No Death Before The Fall

[BCSpace]

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".

Are the theories of men intrinsically bad or wrong? Take a look back at the 1909 statement. The only theories of men it implied were wrong were conclusions based on evolution and not evolution itself. And that is why you could have intelligent and faithful saints arguing for the possible existence of preAdamites afterwards and that is why their opponents were crushed by the 1931 statement and the continuing defense of acceptance of evolution by DOM.

The scriptural stance on education in the D&C actually encourages us to seek out the "theories of man" in secular education about how the world works. So one cannot say with any intellectual honesty whatsoever that, under the aegis of LDS doctrine, evolution is precluded because it is a theory of man.

Edited July 25, 2011 by BCSpace

[cinepro]

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.

I'm not so sure Wickman is "correcting" anything.

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's statement is obviously anti-(macro)evolution. Wickman's comment does nothing to "correct" Nelson, or acknowledge any possibility that different species of animals evolved from lower orders.

His last line actually reinforces a dismissive attitude towards the possibility that God used evolution by referring to it as "this matter of evolution".

Perhaps the day will come when an Apostle is able to publicly acknowledge that God may have used evolution in the creation process and that statement makes it past correlation. But that day is not today.

[David T]

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

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

I don't think God reveals knowledge in words, or in our spoken language. Much like the argument in Brant Gardner's fantastic book on Book of Mormon translation, I am of the opinion that revelation occurs on a subconscious, pre-language conceptual level, and that working out what it means is, in itself, a form of translation - with our brains attaching some of the raw intelligence to tangible concepts and ideas and symbols and language we already have there.

All scripture, general and personal (general meaning Church approved and for public consumption, personal meaning your inspired journal entries) are translations and interpretations of a divine experience.

This is why Joseph would often revise his written revelations - they weren't verbatim transcripts, they were his working out and 'translating' the divine deposit placed within him. At a later date, after additional experience and knowledge, he could revisit it in his memory, and have a deeper and more relevent understanding of the experience. In fact, I think this is the case with many of his visionary experiences - elements of pure revelation occuring inwardly, and not externally, that, when re-visited, could be understood on different levels.

I'm not convinced God has ever told anyone that Adam eating a piece of fruit caused a massive worldwide biological change that finally allowed not onle he, but all animals and bacteria and plant life to begin going through biological entropy and death.

I do think, however, that he revealed different aspects of true knowledge that has attached itself to and reoriented that powerful and very visual story at multiple times throughout the years.

And until just the past century or so, there was no real contending reason for anyone to think the story couldn't also describe the literal origins of species. That has changed.

I think we can keep the symbol and the teachings of the ancient (and modern versions of the) Garden Story, but unlink it in our minds from being a documentarian historical record.

Edited July 25, 2011 by nackhadlow

[BCSpace]

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.

I'm not so sure Wickman is "correcting" anything.

It seems quite obvious that Wickman is getting Nelson to step back from the brink of personal opinion. We go from Nelson's erroneous notion that evolution does not have like producing like to Wickman's we don't know how it was done.

Yet another example of how some statements can be countered because of false information about evolution. It has obviously been a long time since Nelson studied the science that made him a successful surgeon. If an attack on evolution does not actually address evolution, it cannot possibly be an attack on evolution.

His last line actually reinforces a dismissive attitude towards the possibility that God used evolution by referring to it as "this matter of evolution".

It's actually a tacit admission that it's not a settled matter.

Edited July 25, 2011 by BCSpace

[Ahab]

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.

Yes, and it is the Holy Spirit speaking to the original writers and those who are trying to understand what they meant which bridges the difference.

I think it helps to realize that intelligence is a virtue of God and that the closer we get to him the more of it we have.

Those who don't just have or exhibit less of it, and it's always been that way forever.

[mfbukowski]

Are the theories of men intrinsically bad or wrong? Take a look back at the 1909 statement. The only theories of men it implied were wrong were conclusions based on evolution and not evolution itself. And that is why you could have intelligent and faithful saints arguing for the possible existence of preAdamites afterwards and that is why their opponents were crushed by the 1931 statement and the continuing defense of acceptance of evolution by DOM.

The scriptural stance on education in the D&C actually encourages us to seek out the "theories of man" in secular education about how the world works. So one cannot say with any intellectual honesty whatsoever that, under the aegis of LDS doctrine, evolution is precluded because it is a theory of man.

I guess that was not terribly clear.

All we have, in my opinion, is "theories of men", some are inspired and some are not. Show me one revelation that did not come through a human!

Humans are the ones who create order in the universe- especially ONE human we call "God". But we are all doing essentially the same thing- creating contexts for understanding our experience, and creating out own world view

God just has a hugely different infinitely vast context for his understanding, but if we will follow his training, we can learn what He knows, and do it the way He does, hence we have the constant battle between "I did it my way" vs. "I did it His way".

[David T]

Yes, and it is the Holy Spirit speaking to the original writers and those who are trying to understand what they meant which bridges the difference.

I think it helps to realize that intelligence is a virtue of God and that the closer we get to him the more of it we have.

Those who don't just have or exhibit less of it, and it's always been that way forever.

I think the importance of reading with the spirit, and also with study and knowledge is being able to peel back the layers of things 'added' or 'lost' in translation from the initial divine spark, to the recorded in human language scripture. It's a bit of reverse-translation, and the spirit guides in helping one to experience what the original writer learned and experienced.

God's not going to dictate error. But he does allow - and plan for - errors and additions in the transmission and interpretation of that message.

Edited July 25, 2011 by nackhadlow

[mfbukowski]

I don't think God reveals knowledge in words, or in our spoken language. Much like the argument in Brant Gardner's fantastic book on Book of Mormon translation, I am of the opinion that revelation occurs on a subconscious, pre-language conceptual level, and that working out what it means is, in itself, a form of translation - with our brains attaching some of the raw intelligence to tangible concepts and ideas and symbols and language we already have there.

All scripture, general and personal (general meaning Church approved and for public consumption, personal meaning your inspired journal entries) are translations and interpretations of a divine experience.

This is why Joseph would often revise his written revelations - they weren't verbatim transcripts, they were his working out and 'translating' the divine deposit placed within him. At a later date, after additional experience and knowledge, he could revisit it in his memory, and have a deeper and more relevent understanding of the experience. In fact, I think this is the case with many of his visionary experiences - elements of pure revelation occuring inwardly, and not externally, that, when re-visited, could be understood on different levels.

I'm not convinced God has ever told anyone that Adam eating a piece of fruit caused a massive worldwide biological change that finally allowed not onle he, but all animals and bacteria and plant life to begin going through biological entropy and death.

I do think, however, that he revealed different aspects of true knowledge that has attached itself to and reoriented that powerful and very visual story at multiple times throughout the years.

And until just the past century or so, there was no real contending reason for anyone to think the story couldn't also describe the literal origins of species. That has changed.

I think we can keep the symbol and the teachings of the ancient (and modern versions of the) Garden Story, but unlink it in our minds from being a documentarian historical record.

YES!

I consider it my mission here to get this notion out to as many as possible. And it appears to be yours as well

[Ahab]

I guess that was not terribly clear.

All we have, in my opinion, is "theories of men", some are inspired and some are not. Show me one revelation that did not come through a human!

The fact that revelations from God can come to us through (other) humans doesn't mean what those men are sharing are the theories of men.

What prophets share when they share revelations from God with others are still revelations from God, even when they're not understood correctly.

Humans are the ones who create order in the universe- especially ONE human we call "God".

I don't think it's proper to refer to our Father as a "human" because I reserve the word "human" for those who are exactly like us, but no more... as Jesus was like us before he was resurrected into a glorified celestial state. In other words, I believe there are (at least) 3 different stages for our kind of being, the first being what we were before we became what I call human... when we were immortal with spirit bodies but not with a body like we now have... and then the current state we are in which I refer to as "human", and then the state we'll go into after we are resurrected and receive glorified bodies for our spirits.

But we are all doing essentially the same thing- creating contexts for understanding our experience, and creating our own world view.

Our own world view is either in agreement with revelation from God or it is something else which is contradictory, though.

We either speak for God by saying what God would say in our place, or we don't and instead we speak for the "other" side.

God just has a hugely different infinitely vast context for his understanding, but if we will follow his training, we can learn what He knows, and do it the way He does, hence we have the constant battle between "I did it my way" vs. "I did it His way".

I totally agree with that. Well said.

[BCSpace]

God just has a hugely different infinitely vast context for his understanding, but if we will follow his training, we can learn what He knows, and do it the way He does, hence we have the constant battle between "I did it my way" vs. "I did it His way".

Sure. But until God gives us a revelation, then it is not unreasonable to fill in the gaps with say, science in this case. LDS doctrine seems to encourage it by encouraging secular education as long as one hearkens to the counsels of God of course.

[Ahab]

I think the importance of reading with the spirit, and also with study and knowledge is being able to peel back the layers of things 'added' or 'lost' in translation from the initial divine spark, to the recorded in human language scripture. It's a bit of reverse-translation, and the spirit guides in helping one to experience what the original writer learned and experienced.

God's not going to dictate error. But he does allow - and plan for - errors and additions in the transmission and interpretation of that message.

Yep. I totally agree. +1 more for you.

[LeSellers]

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).

This blanket statement, like all generalizations, is not true.

The "root of the problem of terrorism" is not bad water or poverty. It varies with each individual terrorist. Many of the most dedicated terrorists are highly educated, are wealthy, and live in modern cities with running water, medical facilities, and sewers. Many live in USmerica and western Europe. The root of the problem in them is their view on life (and death), it is the their adherence to any of certain philosophies, however demented or vile, that makes them believe that their personal view must be forced on others by the use of murder and destruction.

Such adherenece does not show up as a skin shade or eye color. They usually do not broadcast their ideas to their intended victims. The first inclination others have of their penchant for this kind of evil is the attack. There are few, if any, overt hallmarks.

As for educating girls, while I agree that girls deserve the same opportunities as boys, for the reason you mentioned, perhaps more so than boys, it hasn't worked for the boys: many in what we might call "terror-oriented cultures" are no less, and perhaps more prone to violence in support of their causes than their less educated peers. Why would we expect educated mothers(some of whom have already blown themselves up with the goal of killing a few infidels) to be all that different from their fathers, brothers, and sons? How would an educated mother, whose influence you correctly note, be any less likely to rise future terrorists than her uneducated sister when many educationally advanced cultures have produced the worst terrorists among the bunch?

Lehi

[mfbukowski]

Sure. But until God gives us a revelation, then it is not unreasonable to fill in the gaps with say, science in this case. LDS doctrine seems to encourage it by encouraging secular education as long as one hearkens to the counsels of God of course.

Yes, of course

"Science" is just humans contextualizing just like everything else, but with "objective data" which means experiences we can all verify for ourselves. We see things vastly differently than the way Ptolemy because we have more data to contextualize- so science "progresses" in a similar way to the way you are describing "revelation".

One deals with objective data, the other deals with meaning in our lives, but both go by the same process. Science is justified by objective observation- revelation is justified by subjective experience- that is the only difference.

Edited July 25, 2011 by mfbukowski

[Sevenbak]

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.

No mater how many times I read that last statement from Wickman, I don't see him correcting E. Nelson, or E. Nelson changing anything he previously said.

I also don't think companionships or lack thereof establish doctrine. That's done through correlation, which has clearly been established by the church.

Which I would add, E. Nelson is merely reiterating.

Edited July 25, 2011 by Sevenbak

[cinepro]

No mater how many times I read that last statement from Wickman, I don't see him correcting E. Nelson, or E. Nelson changing anything he previously said.

I also don't think companionships or lack thereof establish doctrine. That's done through correlation, which has clearly been established by the church.

Which I would add, E. Nelson is merely reiterating.

I agree. If Elder Wickman had actually said something acknowledging the possibility of God having used evolution, or of macro evolution having occurred during the creation process, then that would have been a "correction".

In the context of a discussion about evolution and creation, saying "we just don't know how God did it" is the same as saying "He didn't use evolution to do it".

[Mortal Man]

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.

In that case, God created the Garden of Gethsemane, a separate place, a different world if you will, and there was no eternal life there. The rest of the world was not in such a place, far from God in death and sin, just the Garden, and life existed elsewhere, but in the Garden set aside for Christianity, there was no life until Jesus decided to suffer, thus ensuring this line of apologetics.

[Mortal Man]

I'm not convinced God has ever told anyone that Adam eating a piece of fruit caused a massive worldwide biological change that finally allowed not onle he, but all animals and bacteria and plant life to begin going through biological entropy and death.

I do think, however, that he revealed different aspects of true knowledge that has attached itself to and reoriented that powerful and very visual story at multiple times throughout the years.

And until just the past century or so, there was no real contending reason for anyone to think the story couldn't also describe the literal origins of species. That has changed.

I think we can keep the symbol and the teachings of the ancient (and modern versions of the) Garden Story, but unlink it in our minds from being a documentarian historical record.

I completely agree, and from 1 Cor. 15:22 it logically follows that God never told anyone that Christ rising from the tomb caused a massive worldwide eschatological change that finally allowed not only he, but all people and animals to begin going through biological renewal and resurrection.

I think we can keep the symbol and the teachings of the Empty Tomb Story, but unlink it in our minds from being a documented historical record.

Edited July 25, 2011 by Mortal Man

[HeatherAnn]

I'm liking a lot of posts in this thread!

This blanket statement, like all generalizations, is not true.

The "root of the problem of terrorism" is not bad water or poverty. It varies with each individual terrorist. Many of the most dedicated terrorists are highly educated, are wealthy, and live in modern cities with running water, medical facilities, and sewers. Many live in USmerica and western Europe. The root of the problem in them is their view on life (and death), it is the their adherence to any of certain philosophies, however demented or vile, that makes them believe that their personal view must be forced on others by the use of murder and destruction.

Such adherenece does not show up as a skin shade or eye color. They usually do not broadcast their ideas to their intended victims. The first inclination others have of their penchant for this kind of evil is the attack. There are few, if any, overt hallmarks.

As for educating girls, while I agree that girls deserve the same opportunities as boys, for the reason you mentioned, perhaps more so than boys, it hasn't worked for the boys: many in what we might call "terror-oriented cultures" are no less, and perhaps more prone to violence in support of their causes than their less educated peers. Why would we expect educated mothers(some of whom have already blown themselves up with the goal of killing a few infidels) to be all that different from their fathers, brothers, and sons? How would an educated mother, whose influence you correctly note, be any less likely to rise future terrorists than her uneducated sister when many educationally advanced cultures have produced the worst terrorists among the bunch?

Lehi

One can't get away with much around here, can they? ha

I need you to come to my house & help me referee... give me a break.

You're right, Lehi. I meant more specifically what Jim Morrison did, as written in the book, "3 cups of Tea."

Terrorism is not always because of poverty, but it does reveal a lack of eduction - not formal education - but a lack of understanding other perspectives & compassion.

As you mentioned, they are stuck in one way of thinking, which they believe must be forced on others... And it can happen in any culture, as it did recently in Norway.

An educated person would not be as easily brain-washed into doing ridiculous things.

Educated mothers will teach her children better than less educated mothers, by showing their children better options than finding validation through gangs or terrorism.

I am very passionate about education! - Not just intellectually, but socially, emotionally, health-wise etc.

Edited July 26, 2011 by HeatherAnn

[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.

I took a look at Converging Paths today. Rhodes does indeed discuss the possibility of death before the Fall beginning at page 130. It is quite interesting, and provides some good reference to early Church authorities who have been on both sides of the debate. B.H. Roberts and James E. Talmage both argued for the existence of death before the Fall while Joseph Fielding Smith argued for the contrary position. What I came away with is this: This Church has no official position on whether of not death occured before the Fall, though it seems settled that there was no death of mankind before the Fall. So, plants and other animals could have died before Adam and Eve fell.

I learned something new today. I wonder how many members know that the Church's official position leaves open the possibility of death before the Fall.

[Mark Beesley]

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.

I don't see it that way.

[cdowis]

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

Really? That is interesting. I think it means what it says.

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

Just as others have suggested that we would know with certainty BOM geography, and the DNA characteristics of the amerindians/Lamanites. Methinks those individuals are making demands on the Lord, giving him advice, which He deigns not to accept.

For example,

Ah, an analogy. Of course one can prove anything with an analogy, but let's see what you got up your sleeve this time.

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".

Let us suppose that they said that there was a lightening rod on the top of the mountain nearby, and that lightening went from the tower directly to the home to light it up. Lightening creates a bright light, and man has found a way to harness it.

The second person says, "We don't know".

Evolution does not give us certainty on the creation of organism, specifically homo sapiens, as you analogy suggests. Some of their ideas are sheer nonsense, as we have discussed in other threads. (We can discuss this in yet another thread, along with Mordecai, if you wish, but be prepared to answer some questions.)

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.

Ah, yes, "if I were the Lord, this is how I would do things." A very old argument that goes back to antiquity. Giving the Lord suggestions on how to do things.

Well, we do have several examples where the Lord did not follow your advice.

Surely, the Lord should have taken your advice and warned us about the DNA issue long ago. Seems that there is a name for that logical fallacy.... something about silence, or ignorance..... You seem to be a master of fallacies, so perhaps you can help us here.

Edited July 26, 2011 by cdowis

[JeremyOrbe-Smith]

Some thoughts:

As I stressed before, we are not a Church which believes in an inerrant tradition of flawlessly inhuman authorities. The Lord allows mistakes to happen; the very first chapter of the D&C states unequivocally that "the fulness of the gospel might be proclaimed by the weak and the simple unto the ends of the world, and before kings and rulers. Behold, I am God and have spoken it; these commandments are of me, and were given unto my servants in their weakness, after the manner of their language, that they might come to understanding. And inasmuch as they erred it might be made known; and inasmuch as they sought wisdom they might be instructed; and inasmuch as they sinned they might be chastened, that they might repent; and inasmuch as they were humble they might be made strong, and blessed from on high, and receive knowledge from time to time."

If we believe that God will yet reveal many "great things" pertaining to the kingdom, it stands to reason that we do not know these things now. Yet if we believe we ourselves have the potential to become Gods, then by God, let's study things out in our minds rather than being slothful servants who wait to be commanded and beg our Father for every answer before expending the least bit of effort to educate ourselves from the best books. Let's use our brains to come to a better understanding of the natural world and not hide behind unexplainable "God did it" miracles or wallow in our current ignorance. The natural world is a fascinating place; let's dig our hands in the soil and figure it out!

Frankly, I don't think that we need to jump through the particular hoops that some are attempting, ie fossils coming from other planets in complete contradiction to known geological processes, the Earth literally falling from near Kolob in complete contradiction to basic physics (neither of which is, in fact, anything resembling "doctrine") Don't worry, though, I have plenty of equally-unlikely speculation to fill my plate, and more on that later. *grin*

I think of it this way:

Goodness is not whatever God just happens to say. The authority we give to him doesn't mean that he can just act on any whim. We obey the Light of Christ in each of us, because we recognize when something is good, we agree with God's purpose, which is to bring to pass the immortality and eternal life of mankind, in which the great principle of happiness consists of having a body in order that we might experience joy and develop sympathy for our fellows.

Alma 42:13 states that "the work of justice could not be destroyed; if so, God would cease to be God." This is an utterly necessary condition for God to be a Just God. We are free, uncreated moral agents of the Divine Council, who choose to follow Christ, who follows his Father, who follows Justice, which is the Law which is Good, independent of Him. We have to discover things on our own: "Whatever principle of intelligence we attain unto in this life, it will rise with us in the resurrection. And if a person gains more knowledge and intelligence in this life through his diligence and obedience than another, he will have so much the advantage in the world to come." (D&C 130:18-19) Joseph was adamant that "a man is saved no faster than he gets knowledge."

With this view of the great Law in mind, does obedience mean we never question God or his servants? To the contrary, the only time we ever receive more light is when we question the Lord, when we make ourselves willing to change the preconceptions which we once believed to be carved in stone, because He will answer us - once we've learned enough to understand what he's trying to say. The Veil of forgetfulness actually allows us to question, to doubt to our heart's content, because what we are doing on this earth is learning how to prove our loyalty (see Abraham). In all the scriptures, the people who wrestle mightily with the Lord are the ones who give us the most information. There are constant references to this process in the D&C when Joseph and others questioning everything, questioning their own questions. Think of Abraham and Moses, questioning God's actions on behalf of their people.

The thing is, human lifespans are so short that often there's simply no way each individual can learn enough even to ask pertinent questions about reality. It takes generations of painstaking work for knowledge to progress to the point where we can begin to ask intelligent questions, simply because each little step is so back-breakingly difficult if we're not culturally prepared to receive an answer which contradicts our known understanding. Sometimes I picture us coming up to God and asking Him the metaphysical equivalent of "Why is cheese so harmonious a color?" We're so young as a species that even our questions are, most likely, from an eternal perspective, utterly silly. But I think God does help us, trying to point out - after the manner of our weaknesses of language - that, hey, the color of cheese has very little auditory significance. I think of His guidance more as a light I can focus on shining from a distance than an encyclopedia I can open to receive answers without effort. Some people have different spiritual gifts in different areas; no one receives exactly the same light.

If there's one thing the Joseph Smith story should tell us, it's that there is a vast difference between listening to what God says, and listening to what other people say God says; this is the principle of personal revelation that is utterly vital to the Restoration. If Samuel the Lamanite had listened to either Nephite or Lamanite society, would he have been as great a Prophet as he was? We who hold the Priesthood have to keep in mind at all times that, as Matthew 24:24 says, it's possible for Satan to deceive even the very elect - we are not immune from intellectual error just because we hold a little authority, and if we ever use the mere authority of office to explain a belief, we have merely confessed our own intellectual flaccidity.

We only have authority from god to do what he asks us to do, just like the Priests in Leviticus did. We have the power to baptize into the Church, we have authority to confer blessings, we have the authority to help. But we don't have authority to dictate another person's relationship with God or the natural world - that would "look too much like the Methodist, and not like the Latter-day Saints." *grin* I want the liberty of thinking and believing as I please. It feels so good not to be trammeled.

I like Bushman's description of Joseph's theology:

The Creation came under the oversight of a "grand Council" of gods who "came together & concocked the plan of making the world & the inhabitants." These gods made the world not out of nothing, but from eternal matter, which they organized out of chaos. Intelligence existed eternally too. "God was a self exhisting being, man exhists upon the same principle." "God never had power to create the spirit of man, God himself could not create himself. Intelligence is Eternal & it is self exhisting."

That made individual persons radically free. Their nature was not predetermined by their creator. They were what they were, not what God made them. Rather than God being the sovereign creator of all things from nothing, He was the most intelligent of the free intelligences. The universe is a school for these free, self-existing intelligences. God, finding "himself in the midst of spirit and glory because he was greater[,] saw proper to institute laws whereby the rest could have a privilege to advance like himself." God nurtures the intelligences, giving them laws to help them progress to greater capacity. "God has power to institute laws to instruct the weaker intelligences that thay may be exhalted with himself." He is their teacher, not their maker. Each one is free to choose. The intelligences have independent, self-existing wills, and each one must make the decision to ally with God or not, to join in the order of the gods or not.

This discourse envisioned a far different universe than the God-created universe of traditional Christian theology. Instead of one overwhelming, all-pervasive power governing the universe, making it essentially simple, the universe was composed of congeries of intelligences and self-existent matter than God organized rather than made. He was bringing order out of chaos rather than making something from nothing. Existence has an openness and freedom impossible under a theology of an omnipotent Creator-God. Mormons later picked out a statement by William James as capturing the spirit of Joseph's theology. James pictured God saying to other spirits:

I am going to make a world not certain to be saved, a world the perfection of which shall be conditional merely, the condition being that each several agent does its own "level best". I offer you the chance of taking part in such a world. Its safety, you see, is unwarranted. it is a real adventure, with real danger, yet it may win through. It is a social scheme of co-operative work genuinely to be done. Will you join the procession? Will you trust yourself and trust the other agents enough to face the risk?

The universe is a school; we're all here to learn from it, no matter what office we hold. God, in his mercy and kindness, points the way, but he never forces anyone to learn anything, because to coerce someone's understanding would be to defeat the purpose. He's not an all-powerful philosophical abstraction sitting up in Heaven and doling out information whenever He thinks we can handle it; He's a man trying desperately to pull his fellow-intelligences up to where He is, constantly frustrated by our vain unwillingness to search out the "things of God [which] are of deep import, and [which] time, and experience, and careful and ponderous and solemn thoughts can only find them out." He cries out to us: "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."

So. We are free to disagree with anyone about anything, including our authorities about doctrine, which is an open-ended thing anyway. But personally, I think that rather than jumping ship if someone "above" me says something I disagree with, it's much better to try to persuade them to reach a different conclusion based on reasoning and evidence; I certainly hope they are willing to do the same with me, because that's generally the only time I'll be willing to change my perspective to accord with their thinking. With all this in mind, I think that it's perfectly fine to believe in death before the Fall, basing this belief on the preponderance of biological evidence.

Here's my (immensely speculative, completely non-doctrinal) view of how we can reconcile some of these things:

The strain of tradition within the Church taught by past and present authorities which denies physical death to plants and animals before the Fall is just that: tradition. There have been strong opinions on this subject by some leaders, but since all our previous doctrines are open to revision and change in light of increased understanding, there is no particular reason we can't learn truth, let it come from where it may. There is no ominous question of why God allowed an incorrect tradition to be distributed so long; He merely has to contend with fallible servants who can only serve Him to the best of their ability. And atheist scientists can be worthy to receive revelations for their questions, after all. Just as the Priesthood restriction on some members was found to be based on tradition rather than revelation, so too might the current understanding of some on the matter of death before the fall.

Some things to think about, since I doubt anyone actually clicked the links in my last post *grin*:

1. The human genome has been ably demonstrated to be closely related to all life. We are very closely related to chimpanzees.

2. Since the 70's, the fossil record has been greatly expanded, with fewer and fewer "missing links". The interesting thing about the "missing link" protestation of insufficient evidence is that there will always be insufficient evidence, since each gap which is filled immediately produces two more gaps. To think that the theory of evolution is null and void simply because we haven't found every single ancestor of every single creature is simply not a realistic argument.

3. If the entire earth was in a paradisiacal state, then what was the actual purpose of the Garden, wherein there was no death? Why have a separate section if the entire earth was deathless?

4. Did Adam and Eve have hair or skin? After all, these things are dead cells. Indeed, what is the purpose of fruit, if not as a reproductive adaptation to combat death?

(By the way, I found the transcript to the video talk, if anyone prefers to read it: http://www.fairlds.org/FAIR_Conferences/2003_Evolution_and_Latter-day_Saint_Theology.html )

Now. Spirit is "refined matter". If we all died a "spiritual death" when we came to this earth, then in that sense, "death entered the world" when Adam and all the rest of us Fell. It wasn't death to any of the creatures around us, and Adam didn't directly cause our individual Falls; it was our own spiritual deaths which mattered. Wherever we were in the preexistence, we died and were born into our Second Estate, our current life. The Hebrew scriptures contain records from the "first man" of this dispensation of the gospel plan, yet we also know that "worlds without number" have already been created and passed away before Adam; worlds without number have been the probationary grounds where other members of the divine family have been proved.

D&C 77 asks: "What are we to understand by the book which John saw, which was sealed on the back with seven seals?" with the answer being: "We are to understand that it contains the revealed will, mysteries, and the works of God; the hidden things of his economy concerning this earth during the seven thousand years of its continuance, or its temporal existence." Reading this carefully, what is the "it" which has a temporal existence of seven thousand years? I think it's referring to the "hidden things of his economy ["house-order"] concerning this earth" [emphasis added] during that time, not the actual age of the earth itself.

If worlds without number have been brought into and out of existence since forever ago and intelligences are uncreated and have always existed, then every "economy" which is developed on any planet is necessarily temporary. This seems to be referring to a discrete 7000 year time period of essentially bureaucratic organization; there is no mention of all the previous economies, dispensations, etc. which we know have existed throughout all eternity. It is only "an account of this earth" which is given. Yet for all we know, a different group of God's children could have Fallen and returned to Heaven during a different dispensation's economy even on this same earth. If all material is eternal, then each creation is an act of organization.

So where do the primates fit in? Again, this is all monstrously science-fictional speculation, but one theory might go something like this: however the process of evolution works, we know that it functions within a preexisting set of constraints which effect individual creatures in a given environment. If the preexisting set of constraints are similar, then similar patterns emerge in the bodies which adapt to that type of environment in a process of convergent evolution. If this can happen between species separated from each other by geological features on one world, it seems reasonable to suggest that if the same set of constraints is present on a different world, it would lead to a similar convergence of forms between worlds. So we've got vaguely primate-ish creatures on different planets roaming around.

Paraphrasing D&C 77: "When we speak of beasts, and of creeping things, and of the fowls of the air, that which is spiritual exists in the likeness of that which is temporal; and that which is temporal in the likeness of that which is spiritual; the spirit of man in the likeness of his person, as also the spirit of the beast, and every other creature which God has created. These classes of beings have glory in their destined border or sphere of creation, in the enjoyment of their eternal felicity."

This will sound really silly, but what comes to mind for me is the song I learned as a kid from Disney's Pocahontas, where she sings that "You think you own whatever land you land on, the earth is just a dead thing you can claim, but I know every rock and tree and creature has a life, has a spirit, has a name." It's essentially an interesting kind of animism - everything is alive, and we are an inseparable part of the natural world.

Joseph Smith says that "A very material difference [exists] between the body and the spirit; the body is supposed to be organized matter, and the spirit, by many, is thought to be immaterial, without substance. With this latter statement we should beg leave to differ, and state the spirit is a substance; that it is material, but that it is more pure, elastic and refined matter than the body; that it existed before the body, can exist in the body; and will exist separate from the body, when the body will be mouldering in the dust; and will in the resurrection, be again united with it."

So we've got a divine spark of something inside of us which can exist separate from our bodies. It is said in Genesis that the Lord somehow "breathes" this spark into a body he has created from the dust [over many generations and through a process of organic evolution and geological time, I would argue]. Personally, I have no idea how he does this. I think it's a poetic and simplified description of something we do not now understand. The point is that he brings our souls from one place to another. h***, maybe there are magnets involved - we're simply ignorant of the science behind it. The point being: we are, in some way, Spirit Children who are given new bodies. Why, when all this fantastic, currently-unexplainable stuff is happening, does God have to limit himself to physiologically modern homo sapiens to give bodies to his children? We know early hominids were smart. Is our society so complicated that our spiritual siblings cannot have found life joyful in a premodern body, in a premodern culture?

In other words, who says that God, who "never had power to create himself", can't have evolved? Does the origin of His body effect that body's ability to carry out his intentions? Does it change the fact of His love for us, or the need for us to be forgiven for our trespasses and forgive others for theirs? Is the joy of reconciliation and the peaceful At-one-ment of all Intelligences somehow compromised?

I say intellectual mistakes are a part of eternal progression, and none of us has to have a flawless theoretical understanding in order set out on the road of doing good work and bringing people into the Kingdom.

[Mansquatch]

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".

This is a poor example that has equivalence problems. Humans made light bulbs and therefore know how, or can find out how, they work. Humans did not create the earth and all the creatures on it and do not know all the in-and-outs of it. We have some good ideas, some bad ideas and a ton of speculation about it. The "We don't know" stance is valid in this case because we really don't. Of course, not knowing something is a lousy excuse to not try and learn or figure out more.

[Craig Paxton]

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.

I am...Been out of town and just trying to catch up on this thread

[thesometimesaint]

All we really need to create this solar system and presumably every other one in the universe is matter unorganized(a cloud of dust and gas), gravity, the principle of the conservation of angular momentum, and a few hundred million years. No magic by God to transport a preformed earth to its present location. But then God already knows all about it.