?

The fall & death are symbolic for each time our perspective falls & dies from illusion, so that we can be born again & again to more truth.

It sounds so easy - but as with loss, there is a difficult grieving process. Yet our joy becomes more full!

[Jeff K.]

Many parts of the scriptures are symbolic, many are not. It would not do to classify them in any one way.

[HeatherAnn]

Many parts of the scriptures are symbolic, many are not. It would not do to classify them in any one way.

Good point, Jeff.

Some scriptures are direct & to the point, like the ten commandments.

However, there are many spiritual lessons through stories to be "likened" to us.

If these parables are taken literally, not only is it incongruent with historical & scientific findings, we miss the intended message.

When interpreting scriptures to know how best to apply them to me, I use intellect, experience & intuition (faith).

[thesometimesaint]

JeremyOrbe-Smith:

I'll only slightly disagree with your otherwise excellent post.

"I think that while some staunch atheists are deeply incorrect in their insistence that evolution negates the need for God, some staunch religious believers have with just as much prejudice refused to rigorously examine the compelling arguments in favor of evolution."

Despite what the believers(religion) and the nonbelievers(atheists) want to admit is that Evolution is a fact, just as 2+2=4(in a 10's based number system) is a fact, but neither fact addresses the issue of God at all.

[Storm Rider]

Good point, Jeff.

Some scriptures are direct & to the point, like the ten commandments.

However, there are many spiritual lessons through stories to be "likened" to us.

If these parables are taken literally, not only is it incongruent with historical & scientific findings, we miss the intended message.

When interpreting scriptures to know how best to apply them to me, I use intellect, experience & intuition (faith).

I have never heard that faith is the equivalent of intuition; merely classifying it as such demeans spirituality and faith and puts faith on a par with magic, and other things of similar ilk. I don't get any kind of good feeling hearing such an equation.

[Jeff K.]

JeremyOrbe-Smith:

I'll only slightly disagree with your otherwise excellent post.

"I think that while some staunch atheists are deeply incorrect in their insistence that evolution negates the need for God, some staunch religious believers have with just as much prejudice refused to rigorously examine the compelling arguments in favor of evolution."

Despite what the believers(religion) and the nonbelievers(atheists) want to admit is that Evolution is a fact, just as 2+2=4(in a 10's based number system) is a fact, but neither fact addresses the issue of God at all.

I agree and slightly disagree. Fact I think presumes axiom, I do not believe the theory of evolution as it is currently understood rises to the level of axiom. It is however the best theory for the evidence we have at this time. Evolutionary theory does not address the need of God or the lack thereof since we are not entirely sure how the mechanism operates or whether or not it is driven for a purpose.

Edited July 24, 2011 by Jeff K.

[Loran Blood]

Reality = Scientific evidence

Is this to say that " scientific evidence" is to be defined as "reality?" That is to say, are you defining the concept of "evidence" in the scientific sense as a direct, unmediated perception of "reality" in very much the same way the Church understands revelation?

[thesometimesaint]

Jeff K.:

In traditional logic, an axiom or postulate is a proposition that is not proved or demonstrated but considered to be either self-evident, or subject to necessary decision. That is to say, an axiom is a logical statement that is assumed to be true. Therefore, its truth is taken for granted, and serves as a starting point for deducing and inferring other (theory dependent) truths.

When we use a tens based number systems we are by definition making a presumption. Change the presumption(number system) and all bets are off. IE. 4 in a 2's based systems would be 100. It makes sense to a computer(which does use a binary system) but doesn't makes much sense to us with 10 fingers.

Likewise evolution is logiocal and makes sense when dealing with living organisms. Throw out the presumption of evolution and a whole host of scientific disciplines don't make sense.

[Loran Blood]

What I was trying to say was that reality is the state of things as they actually exist, rather than as they may appear or might be imagined.

But empirical science rarely - if ever - arrives at "the state of things as they actually exist." That's the crux of the matter, and that's why science always deals with "evidence" and not "reality" in a direct, unmediated, unfiltered manner. This is why, as Karl Popper said, all theories are "tentative forever" and always open, in part or in toto, to modification, revision, or even a complete paradigm shift in thought. An excellent example is the fate of Newtonian mechanics, which still "works" as a means of understanding and applying the laws of nature at a certain level of comprehension, but which was utterly superseded by relativity theory and quantum mechanics as the core, underlying framework for understanding "reality." But again, neither relativity theory or quantum theory are really getting at "reality" in a direct, final, perceptually absolute way. The very nature of empirical science itself and the human perceptual/intellectual limitations upon which it is grounded dictate that this cannot be the case, unless one brings a fundamental worldview bias into one's scientific pursuits, within which the material, empirically observable universe is thought to represent the totality of all that exists, or could exist.

Scientific evidence acts as a foundation upon which someone can build reality. It provideds something that can be tested. Something that can be scrutinized. Something that can be measured against other truth claims.

So can gospel claims.

Religion can not meet this standard since the existance of God can not be tested in a scientific manner.

But why this should be the case is open to question, given the nature of the plan of salvation as understood in the gospel.

I am NOT saying that the existance of God can't be tested by indiviuals who have personally expereinced something and belief that they have discovered God. But if there is a God, He/She did not want His/Her existance to be able to be tested by any known scientific measurement.

This implies that we humans would, depending upon our own internal spiritual condition and the perceptual limitations, inherent and self imposed, be cognizant of just what such evidence of God's existence would be were we to see it in the evidence with which science deals. Indeed, many scientists do see such evidence, while others patantly do not, which perhaps is indicative of something going on within the heads of the various scientists involved, and not something intrinsic to the "evidence" itself.

Edited July 24, 2011 by Loran Blood

[Loran Blood]

Reality is scientific evidence only when everything is known.

Excellent insight. Craig, as is the traditional wont of metaphysical materialists who subscribe to a positivest view of human understanding, has reversed the epistemic relationship between the intellectual construction I(science) and the objects/subjects of its interest (the universe).

[Tribunal]

Well I feel I must say something, though I doubt you will understand it if you are as philosophically naive as you appear. If you want nine million references to philosophers for what I say, I can do that, but it will be quite boring.

We live in a world which is really made of words and human experiences.

There is no point in counting something as "real" unless we can talk about it.

The bottom line is that there could be no "death"- ie: a human understanding of the cessation of life- the meaning of "death" in a human context - until language.

Further, there could be no concept of "sin" until there was a human context for right and wrong- morality.

A tiger might eat a person, but we don't call it "murder" because the tiger is not operating in a human context and doesn't understand the human context of "death". So before language, we had living organisms recycling themselves in a carbon cycle- but there was no "death".

No language, no moral human context, no murder, no sin, no trees or rocks or anything- just unexperienced "stuff" without human context

Has anyone conducted research into the history and meaning of 'death' in the context of this particular scripture? What does the research show? What does 'death' mean? Corruption? Change?

[thesometimesaint]

Loran Blood:

Reality is just a highly advanced Sims computer game.

[cinepro]

Thank you for that info.

This quote fully supports my position.... From the Presidency of the Church themselves.

Quoting some manuals and some statements does not a doctrine make.

For those keeping score, it's interesting to note that the quote ldsfaqs is referring to, while it is from the FP, is found on the Signature Books website, whereas all my quotes are found in current Church publications on the official Church website, and date within the last few decades.

If we're concerned about what the Church teaches officially and recently, that might be an important point.

It's also a little disingenuous to say it's "some manuals and some statements". Whenever the subject is brought up in any manual or statement, including by the Apostles and Prophets, it's still taught as "no physical death anywhere on the planet before the fall".

But if Craig Paxton is still taking notes, it's an excellent example.

[cinepro]

Here's another statement from a living Apostle, correlated and found in the current Book of Mormon Institute manual:

2 Nephi 2:22-25. "Adam Fell That Men Might Be"

Elder Russell M. Nelson of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles explained why the Fall was necessary:

The Creation culminated with Adam and Eve in the Garden of Eden. They were created in the image of God, with bodies of flesh and bone. Created in the image of God and not yet mortal, they could not grow old and die. And they would have had no children [2 Nephi 2:23] nor experienced the trials of life. . . . The creation of Adam and Eve was a paradisiacal creation, one that required a significant change before they could fulfill the commandment to have children and thus provide earthly bodies for premortal spirit sons and daughters of God.

. . . The Fall of Adam (and Eve) constituted the mortal creation and brought about the required changes in their bodies, including the circulation of blood and other modifications as well. They were now able to have children. They and their posterity also became subject to injury, disease, and death (in Conference Report, Oct. 1996, 44-45; or Ensign, Nov. 1996, 33).

And while we've already established the low opinion many LDS have for the Bible Dictionary, I suppose if we have people referencing the Signature Books website, the LDS Bible Dictionary can't be any worse:

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).

"Latter-day revelation" indeed.

Edited July 24, 2011 by cinepro

[Jeff K.]

Jeff K.:

In traditional logic, an axiom or postulate is a proposition that is not proved or demonstrated but considered to be either self-evident, or subject to necessary decision. That is to say, an axiom is a logical statement that is assumed to be true. Therefore, its truth is taken for granted, and serves as a starting point for deducing and inferring other (theory dependent) truths.

When we use a tens based number systems we are by definition making a presumption. Change the presumption(number system) and all bets are off. IE. 4 in a 2's based systems would be 100. It makes sense to a computer(which does use a binary system) but doesn't makes much sense to us with 10 fingers.

Likewise evolution is logiocal and makes sense when dealing with living organisms. Throw out the presumption of evolution and a whole host of scientific disciplines don't make sense.

There is incontrovertable logic ie something that has no alternative and evidenciary logic, something that results from the preponderance of the evidence. I think evidenciary logic is based strictly on the rules that science provides. Outside those rules there is or cannot be a decision.

I see an axiom as incontrovertible, ie it cannot be argued because it stands as true in an objective way.

I do not believe evolutionary theory has risen to that level. Even as I believe that the preponderance of the evidence provides that the mechanism of evolution is well founded.

[Loran Blood]

For this to work, it would mean that all created things, marching happily along in a mortal state, all of a sudden transform to an immortal state during Adam's hiatus in the garden, then transform back to a mortal state after the fall?

I have been traveling a parallel path with bc for sometime on this, and, indeed, I've been mulling over my own theory here for about 20 years of so. In sum, the only way, at present, I've been able to reconcile the problem of there being no death before the Fall with the clear scientific evidence, and keeping in mind that the gospel is in no sense complete, and is still in process of moving toward a full restoration and completion, line upon line, precept upon precept, is to understand the term "creation" as used in the scriptures in several different senses, one in a broad, overarching sense encompassing all of God creative activity, another in the sense of God's creative activity in a specific sphere (this earth, for example), and another sense in which different phases or periods of development within a specific sphere (such as on a terrestrial planet such as ours) can be radical, or well demarcated from previous periods of development such that God designates them as different "creations" and the overall state of affairs within each period as a different "earth," even though all events transpiring across all these periods are occurring on the same earth, understood as the same planet, which might be understood in this vein as the same superstructure upon which radically varying events transpire upon its surface. The materials never change, but their form and organization do.

The entire surface of the earth has been "resurfaced" several times over the last several billion years through the process of plate tectonics, leading one to suspect that the idea of a "new earth" or of various "creations" having occurred under the umbrella of an overall "creation" of the earth as a terrestrial planet, may be present in the gospel and the scriptures in cryptic, indirect form, just as the various "days" of creation subsume within them - but never mention directly - the various periods of development know to paleontology and geology in which different forms of organic life appear suddenly, proliferate and variegate, and which then go rapidly into extinction in various "extinction events" at the end of each period, only to be followed by yet another period in which new and novel life forms appear suddenly and come to dominate that particular "earth" for some millions of years, only to themselves be replaced (with some small overlap across periods for some few species) by entirely new forms.

Each of these periods, while occurring upon the same earth (the planet itself) and having a number of similar features, also feature substantial differences in everything from physical, geological structure, to organic life and climate (at the end of the Ordovician, a gargantuan ice age precipitated the extinction of the substantial majority of life on earth at that time. Similar events, of various causes, have been common in earth's history). If we can look at each one of these phases as a different "earth" in the sense of being, not a different planet, but as a different set of conditions, some substantially different than previous or antecedent periods (the "age of mammals" was significantly different, as zoology goes, from the Jurassic and Cretaceous periods, and the most majestic of today's mammals are bare shadows of the megafauna of the prehistoric, post-dinosauain world), then I think we can begin to move toward a reconciliation of gospel doctrine with the the facts as science has been able to reveal them.

To make a long story short, at some point, the entire earth and all life upon it, including a specified area known as "the Garden of Eden" in the scriptural record, was raised to a Terrestrial, or "paradisaical" state for the purpose initiating the conditions attendant to God's children's mortal probationary state on this earth and the seven thousand year "week" of the earths "mortal existence." My own perspective here is that the seven thousand year week of the earth's mortal existence means "mortal existence" antecedent to the Fall, but not antecedent to the several billion years of preparatory conditions previous to the Edenic state itself that were mortal in nature.

I think this claim can tentatively be made by considering that these past geologic periods are "on the other side" of the Garden of Eden to such a radical extent that they represent events and conditions clearly demarcated from our own mortal period, this one, unlike the others, having a fall from a Terrestrial condition as its point of origin, as the others did not (and did not need to).

Was the earth created in a paradisaical state, as the Brethren have traditionally taught? Yes, in the sense that our "earth," the earth created specifically for our use as a testing and proving ground for embodied spirits, and which the righteous will ultimately inherit as a celestialized, perfected planet, was radically distanced from all previous ages by an interregnum in which the earth was first raised to a Terrestrial sphere, and then returned to a Telestial sphere through the actions of Adam and Eve, inaugurating a unique and specific mortal phase, focused directly on the needs of God's children.

As I say, this is all tentative, and it certainly isn't doctrine, although I think this, or something like it, moves us toward answering some of these fundamental apparent contradictions, while maintaining strict faithfulness to established Church doctrine and avoiding wading into the fever swamps of either philosophical naturalism or young earth "creationism."

My two cents and a few pesos.

Edited July 24, 2011 by Loran Blood

[Loran Blood]

I do not believe evolutionary theory has risen to that level. Even as I believe that the preponderance of the evidence provides that the mechanism of evolution is well founded.

Indeed. Evolutionary theory is still very much a theory, and open to future emendation on a substantial scale.

[thesometimesaint]

Jeff K.:

My arguement is not that 2+2=4 is not without considerable evidence, in fact I believe just the opposite, but without the presumption of a 2's based numbering system it becomes illogical to us with ten fingers. However computers use the binary system much more efficiently than we do counting out fingers(and toes) , and we program compters all the time. They are a very real human product.

I see evolution in much the same light. The presumption is that evolution has/is taking place. We see the results every day. We can identify, quantify, and make accurate preditions using evolution.

In the ultimate case it is possible(Though IMNTBHO HIGHLY unlikely) for God to tell us that to him 2+2 is not equal to 4 but is equal to 100. That evolution is wrong and all he did was say Ala Kazam and everything we see in the universe came into existance complete and finished at that point some 7000 ago. But I see no evidence for it, and a great deal against. That for me would make a great opportunity to ask a lot more questions of God.

[Loran Blood]

IOW, the guiding principle of correlation is to shield the members from any information or ideas that may cause them to ask questions, begin investigating or think at all about anything. This is the unrecognized root-cause of people's boredom in Sunday school.

There's another board in which this kind of snarky, in-your-face polemical provocation is welcome and accepted. Might I suggest relocating?

[HeatherAnn]

I have never heard that faith is the equivalent of intuition; merely classifying it as such demeans spirituality and faith and puts faith on a par with magic, and other things of similar ilk. I don't get any kind of good feeling hearing such an equation.

If you look at my post again... you'll see that I did not indicate faith is the equivalent of intuition.

Don't let your issues with a word get the best of you... The word, "Intuition" is in the LDS biblical index, yet if it makes you feel better, refer to Divine Guidance, Inspiration or Revelation.

"When holiness is achieved by conforming to God's will, one knows INTUITIVELY that which is wrong and that which is right before the Lord." -James E. Faust ("Standing in Holy Places", Ensign, May 2005, 62)

Are you terribly upset that James Faust used the word, "intuitively"? I've never seen Elder Faust do magic, but you never know! lol

[HeatherAnn]

Jeff K.:

My arguement is not that 2+2=4 is not without considerable evidence, in fact I believe just the opposite, but without the presumption of a 2's based numbering system it becomes illogical to us with ten fingers. However computers use the binary system much more efficiently than we do counting out fingers(and toes) , and we program compters all the time. They are a very real human product.

I see evolution in much the same light. The presumption is that evolution has/is taking place. We see the results every day. We can identify, quantify, and make accurate preditions using evolution.

In the ultimate case it is possible(Though IMNTBHO HIGHLY unlikely) for God to tell us that to him 2+2 is not equal to 4 but is equal to 100. That evolution is wrong and all he did was say Ala Kazam and everything we see in the universe came into existance complete and finished at that point some 7000 ago. But I see no evidence for it, and a great deal against. That for me would make a great opportunity to ask a lot more questions of God.

Cooincidentally, we discussed the philosophical concept of 2+2=4 on another thread... must be a hot topic! lol

As you mentioned, it's based on lanugage & a numbering system, which are subjective.

If you were to say we have 2 people here & 2 people there - so how many lives are there? If you are going for REAL truth, you count ALL of life, including the 90 trillion microbs on each person.

Joseph Smith taught that the truth will carve its own path, so don't fear truth.

Truth is in perspective. The more perspectives, the more truthful.

[BCSpace]

Just to be clear, none of my quotes were from "Mormon Doctrine" or "Man, His Origin and Destiny". They were from conference talks and curriculum currently published by the Church.

Yes. But most, if not all of them are countered by the ways I described which don't conflict with LDS doctrine.

As for the status of the 1931 memo, perhaps you can point to where I can find it on the Church website, or where it is found in some past Church publication?

How is an internal memo from the first presidency on doctrine not published by the Church?

The Church republished the "Origin of Man" statement in 2002, and helpfully clarified that this statement is an "official teaching" and "official doctrinal position".

Sure. I'v always assumed it was the case in 1909. But how does it preclude evolution?

And for those who haven't read it recently, this "official doctrinal position" says the following about the possibility of "pre-Adamites":

Feel free to highlight and explain the portion you feel precludes evolution. You've consistently avoided doing so now for what? 10 or 11 threads on the subject now?