No Death Before The Fall

[thesometimesaint]

Sevenbak:

The Church doesn't teach anything about our sun not always being our sun. But it is doctrine that God did organize this world for materials he found here.

Corrected for spelling.

Edited July 25, 2011 by thesometimesaint

[David T]

Sevenbak:

The Church doesn't teach anything about our sun not always being our sun. But it is doctrine that God did organize this world for materials here found here.

To be more specific, "Matter unorganized". Which, as much as others might like it, doesn't really doctrinally support 'chunks from other organized worlds with dinosaur skeletons and neanderthals and stuff like that already in it'.

It doesn't technically preclude it, but it certainly doesn't support it, either.

Edited July 25, 2011 by nackhadlow

[thesometimesaint]

nackhadlow:

Agreed.

Ps. 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 creation occurred 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?

My God doesn't play tricks on his children.

Edited July 25, 2011 by thesometimesaint

[Mark Beesley]

However, I can walk into Desseret Book and find several books that discuss the possibility of death before the fall.

I work at Deseret Book. (A nice part-time job in retirement. )

Name one book that we carry that discusses the possibility of death before the Fall. A page number would be nice as well. I'll look it up.

In other words, this is a CFR.

Thanks.

[Jeff K.]

If I might....

God created the Garden of Eden, a separate place, a different world if you will, and there was no death there. I do not presume the rest of the world was in such a place, near unto God in perfection, just the Garden, and death existed elsewhere, but in the Garden set aside for the benefit of the man, there was no death until man decided to partake of the tree of knowledge of good and evil, thus ensuring the concept of a full agency.

Anyway, that is a personal interpretation.

[Rivers]

Interesting. Which books?

I work at Deseret Book. (A nice part-time job in retirement. )

Name one book that we carry that discusses the possibility of death before the Fall. A page number would be nice as well. I'll look it up.

In other words, this is a CFR.

Thanks.

Earth: In The Beginning by Eric N. Skousen

Converging Paths to Truth by by Michael D. Rhodes and J. Ward Moody

I can't give any page numbers right now since I don't own these books. I've only briefly flipped through them. But Earth goes into a lot of detail in discussing the earth's history.

The author believes that the earth went through several stages of preparation, which included plants and animals living and dying, before Adam and Eve came on the scene.

The author, however, disagrees with the evolution of man.

Edited July 25, 2011 by Rivers

[mfbukowski]

Reality = Scientific evidence

I just noticed this thanks to the other post.

Incredibly philosophically naive- anyone who believes this...... and calls himself a critical thinker......

Well let's just say I would dispute both those points vigorously

This guy needs a little Kuhn and Rorty in his life. Definitely.

[thesometimesaint]

HeatherAnn:

Agreed.

[mfbukowski]

nackhadlow:

Agreed.

Ps. 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 creation occurred 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?

My God doesn't play tricks on his children.

Yeah but,

Why do his children make up all these theories denying what he told us then?

All these mental gymnastics are not from what God taught, they are from us trying to reconcile with the "theories of men".

Suppose he allows the theories of men to cloud our minds so that we have to walk by faith? It is not God who is deceiving us- it is our own ability to rationalize and re-contextualize ANYTHING that does it!

That is exactly what we are all doing on this thread- even you! Recontextualizing! Give up and enjoy it! You can't escape it anyway- this is what humans do!

[cinepro]

Earth: In The Beginning by Eric N. Skousen

Converging Paths to Truth by by Michael D. Rhodes and J. Ward Moody

Thanks. That first book has some interesting reviews at Amazon!

This book comes from an LDS author who uses scriptural accounts of the creation(s) of the Earth to show how each new scientific discovery only further validates religious truths, when the teachings of the prophets are carefully read with an open mind.

...

You'll never think the same again about dinosaurs, cavemen, Adam and Eve, the true purpose of our life on Earth, and the nature of the planet upon which we dwell.

And a not so positive one...

Skousen notes that the geologic record shows fossils which date back millions of years and which "clearly reveals that simpler life forms did generally precede more complex life forms". (Pg. 113) Also, "the evidences of hominids predating the arrival of the human race (Adam and Eve in 4000 BC,) is unquestioned" (Pg. 142) Most of the book is spent on quotes from early Church History which he selectively extracts to substantiate his theory that God has "temporarily translated" and "transplanted" from other planets, incrementally advanced lifeforms after killing off previously transplanted lifeforms billions of times over billions of years in order to prepare the earth for the final removal of "all remnants of living preparatory life...from the physical globe" 6000 years ago. (pg. 145) Following this removal of all life, Adam and Eve were placed on the earth with all the modern "kinds" of animals. This explains in Skousen's thinking how there could be such overwhelming and indisputable evidence that points to Evolution but in fact no real Evolution occurred. This is because when any of the "preparatory life forms" needed to be advanced in the grand preparatory scheme of things, God would kill off all of a specific "kind" and then transplant a slightly more advanced life form from another planet after temporarily "translating" it so it could survive the journey.

I am embarrassed as a Mormon to think that someone may read this book and think that this is what Mormons believe.

I might have to check it out...

[Jeff K.]

You can't argue with that!

I realize there are some eternal truths, which apply as much to people thousands of years ago as they do today.

Yet, there are some parables that are made in reference to people who lived differently from us.

I also believe in the "Flynn Effect" - where each generation increases in IQ - & probably spiritual & social progress, as well.

We'd never consult a medical book from even 200 years ago, yet we sometimes take the bible, which was written thousands of years ago, too literally.

Some scriptures are meant to be taken literally, yet many are unique parables, & translation is often questionable.

This supports the need for further revelation.

I agree with the overall theme that some portions of the bible are literal and some are interpretative as parables or analogies. However I take issue with the fact that somehow there is a measureable difference in IQ, at least as far as we can measure, and spirtual progress would negate the idea of an apostasy while social progress? No, I haven't seen it.

If IQ's and caring and spiritual progress were a reality, history would not be cyclical. The difference between genocidal warfare practiced in ancient times, and modern genocidal warfare is only different in the amount of technology. In theory a higher intelligence would make war unlikely since war wastes resources that could be used more efficiently. And yet we continue to war, to make war, and to defend ourselves from it. I do not think we are necessarilly smarter (depending on how you define smart) than our near ancestors, simply better tool users (which may or may not mean you are smarter since even a rat will find its way of out a maze.... eventurally).

[cinepro]

So I have two questions.

Is there anyone here who holds to a belief of no death prior to the fall (which according to the LDS Biblical chronology took place some 6,000 years ago)

If you do hold to this belief...how do you reconcile it with reality ie (fossil record)

So Craig, what have you learned so far? Are you seeing any patterns?

[Mark Beesley]

Earth: In The Beginning by Eric N. Skousen

Converging Paths to Truth by by Michael D. Rhodes and J. Ward Moody

I can't give any page numbers right now since I don't own these books. I've only briefly flipped through them. But Earth goes into a lot of detail in discussing the earth's history.

The author believes that the earth went through several stages of preparation, which included plants and animals living and dying, before Adam and Eve came on the scene.

The author, however, disagrees with the evolution of man.

Thanks. I'll take a look at both of them when I get to work later today.

[thesometimesaint]

Jeff K.:

There has been a statisticly slight but noticable increase in the IQ in the general population(100 is considered average and currently IQ's of 105 are the new average) that has been going on for many years. What I don't know is if it is a significant increase that better education produces or if it is just the test is becoming progressively outdated.

The building of and the use of technology is just one measures of IQ. Not necesarily the uses that that technology is put to.

Rats are actually pretty smart, but then so are pigs.

[BCSpace]

A more recent comparison might be the current Elder Russell M. Nelson, who was a gifted heart surgeon before becoming an apostle. He's been pretty clear about not only no death before the fall, but that Adam was the first to have blood in his veins AFTER the fall.

The irony of course, coming from a studied heart surgeon, is truly profound.

Interesting how he accepted correction by his junior companion regarding evolution in the recent Pew interview......

[cinepro]

Interesting how he accepted correction by his junior companion regarding evolution in the recent Pew interview......

Link and quote?

[Jeff K.]

Jeff K.:

There has been a statisticly slight but noticable increase in the IQ in the general population(100 is considered average and currently IQ's of 105 are the new average) that has been going on for many years. What I don't know is if it is a significant increase that better education produces or if it is just the test is becoming progressively outdated.

The building of and the use of technology is just one measures of IQ. Not necesarily the uses that that technology is put to.

Rats are actually pretty smart, but then so are pigs.

I know both rats and pigs have good brains in the animal kingdom. My point was that we stumble upon tools and utilize them quite well, but I haven't seen anything that shows us to be smarter given that we still reflect a propensity to do dumb things like war. Now intellectually I think we can all agree war, in its general sense, is dumb, and yet we haven't veered away from it, if anything in the last two centuries we have embraced it more than before. Perhaps IQ and wisdom are very distinct parts of the same apple things when it comes to the measure of who we are.

[Mark Beesley]

Interesting how he accepted correction by his junior companion regarding evolution in the recent Pew interview......

I'm with cinepro on this one. Here's the link. The discussion on evolution is as follows:

The church has said it neither promotes nor opposes capital punishment. It says it "opposes elective abortion for personal or social convenience." It does not oppose removing a medical patient from "artificial means of life support." Different denominations deal differently with questions about life's origins and development. Conservative denominations tend to have more trouble with Darwinian evolution. Does the church have an official position on this topic?

Nelson: We believe that God is our creator and that he has created other forms of life. It's interesting to me, drawing on my 40 years experience as a medical doctor, how similar those species are. We developed open-heart surgery, for example, experimenting on lower animals simply because the same creator made the human being. We owe a lot to those lower species. But to think that man evolved from one species to another is, to me, incomprehensible.

Why is that?

Nelson: Man has always been man. Dogs have always been dogs. Monkeys have always been monkeys. It's just the way genetics works.

Wickman: The Scripture describing the Lord as the creator of all of these things says very little about how it was done. I don't know of anybody in the ranks of the First Presidency and the Twelve [Apostles] who has ever spent much time worrying about this matter of evolution.

Nelson: We have this doctrine, recorded in the Doctrine and Covenants, Section 101: "When the Lord shall come again, he shall reveal all things, things which have passed, hidden things which no man knew, things of the earth by which it was made and the purpose and the end thereof, things most precious, things that are above, things that are beneath, things that are in the earth, upon the earth, and in heaven." So as I close that quotation, I realize that there are just some things that we won't know until that day.

Where did Elder Wickman correct Elder Nelson?

[cinepro]

Nelson: We have this doctrine, recorded in the Doctrine and Covenants, Section 101: "When the Lord shall come again, he shall reveal all things, things which have passed, hidden things which no man knew, things of the earth by which it was made and the purpose and the end thereof, things most precious, things that are above, things that are beneath, things that are in the earth, upon the earth, and in heaven." So as I close that quotation, I realize that there are just some things that we won't know until that day.

I would also suggest that saying "we don't know" is inherently anti-evolution.

Because if God did use evolution, then that is something that we now do know.

For example, suppose you were to ask two people how incandescent light bulbs work. One of them describes an electrical current running through a filament and becoming heat and light. The other says "we don't know; God somehow creates the light and one day he'll tell us how he does it".

The second answer is a way expressing doubt or disbelief in the first answer by trying to undermine it.

So if God did use evolution in the creation process, it's not that we "don't know" how He did it. We just don't know how the Church could be so incredibly wrong about the whole "no death before the fall" thing for all these years.

Edited July 25, 2011 by cinepro

[HeatherAnn]

Yeah but,

Why do his children make up all these theories denying what he told us then?

All these mental gymnastics are not from what God taught, they are from us trying to reconcile with the "theories of men".

Suppose he allows the theories of men to cloud our minds so that we have to walk by faith? It is not God who is deceiving us- it is our own ability to rationalize and re-contextualize ANYTHING that does it!

That is exactly what we are all doing on this thread- even you! Recontextualizing! Give up and enjoy it! You can't escape it anyway- this is what humans do!

Excellent point.

If it weren't so heart-breaking at times, it would be funny... like a dog trying to catch his own tail!

[David T]

I think there's an important distinction between "what God told us", and men's righteous attempts at making sense of inspired/revealed truths based on their existing culture, knowledge, understanding, and worldviews. Scripture is often somewhere in-between the two.

Edited July 25, 2011 by nackhadlow

[HeatherAnn]

I agree with the overall theme that some portions of the bible are literal and some are interpretative as parables or analogies. However I take issue with the fact that somehow there is a measureable difference in IQ, at least as far as we can measure, and spirtual progress would negate the idea of an apostasy while social progress? No, I haven't seen it.

If IQ's and caring and spiritual progress were a reality, history would not be cyclical. The difference between genocidal warfare practiced in ancient times, and modern genocidal warfare is only different in the amount of technology. In theory a higher intelligence would make war unlikely since war wastes resources that could be used more efficiently. And yet we continue to war, to make war, and to defend ourselves from it. I do not think we are necessarilly smarter (depending on how you define smart) than our near ancestors, simply better tool users (which may or may not mean you are smarter since even a rat will find its way of out a maze.... eventurally).

I'm glad we agree that some biblical lessons are literal & some interpretive.

Personally, I believe that many of the wars throughout history were based on taking the bible literally, since genocide is justified in the bible.

It does seem that history repeats itself... which is often sad, like we (or they) just didn't learn!

Before my grandma died, she told my mom, "I know I wasn't the best mother, but hopefully, I did better than my mom, & you'll do better than me & each generation will get a little better."

Isn't the gospel about love, which is about eternal progress?

Check out the Flynn Effect study...

http://www.indiana.edu/~intell/flynneffect.shtml

I believe that war, or any harmful act, (unless in self-defense) is made out of a lack of awareness how everything we do to others affects us somehow.

Hurting others is hurting ourselves... even if it takes a while to realize this.

I love how people like Jim Morrison go to the root of the problem of terrorism, by providing clean water, basic hygiene education & schools (especially for girls who are most influential as mothers).

[BCSpace]

Where did Elder Wickman correct Elder Nelson?

Wickman's last statement in your quote corrected Nelson who was making statements as to how it was not done. Wickman's statement brought Nelson back into compliance with LDS doctrine which is that we don't know how it was done. If we don't know how it was done, then we really can't say how it was not done. Nelson makes a great recovery in his last statement in your quote, by supporting Wickman's correction with scripture.

That's what companions are for.

Edited July 25, 2011 by BCSpace

[HeatherAnn]

I think there's an important distinction between "what God told us", and men's righteous attempts at making sense of inspired/revealed truths based on their existing culture, knowledge, understanding, and worldviews.

Would you expand on that? - Because I'm not sure what you mean.

By, "what God told us" - do you mean, personal spiritual revelation?

[mfbukowski]

I think there's an important distinction between "what God told us", and men's righteous attempts at making sense of inspired/revealed truths based on their existing culture, knowledge, understanding, and worldviews.

I think they cannot possibly be separated. That is the whole principle behind what we call "continuing revelation" and why Mormonism is different from (possibly) all other religions.

Even if there "WAS" a difference in some way, we could not know about it, because we would be blinded by our own worldviews.

We can never speak of anything outside of our cultural conditioning as long as we use language. And it's a little hard to express complex ideas without it!

Edited July 25, 2011 by mfbukowski