Conditions Of Adam And Eve In The Garden

[orion88]

I was wondering if someone could clear something up for me from a

teaching in the current version of Gospel Principles, chapter 6.

On page 28, it says "When Adam and Eve were placed in the Garden

of Eden, they were not yet mortal. In this state, “they would have

had no children” (2 Nephi 2:23). There was no death. They had

physical life because their spirits were housed in physical bodies

made from the dust of the earth (see Moses 6:59; Abraham 5:7).

They had spiritual life because they were in the presence of God.

They had not yet made a choice between good and evil.

But page 29 says, "Because of the Fall, we are blessed with physical

bodies, the right to choose between good and evil, and the opportunity

to gain eternal life. None of these privileges would have been ours

had Adam and Eve remained in the garden.

Since there was no death, how did they already have physical bodies

(page 28) when the Fall is said to have brought death and the blessing

of a physical body (page 29)?

And several references in Religion 430-431 - Doctrines of the Gospel

Student Manual say that they (with the plants and animals) did not

have physical bodies before the Fall.

Chapter 8, page 19 says, "Before the Fall the earth and all things

upon it existed in a spiritual state (see 2 Nephi 2:22; Moses 3:5–7)."

(A1)

"When Adam was in the Garden of Eden, he was not subject to death.

There was no blood in his body and he could have remained there

forever. This is true of all the other creations” (Joseph Fielding

Smith, Doctrines of Salvation, 1:76–77)." (chapter 8, pages 19-20)

Which part of Gospel Principles is correct in light of the other

manual's teachings?

This also seems to teach that Adam and Eve's disobedience brought

mortality and physical bodies to all other creations too. Is that

true?

Page 24 (in both the 1997 and 2008 versions of Gospel Principles)

indicates the animals already had reproductive powers before Adam

and Eve were created.

"Then He created the animals—fish, cattle, insects, and birds of

all kinds. These animals had the ability to reproduce their own kind."

But how could the animals in a spiritual state (without physical

bodies) have the ability to procreate?

Thanks,

Tony

[Senator]

A grain of salt, my friend. A grain of salt

[thesometimesaint]

A&E were immortal AND could have no children. By becoming mortal they became able to have children. Thus our ability to be born with physical bodies.

[cinepro]

I was wondering if someone could clear something up for me from a

teaching in the current version of Gospel Principles, chapter 6.

On page 28, it says "When Adam and Eve were placed in the Garden

of Eden, they were not yet mortal. In this state, “they would have

had no children” (2 Nephi 2:23). There was no death. They had

physical life because their spirits were housed in physical bodies

made from the dust of the earth (see Moses 6:59; Abraham 5:7).

They had spiritual life because they were in the presence of God.

They had not yet made a choice between good and evil.

But page 29 says, "Because of the Fall, we are blessed with physical

bodies, the right to choose between good and evil, and the opportunity

to gain eternal life. None of these privileges would have been ours

had Adam and Eve remained in the garden.

Since there was no death, how did they already have physical bodies

(page 28) when the Fall is said to have brought death and the blessing

of a physical body (page 29)?

I think the point is that without the fall, we (you and I) would not have been able to come to Earth and have physical bodies. Adam and Eve had physical bodies, but they couldn't have children, so it would have just been them living on Earth with physical bodies. You don't need "death" to have a physical body. You just need a spirit and a body.

And several references in Religion 430-431 - Doctrines of the Gospel

Student Manual say that they (with the plants and animals) did not

have physical bodies before the Fall.

Chapter 8, page 19 says, "Before the Fall the earth and all things

upon it existed in a spiritual state (see 2 Nephi 2:22; Moses 3:5–7)."

(A1)

Why do you assume that "existed in a spiritual state" excludes having a physical body?

"When Adam was in the Garden of Eden, he was not subject to death.

There was no blood in his body and he could have remained there

forever. This is true of all the other creations” (Joseph Fielding

Smith, Doctrines of Salvation, 1:76–77)." (chapter 8, pages 19-20)

Which part of Gospel Principles is correct in light of the other

manual's teachings?

This also seems to teach that Adam and Eve's disobedience brought

mortality and physical bodies to all other creations too. Is that

true?

No, it's teaching that all creations had physical bodies, but they weren't mortal.

Page 24 (in both the 1997 and 2008 versions of Gospel Principles)

indicates the animals already had reproductive powers before Adam

and Eve were created.

"Then He created the animals—fish, cattle, insects, and birds of

all kinds. These animals had the ability to reproduce their own kind."

But how could the animals in a spiritual state (without physical

bodies) have the ability to procreate?

They had physical bodies, and for some reason the plants and animals were able to reproduce, but Adam and Eve couldn't.

The real mystery is how God could have used evolution to do all this...

[David T]

Of course, I'm one of those heathens who feels our "Fall" consisted of the choice to be born into mortality, and the subsequent giving into the conditions of our animal bodies. The fall is in two stages, birth and sin. The first decision results in our being born into a body of flesh and blood and bones that can eventually sexually reproduce (have children), and the second occurs far before sexual maturity actualizes. So yeah - if someone doesn't achieve one or both parts of the fall, "they would have had no children".

I think the mixed signal (and loss of the doctrine's power) comes when we (or GA interpreters) say the Fall was a One Time Event with This One Guy and Gal that occurred in all of its parts on an already Physical Human Body. When this interpretation is given, a whole new set of speculative "doctrines" then becomes necessary to explain this so-called "amortal spiritual physical body that was not mortal but not resurrected and didn't have any dying cells, but still ate food, etc".

I have a strong belief in the doctrine of the fall. What I highly doubt is the Fall as a history of the substantial molecular transformation of all life on earth at this one time like 6000 years ago. Or whatever.

Edited October 11, 2011 by nackhadlow

[thesometimesaint]

Glad to meet a fellow heathen.

[Tarski]

The real mystery is how God could have used evolution to do all this...

Also, how do we fit evolution with the idea of the procreative embrace of Ranginui and Papatuanuku and how did their offspring get along with light? I am sure there is some way to reconcile all this stuff.

[T-Shirt]

I was wondering if someone could clear something up for me from a

teaching in the current version of Gospel Principles, chapter 6.

On page 28, it says "When Adam and Eve were placed in the Garden

of Eden, they were not yet mortal. In this state, “they would have

had no children” (2 Nephi 2:23). There was no death. They had

physical life because their spirits were housed in physical bodies

made from the dust of the earth (see Moses 6:59; Abraham 5:7).

They had spiritual life because they were in the presence of God.

They had not yet made a choice between good and evil.

But page 29 says, "Because of the Fall, we are blessed with physical

bodies, the right to choose between good and evil, and the opportunity

to gain eternal life. None of these privileges would have been ours

had Adam and Eve remained in the garden.

Since there was no death, how did they already have physical bodies

(page 28) when the Fall is said to have brought death and the blessing

of a physical body (page 29)?

A physical body does not have to be a mortal body. God has a physical body but He is not mortal. Adam and Eve, prior to the fall, had physical bodies but were not yet mortal. The word, "mortal" literally means, "to be subject to death".

And several references in Religion 430-431 - Doctrines of the Gospel

Student Manual say that they (with the plants and animals) did not

have physical bodies before the Fall.

Chapter 8, page 19 says, "Before the Fall the earth and all things

upon it existed in a spiritual state (see 2 Nephi 2:22; Moses 3:5–7)."

(A1)

"When Adam was in the Garden of Eden, he was not subject to death.

There was no blood in his body and he could have remained there

forever. This is true of all the other creations” (Joseph Fielding

Smith, Doctrines of Salvation, 1:76–77)." (chapter 8, pages 19-20)

Which part of Gospel Principles is correct in light of the other

manual's teachings?

It's funny that you didn't post all of the explanation given in the manual, which answers your question:

■ “Adam had a spiritual body until mortality came upon him through the violation of the law under which he was living, but he also had a physical body of flesh and bones.

“. . . Now what is a spiritual body? It is one that is quickened by spirit and not by blood. . . .

“. . . When Adam was in the Garden of Eden, he was not subject to death. There was no blood in his body and he could have remained there forever.

Best,

T-Shirt

Edited October 11, 2011 by T-Shirt

[thesometimesaint]

Tarski:

Evolution doesn't say jack about A&E. I find them compatable. Thought I am certainly aware of the counter arguements.

IF Evolution is simply a process. Then all we are discussing is means not ends.

[Tarski]

Tarski:

Evolution doesn't say jack about A&E. I find them compatable. Thought I am certainly aware of the counter arguements.

IF Evolution is simply a process. Then all we are discussing is means not ends.

The story of Adam and Eve seems to me to be a simple ancient unscientific human origins myth (and there are many of equal implausibility). The theory of evolution explains human origins in a biologically unified and scientific way.

To say they are compatible seems strange and unmotivated-- kinda like saying that the story of Mr. Stork bringing new babies is compatible with the science of human reproduction and fetal development.

[David T]

Adam and Eve, prior to the fall, had physical bodies but were not yet mortal. The word, "mortal" literally means, "to be subject to death".

Since something was able to be done to the bodies that caused them to die, that cannot be, by definition, 'immortal'. It becomes a logical absurdity to say that Adam and Eve had immortal bodies that later were changed so they could die.

[David T]

in other words, if anyone (God included) can cause you to die, you aren't immortal.

[bu11fr0g]

Alternative interpretation:

What if humanoids were able to have children but not have the spiritual children of our Father? And it was by the process of a fall that Adam and Eve were able to become the providers of houses to the spiritual children of our Father?

And humans were not irreparably separated from God, and were thus not spiritually mortal until the fall?

I haven't looked too closely at this, but it might be workable. No blood/no death among humans prior to an Adam and Eve within the last 10,000 years doesn't square with findings and is a theory that I think needs to be rejected.

[JeremyOrbe-Smith]

Of course, I'm one of those heathens who feels our "Fall" consisted of the choice to be born into mortality, and the subsequent giving into the conditions of our animal bodies.

*going to Hell in the same handbasket*

[volgadon]

But page 29 says, "Because of the Fall, we are blessed with physical

bodies, the right to choose between good and evil, and the opportunity

to gain eternal life. None of these privileges would have been ours

had Adam and Eve remained in the garden.

Since there was no death, how did they already have physical bodies

(page 28) when the Fall is said to have brought death and the blessing

of a physical body (page 29)?

I bolded the answer for you.

[thesometimesaint]

Tarski:

I never claimed that the ancient Hebews were using science, quite the opposite in fact. Those ancient Hebrews were trying to unite a people, and used religious stories to help do that. I see no necessity to support or condemn them other than to say I see no theological or scientific impediment to believing God used evolution to achieve his ends. I don't conflate the tool with the tool user.

If we are looking for a way to achieve compatability it is not helpful to dismiss out of hand half of the arguement. It is equal to saying I reject your reality and substitute my own.

[Tarski]

If we are looking for a way to achieve compatability it is not helpful to dismiss out of hand half of the arguement. It is equal to saying I reject your reality and substitute my own.

Well, the beauty of the mechanism of natural selection is that it can achieve it's effects without intelligent guidance. While one cannot prove that the process wasn't tampered with anymore than one can prove that the erosion processes that produced the Grand Canyon weren't being guided by extra-terrestrials, such notions are entirely gratuitous.

[cinepro]

Since something was able to be done to the bodies that caused them to die, that cannot be, by definition, 'immortal'. It becomes a logical absurdity to say that Adam and Eve had immortal bodies that later were changed so they could die.

I'm sure Elder Eyring would be fascinated to know he has perpetuated such an absurdity...

The requirement that we be one is not for this life alone. It is to be without end. The first marriage was performed by God in the garden when Adam and Eve were immortal.

[CV75]

Since there was no death, how did they already have physical bodies

(page 28) when the Fall is said to have brought death and the blessing

of a physical body (page 29)?

This also seems to teach that Adam and Eve's disobedience brought

mortality and physical bodies to all other creations too. Is that

true?

But how could the animals in a spiritual state (without physical

bodies) have the ability to procreate?

Just some thoughts/opinions:

There was no death (the dispatching of a spirit entity to the spirit world) in the garden. Any recycling of cells and tissues in perfect alignment with their source of sustenance and nutrition in would not constitute death. The source of sustenance and nutrition is not found only in what is taken into the body, but the power of the spirit and the license to live granted by the Creator.

Procreation must be accomplished by living entities. Adam and Eve’s parents were alive, regardless of how people believe they obtained their physical bodies—i.e., even if Adam’s body was formed out of the dust by God (who is alive) and if Eve’s body was formed of Adam’s rib (Adam was alive).

A physical body is in a spiritual state when it is immortal—when the spirit and its host element are connected according to the glory the spirit can sustain. A physical body is also in a spiritual state when it is transfigured, translated or quickened, which also occurs when the spirit and element are connected according to the glory the spirit can withstand. Adam and Eve had spiritual bodies of a paradisiacal nature and glory, with their spirit bodies connected to their physical bodies in such a way as to remain immortal so as long as they were obedient with regards to what they ate.

If animals were granted the power of procreation in the garden that Adam and Eve did not enjoy, it may have been that they were not under the same dietary or other restriction as Adam and Eve. The source of animal, plant and other life form sustenance and nutrition included Adam and Eve’s care and keeping, as they had dominion over all the earth. Also, being of another class of life and under another set of expectations may have had something to do with their being able to reproduce while Adam and Eve could not.

Adam and Eve's fall would have affected their entire stewardship in the same way, just as when the breadwinner loses his job (the whole family and barnyard goes hungry), or when an alcoholic gets worse (so do his wife and family become more codependent).

It is interesting that when they fell, they became more like the animals they had been taking care of, in that they could now reproduce sexually. Not that that's a bad thing! All things testify of man's divine origin and that God is over all, and maybe observing the animals in action was a reminder to Adam and Eve of the principle of eternal increase.

[Cobalt-70]

Of course, I'm one of those heathens who feels our "Fall" consisted of the choice to be born into mortality, and the subsequent giving into the conditions of our animal bodies. The fall is in two stages, birth and sin. The first decision results in our being born into a body of flesh and blood and bones that can eventually sexually reproduce (have children), and the second occurs far before sexual maturity actualizes. So yeah - if someone doesn't achieve one or both parts of the fall, "they would have had no children".

I think the mixed signal (and loss of the doctrine's power) comes when we (or GA interpreters) say the Fall was a One Time Event with This One Guy and Gal that occurred in all of its parts on an already Physical Human Body. When this interpretation is given, a whole new set of speculative "doctrines" then becomes necessary to explain this so-called "amortal spiritual physical body that was not mortal but not resurrected and didn't have any dying cells, but still ate food, etc".

I have a strong belief in the doctrine of the fall. What I highly doubt is the Fall as a history of the substantial molecular transformation of all life on earth at this one time like 6000 years ago. Or whatever.

I interpret the Fall as more of a parable than an actual historical event. Perhaps there was an actual couple named Adam and Eve, or perhaps not--that really does not matter. What is important is the metaphor that they represent. That Adam and Eve are metaphors for the rest of us is, in my view, reinforced in the Endowment. They are "stand-ins" for all of us. We are in a fallen state not because some ancestor literally ate the fruit of the wrong tree, but because humans have always been "fallen" since we evolved from animals, and gradually we became intelligent enough to understand the difference between right and wrong. The climb to exaltation represented in the Endowment is a progression from animal to god.

Edited October 11, 2011 by Cobalt-70

[Cobalt-70]

[repeat]

Edited October 11, 2011 by Cobalt-70

[BCSpace]

I was wondering if someone could clear something up for me from a

teaching in the current version of Gospel Principles, chapter 6.

On page 28, it says "When Adam and Eve were placed in the Garden

of Eden, they were not yet mortal. In this state, “they would have

had no children” (2 Nephi 2:23). There was no death. They had

physical life because their spirits were housed in physical bodies

made from the dust of the earth (see Moses 6:59; Abraham 5:7).

They had spiritual life because they were in the presence of God.

They had not yet made a choice between good and evil.

But page 29 says, "Because of the Fall, we are blessed with physical

bodies, the right to choose between good and evil, and the opportunity

to gain eternal life. None of these privileges would have been ours

had Adam and Eve remained in the garden.

Since there was no death, how did they already have physical bodies

(page 28) when the Fall is said to have brought death and the blessing

of a physical body (page 29)?

A spiritual body is also a physical body in the resurrection so I think the same applies here (cf 1 Corinthians 15). Also, as the manual states, it is WE who receive the blessing of a physical body as well because of the Fall. Adam and Eve already had their physical bodies in the garden state, but because they could not have children in that state, the Fall was necessary before we could also be born and receive our physical bodies.

The real mystery is how God could have used evolution to do all this

No mystery at all. 2 Nephi 2:22 shows us that we were created AND THEN placed into the garden state. This prior creative process is undefined so it is possible that we had evolution until all was ready and man was placed in the garden state to await the Fall. And then after the Fall, evolution continues as normal. If the garden state lasted 1 year, or 10, or 100, or 1000 years, I doubt there would be any discernable evidence of any pause in the evolutionary process.

[orion88]

Why do you assume that "existed in a spiritual state" excludes having a physical body?

I don't know. I was looking at that teaching in chapter 8 of Religion 430-431 -

Doctrines of the Gospel Student Manual, page 19 -> "Before the Fall the earth

and all things upon it existed in a spiritual state (see 2 Nephi 2:22; Moses 3:5–7)."

(A1).

What is the difference between Adam/Eve/plants/animals existing in a spiritual

state versus them in a physical state?

Tony

[CV75]

What is the difference between Adam/Eve/plants/animals existing in a spiritual

state versus them in a physical state?

"Spiritual" adds the component of alignment between spiritual power and physical condition. For example, in our physical state, no matter how righteous we are (powerful our spirits), our bodies and/or minds will eventually weaken and die. In a spiritual state, the righteousness of our spirits determine the glory and condition of our bodies. Transfiguration, translation, and quickening are spiritual states. The paradisaical state was likewise a spiritual state since the spirits determining the lifespan (immortal until a transgression would end it) and glory were innocent. The resurrection, while imposed upon the physical state by the power of Christ, is a spiritual state in that our physical bodies reflect the glory of the kingdom our spirits (and therefore our bodies also) can manage.

[Maidservant]

Of course, I'm one of those heathens who feels our "Fall" consisted of the choice to be born into mortality

Glad to meet a fellow heathen.

*going to Hell in the same handbasket*

I also see the Adam and Eve story as a presentation of a spiritual initiation that teaches us why we each made the choice to come here to mortality and to (among other purposes) have children. We have been given the keys to the kingdom, when we were given bodies with seeds in them . . . it only remains what we will do with what we have been given . . . lose our kingdom or increase our kingdom (a la the parable of the talents, even) [and by that I do NOT mean anything of 'you must have 12 children to be a good mormon' of anything of this kind].

I'm sure Elder Eyring would be fascinated to know he has perpetuated such an absurdity...

I absolutely love you, you know that? Ha ha. I await eagerly to hear whatever you will say in any thread. ("The emperor has no clothes on . . . !")