Adam And Death Before The Fall & Fall = Coming To Earth

[DBMormon]

· 2 Nephi 9:6

6 For as death hath passed upon all men, to fulfil the merciful plan of the great Creator, there must needs be a power of resurrection, and the resurrection must needs come unto man by reason of the fall; and the fall came by reason of transgression; and because man became fallen they were cut off from the presence of the Lord.

· Alma 22:14

14 And since man had fallen he could not merit anything of himself; but the sufferings and death of Christ atone for their sins, through faith and repentance, and so forth; and that he breaketh the bands of death, that the grave shall have no victory, and that the sting of death should be swallowed up in the hopes of glory; and Aaron did expound all these things unto the king.

· Alma 42:9

9 Therefore, as the soul could never die, and the fall had brought upon all mankind a spiritual death as well as a temporal, that is, they were cut off from the presence of the Lord, it was expedient that mankind should be reclaimed from this spiritual death.

· Helaman 14:16

16 Yea, behold, this death bringeth to pass the resurrection, and redeemeth all mankind from the first death—that spiritual death; for all mankind, by the fall of Adam being cut off from the presence of the Lord, are considered as dead, both as to things temporal and to things spiritual.

We know due to comments made by early leaders that ADAM & EVE were real persons. And we know their fall came from Transgression.

We also know, due to the temple, that The Fall can be very much likened to our fall from Premortal life to this mortal world. And that Adam and Eve can represent all individuals here and mankind at large.

I have been reading about the fall, and knowing that many leaders have incorrectly stated the earths age as 6,000 years old and also many saying there was no death before the fall on the entire earth, I have been trying to wrap my head around what we know as truth and what is debatable and what is false opinion of leaders. I am comfortable with some leaders saying incorrect things and teaching them as truth, so please do not address that.

My questions are

Based on the premise of if there was death on the earth all along, as I think almost all rational people have to concede, as well as there having to have been a fall for scripture to be true.

Then Where did this fall take place? In the garden? Was the garden “fenced” off from all life outside the garden?

Was the garden on this world as Joseph Smith has indicated and taught? If not this seems a hard teaching to repudiate as a false opinion.

We also know that our DNA does not go back to two human beings anytime over the last 100,000 years. So how long ago did Adam and Eve live on this earth?

Could the Fall be a story based on our coming to earth from the pre-existance and the church still be what it claims to be or does an actual Adam and Eve had to walk the earth?

Edited August 31, 2012 by DBMormon

[Kevin Christensen]

Given that the same Hebrew word can be translated as land and earth, and that even the English "earth" has more than one meaning such that I can go into a garden and dig up a shovel of earth without moving the planet in its orbit, and given that a garden designed to be cared for by two people need not be global, and given that the parties must be driven out to some dark and dreary world from that location, I think that major problems exist only for those who want them. It's all a matter of either embracing possibilites in intrepretation or of rejecting all but those that generate the most tension. When defining "earth" or the Garden, Plus, we have passages in Moses that say things like "Adam is many" (which means what exactly?) and "each land is called earth." And as Nibley says in "Before Adam", we don't have to take sides with the traditional adversaries in debates about Genesis because we have a very different story. And, as Nibley points out in "Abraham's Creation Drama," and Margaret Barker does in Temple Theology: An Introduction, the Genesis story is not a history, but a ritual drama set in the Temple. An explicitly "figurative" representation of a reality that no one has located in history or archeology. In The Power of Myth, Bill Moyers asks Joseph Campbell why the various myths of creation so often depict the woman as the initator. "Because it is through the woman that we enter into this world of opposites." A very interesting comment, I think. Ritually, the Temple is a sacred mountain that represented the highest point and center. And historically temples have appeared in many places. "Temples everywhere," as Nibley observes. As Black Elk commented in describing his experience on the sacred mountain, "the center is everywhere."

I'm all for being open to possibilities.

FWIW

Kevin Christensen

Pittsburgh, PA

Edited August 31, 2012 by Kevin Christensen

[JeremyOrbe-Smith]

Adam/'adm = Humanity = "Many" as in the Pearl of Great Price

Eve/Ḥawwāh = Source of Life = "Many" as in the Pearl of Great Price

Eden = Temple Garden of the Cosmic Mountain = Sacred Center of the World

In ancient times, each hierocentric state pivoted around the central Temple, a microcosmic representation of the Temple in Heaven, including the Garden. (Therefore, there is an Eden in Missouri, just as there is an Eden here in the Portland Temple in Oregon and an Eden in the Laie Hawaii Temple) The Temple also preserved the Sacred Calendar by which the people were organized; the Seven Days of Creation were tied to the enactment of the Temple Drama, not a literal timeline of how long it took life on earth to evolve. The Garden Stories are, as President Kimball famously noted, figurative; they are essentially scripts for liturgical dramas teaching of our spiritual separation from the family of our Heavenly Parents (elohim, the Gods) which -- because Intelligence is eternal and uncreated -- we must be adopted back into through the Covenant. Adam and Eve are real in the sense that they are true archetypes of the Fall of our Intelligences into our bodies in this life, a sort of Hero's Journey in which we all become Adams and Eves separated from the World of Light and our first primal Parents in order to experience a period of separation to increase our understanding of faith; this world is an important step in our eternal progression, a Fortunate Fall.

(Edit: Or, you know, what Kevin said. As per friggin' usual. )

Edited August 31, 2012 by JeremyOrbe-Smith

[CV75]

We know due to comments made by early leaders that ADAM & EVE were real persons.

If there was death in the world before Adam and Eve entered it as fallen mortals, then I think a) there would have had to have a been a Fall prior to and separate from theirs that affected those life forms inhabiting the telestial world prior to Adam and Eve’s arrival; or b) there was no time or life outside of the Garden of Eden until Adam and Eve partook of the forbidden fruit, and then the Fall rolled out in such a way as to allow less advanced life forms to enter the telestial world before other more advanced forms, and finally Adam and Eve entered the telestial world many millions of years later after conditions were such that human beings could survive, or at least establish a 7,000 year history of the covenant in this telestial world.

If there was a Fall separate from Adam and Eve’s, then countless “dispensations” of life could have cycled through before they fell in their Garden. Any Fall would require beings intelligent enough to make a choice; perhaps they would have had to have been human but perhaps not. Scripturally we know that Adam and Eve are our first progenitors, and where the Earth will receive a paradisiacal and then celestial glory, humankind must represent the final stage of development of a planet.

If the Fall rolled out gradually, which is consistent with scriptural teachings that people are not born, do not die, and are not resurrected all at once, and consistent with the symbolism of Noah in his stewardship over all life forms being the last to leave the ark (where Adam and Eve were the last to leave the Garden where they were stewards over all the earth), Adam and Eve could have entered a world fully populated with all the flora and fauna that had entered previously. Obviously over the millions of years, much of this flora and fauna would have become extinct, laying down the fossil record and other biological and geological by-products of their having been here.

So, with your questions in mind;

The Fall(s) could have taken place under scenario a) or b) but would have required beings with the wherewithal to make a choice or transplant beings that had already been the product of a Fall.

In both scenarios a) and b) the Garden would have been “fenced off” from the telestial world and the life forms populating it.

I believe the Garden was on this world.

Under these two scenarios, Adam and Eve would have entered the telestial world only 6,000 years ago (but we don’t know when Adam’s reckoning was assigned or changed). But the DNA for all forms of life is made of the same stuff, and these lived in the Garden with Adam and Eve. As they left the Garden well ahead of Adam and Eve and left a fossil record, we may be left with the false impression that our DNA was inherited from hominids and not just made of the same basic stuff as the hominids.

I believe the Fall is both figurative and literal, but we have precious little text about the literal aspect of it, and the figurative aspect is only as good as our ability to submit ourselves to the Spirit that guides our understanding and use of it.

[BCSpace]

I have been reading about the fall, and knowing that many leaders have incorrectly stated the earths age as 6,000 years old and also many saying there was no death before the fall on the entire earth, I have been trying to wrap my head around what we know as truth and what is debatable and what is false opinion of leaders. I am comfortable with some leaders saying incorrect things and teaching them as truth, so please do not address that.

My questions are

Based on the premise of if there was death on the earth all along, as I think almost all rational people have to concede, as well as there having to have been a fall for scripture to be true.

Then Where did this fall take place? In the garden? Was the garden “fenced” off from all life outside the garden?

Was the garden on this world as Joseph Smith has indicated and taught? If not this seems a hard teaching to repudiate as a false opinion.

We also know that our DNA does not go back to two human beings anytime over the last 100,000 years. So how long ago did Adam and Eve live on this earth?

Could the Fall be a story based on our coming to earth from the pre-existance and the church still be what it claims to be or does an actual Adam and Eve had to walk the earth?

Regarding the age of the earth the official doctrine is:

While it is interesting to note these various theories, officially the Church has not taken a stand on the age of the earth. For reasons best known to Himself, the Lord has not yet seen fit to formally reveal the details of the Creation. Therefore, while Latter-day Saints are commanded to learn truth from many different fields of study (see D&C 88:77–79 ), an attempt to establish any theory as the official position of the Church is not justifiable.

http://institute.lds...-02-gen-a-2.asp

Some say D&C 77 implies a young earth. Doctrinally, this is not the case:

D&C 77:6–7 . Why Was the Book Sealed That John Saw?

“‘The book which John saw’ represented the real history of the world—what the eye of God has seen, what the recording angel has written; and the seven thousand years, corresponding to the seven seals of the Apocalyptic volume, are as seven great days during which Mother Earth will fulfill her mortal mission, laboring six days and resting upon the seventh, her period of sanctification. These seven days do not include the period of our planet’s creation and preparation as a dwelling place for man. They are limited to Earth’s ‘temporal existence,’ that is, to Time, considered as distinct from Eternity.” (Whitney, Saturday Night Thoughts, p. 11.)

http://institute.lds...c-in-071-77.asp

As for no death before the fall, the BoM seems to indicate that all things were created AND THEN placed into the garden state of no death (2 Nephi 2:22). Since the property of no death IS NOT applied to the creative state (as opposed to the finshed being created garden state) and since the doctrine also is that we do not know the specific details of how things were created, evolution and death can certainly swim doctrinally prior to the garden state just as it does after the Fall.

In addition, the 1931 Heber J Grant First Presidency statement regarding the existence of pre Adamite races is as follows:

"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."

The bottom line is that one can accept all science on the matter of how the earth came to be and how humans evolved without comming into conflict with LDS doctrine.

Evolution/Death (creative state) =>The Garden state of no Death (finished created state) => The Fall => Evolution/Death

Notice from the above that it can truthfully be said there was no death before the Fall. Remember also that evolution teaches, just as LDS doctrine does, that like produces like, everything after it's own kind, etc. In evolution, one does not see species changes for many generations so at any given point in the process, each species bears children of the same species.

As for the garden state being local or global, I can't say as there seems to be evidence for both. Since Adam and Eve had to be kicked out into something (the way back had to be guarded), I tend to go with local. The earth literally being moved to a different location in space does not make sense scientifically and as we already know, some things about the creation story are figurative (such as the rib story cf. PofGP Student Manual, Moses 3:21–23. Adam’s Rib) though I would certainly agree that Adam and Eve were actual historical people.

As for homo sapiens being on the earth for hundreds of thousands of years prior to the Fall, if the above timeline is possible, then Adam and Eve could be the first homo sapiens born and placed into the Garden to await the Fall through their choice. I also postulate that perhaps the homo sapiens prior to Adam and Eve had lesser spirits within than literal children of God, Adam and Eve being the first with such.

This model clears up almost every conceivable conflict, the only ones remaining having mostly to do with whether or not the garden was local or global. It also could answer the question why homo sapiens have been around so long and never developed civilization until relatively recently; their lesser spirits not being able to more fully make use of the brain power and/or revelation from God.

A caveat might be the fact that civilization occured well before the standard date of the Fall 4004 B.C. More like 8000 B.C. (Sumer). But that's only one order of magnitude difference and the 4004 date is not necessarily supported by the scriptures or by specific revelation. It seems more like the LDS Church accepting traditional Christian doctrine for now which shouldn't be a problem in any case.

Edited August 31, 2012 by BCSpace

[CV75]

I obviously don’t have enough to do today (figuratively!) so I’ll expand on my post above: A Garden of Eden with “our” Adam and Eve having existed on this planet does not prevent the transport of fallen life forms from other telestial places under either scenario a) or b). This might be used to explain the presence of Homo sapiens long before Adam and Eve came into the fallen world. Maybe the progenitors of these other / older civilizations fell from Gardens on other planets and maybe their salvation depends on another system of proxy work or being grafted in to our Gospel and proxy system at some future time.

Edited August 31, 2012 by CV75

[CV75]

As for no death before the fall, the BoM seems to indicate that all things were created AND THEN placed into the garden state of no death (2 Nephi 2:22).

***

In evolution, one does not see species changes for many generations so at any given point in the process, each species bears children of the same species.

These are very good things to consider in my opinion.

[BCSpace]

Adam and Eve could have entered a world fully populated with all the flora and fauna that had entered previously. Obviously over the millions of years, much of this flora and fauna would have become extinct, laying down the fossil record and other biological and geological by-products of their having been here.

This is supported by doctrine:

(2-16) Genesis 2:7 . Adam Was the “First Flesh” upon the Earth

Moses 3:7 adds a significant phrase to Genesis 2:7 : “And man became a living soul, the first flesh upon the earth, the first man also.” President Joseph Fielding Smith explained what was meant by the term flesh.

“So, Adam was the first man upon the earth, according to the Lord’s statement, and the first flesh also. That needs a little explanation.

“Adam did not come to this earth until it was prepared for him. The animals were here. Plants were here. The Lord did not bring him here to a desolate world, and then bring other creatures. It was all prepared for him, just according to the order that is written in our scriptures, and when it was all ready for Adam he was placed upon the earth.

“Then what is meant by the ‘first flesh’? It is simple when you understand it. Adam was the first of all creatures to fall and become flesh, and flesh in this sense means mortality, and all through our scriptures the Lord speaks of this life as flesh, while we are here in the flesh, so Adam became the first flesh. There was no other mortal creature before him, and there was no mortal death until he brought it, and the scriptures tell you that. It is here written, and that is the gospel of Jesus Christ.” ( Seek Ye Earnestly, pp. 280–81.)

http://institute.lds...-02-gen-a-2.asp

I take "no other mortal creature before him" in the context of the created world, that is, the world while it was being created and populated via evolution prior to the garden state is not being refered to here though I'm sure JFS meant that too. But you have to remember that he is constrained by the 1931 statement though I am sure too from his later opinions he never accepted that.

You do have an interesting hypothesis overall though I still prefer mine.

Edited August 31, 2012 by BCSpace

[BCSpace]

I obviously don’t have enough to do today (figuratively!) so I’ll expand on my post above: A Garden of Eden with “our” Adam and Eve having existed on this planet does not prevent the transport of fallen life forms from other telestial places under either scenario a) or b). This might be used to explain the presence of Homo sapiens long before Adam and Eve came into the fallen world. Maybe the progenitors of these other / older civilizations fell from Gardens on other planets and maybe their salvation depends on another system of proxy work or being grafted in to our Gospel and proxy system at some future time.

There is a Star Trek TNG episode "The Chase" which postulated that all the humanoids in the Star Trek universe evolved from the same original genetic material seeded on planets throughout the Galaxy by a superiorly advanced but long dead civilization It was their monument to their own existence and it was hoped that the future races would come together with the knowledge that they came from the same source.

One would have to expand the notion of the image of God in that case. Perhaps two arms and two legs. Maybe pointy ears, maybe not. Maybe brow ridges, maybe not. Etc. I could run with that.

Edited August 31, 2012 by BCSpace

[CV75]

There is a Star Trek TNG episode "The Chase" which postulated that all the humanoids in the Star Trek universe evolved from the same original genetic material seeded on planets throughout the Galaxy by a superiorly advanced but long dead civilization It was their monument to their own existence and it was hoped that the future races would come together with the knowledge that they came from the same source.

One would have to expand the notion of the image of God in that case. Perhaps two arms and two legs. Maybe pointy ears, maybe not. Maybe brow ridges, maybe not. Etc. I could run with that.

I read this (or something very similar to it, also by Nibley) many years ago: http://www.scribd.co...-and-the-Gospel

The general idea was that anything Abraham was talking about comes across as very high-quality science fiction, yet it is truth and fact!

EDIT: Just read it; the pertinent stuff starts on page 21

Edited August 31, 2012 by CV75

[theplains]

As the lamb sits nearby, why did Adam and Eve seem to offer the same offering that Cain did according to the

Religion 301 manual.

The same article asks, "What Is the Meaning of the Curse Put on Satan?" but only says "since Satan has no

body and therefore can have no literal children" - which does not indicate the curse he received on earth for

his actions.

Regards,

Jim

[thesometimesaint]

BCSpace:

I don't know as that can be justified through Scripture. The GoE seems to quite apart from the lone and dreary world. God creates the earth and the various life forms, and then creates the Garden eastward in Eden and introduces an already existing Adam and Eve to it.

[Calm]

As the lamb sits nearby, why did Adam and Eve seem to offer the same offering that Cain did according to the

Religion 301 manual.

It is an artistic, not a literal representation. If one wanted to get really picky, one could imagine that its sacrifice comes next.

The lamb is symbolic of Christ, the willing future sacrifice, looking out at the posterity of Adam and Eve who are observing the depiction. It brings the observer into the moment as a participant in/observer or witness of His sacrifice.

Edited August 31, 2012 by calmoriah

[mfbukowski]

(Edit: Or, you know, what Kevin said. As per friggin' usual. )

I know.

I love him to death. We should both just get out of this business and let him say it all for both of us.

Edited August 31, 2012 by mfbukowski

[ANACO]

Apparently, none of you are aware of this article in Science magazine, Jan 2, 1998:279:29

Science writer Ann Gibbons authored an article for the January 2, 1998 issue of Science titled “Calibrating the Mitochondrial Clock,” the subheading of which read as follows: “Mitochondrial DNA appears to mutate much faster than expected, prompting new DNA forensics procedures and raising troubling questions about the dating of evolutionary events.” In that article, she discussed the new data which showed that the mutation rates used to obtain mitochondrial Eve’s age no longer could be considered valid, and concluded:

Regardless of the cause, evolutionists are most concerned about the effect of a faster mutation rate. For example, researchers have calculated that “mitochondrial Eve”—the woman whose mtDNA was ancestral to that in all living people—lived 100,000 to 200,000 years ago in Africa.

Using the new clock, she would be a mere 6,000 years old

(1998: 279:29, emphasis added).

Gibbons quickly went on to note, of course, that “no one thinks that’s the case,” (279:29). She concluded her article by discussing the fact that many test results are (to use her exact word) “inconclusive.” She then noted: “And, for now, so are some of the evolutionary results gained by using the mtDNA clock” (279:29).

http://www.trueorigi...ndrialeve01.asp

The article is online for those who have access at: http://www.sciencema...5347/28.summary

In other words, the new evidence that "Eve", based on mDNA would be a mere 6,000 years old was ignored and rejected (even by the author), due to the dogma of the Theory of Evolution being scientifically inbred into today's species of scientists.

So if you want to go around believing that church "leaders [are] saying incorrect things and teaching them as truth," - I suggest you place that label on scientists who are trapped by their profession/industry to stick to teaching incorrect things - or end up unemployed in the soup line.

Edited August 31, 2012 by ANACO

[mfbukowski]

Apparently, none of you are aware of this article in Science magazine, Jan 2, 1998:279:29

The article is online for those who have access at: http://www.sciencema...5347/28.summary

In other words, the new evidence that "Eve", based on mDNA would be a mere 6,000 years old was ignored and rejected (even by the author), due to the dogma of the Theory of Evolution being scientifically inbred into today's species of scientists.

So if you want to go around believing that church "leaders [are] saying incorrect things and teaching them as truth," - I suggest you place that label on scientists who are trapped by their profession/industry to stick to teaching incorrect things - or end up unemployed in the soup line.

I was actually aware of that, but to be honest it doesn't matter much to me because I still think that science doesn't have much to do with religion even when it appears to show evidence on "our side", and besides it really doesn't help that much with the idea that there was no death before the fall regardless of if was 6 thousand or 6 million or 6 billion years ago.

[ANACO]

I was actually aware of that, but to be honest it doesn't matter much to me because I still think that science doesn't have much to do with religion even when it appears to show evidence on "our side", and besides it really doesn't help that much with the idea that there was no death before the fall regardless of if was 6 thousand or 6 million or 6 billion years ago.

It certainly helps to validate what the scriptures and church leaders have said on the matter. It also points out fundamental flaws in the theory of evolution using mDNA - the original mDNA clock is considered to be wrong and is in question. Yet, this is ignored in favor of questioning church leaders - as them teaching error. That's bogus.

[livy111us]

Apparently, none of you are aware of this article in Science magazine, Jan 2, 1998:279:29

The article is online for those who have access at: http://www.sciencema...5347/28.summary

In other words, the new evidence that "Eve", based on mDNA would be a mere 6,000 years old was ignored and rejected (even by the author), due to the dogma of the Theory of Evolution being scientifically inbred into today's species of scientists.

So if you want to go around believing that church "leaders [are] saying incorrect things and teaching them as truth," - I suggest you place that label on scientists who are trapped by their profession/industry to stick to teaching incorrect things - or end up unemployed in the soup line.

Using a quote on population genetics when it was in it's infancy is like using a medical journal from the 1800's. You will not see Doctors using dangerous techniques today that was once thought to be helpful. The view you state was a minority view back then that has pretty much fell off of the radar due to advancements in the field. You won't find this idea in modern literature. I'm not arguing a young or old earth, but showing the Meldrum and his theory is inconsistent with science.

For a modern look at mutation rates, this would be a good start: http://mbe.oxfordjou...t/26/1/217.full

I think Brant Gardner said it best when he wrote

“The same principles that scientists use to date the phylogenetic change are used in other processes. Rates of change are indicated and assumed to create a “clock.” That is how archaeological sites are dated, not through phylogenetic changes, but through atomic changes. Same science, different clock.

If you don’t accept any timeframe deeper than 7,000 years, then you must also reject the C-14 clock and assume that all dates that it gives are much earlier. If that is really your position, how do you accept the dates for the Hopewell. According to the logic of the way you use science, we shouldn’t trust them and therefore they must be much younger than Nephite society.

How does the C-14 clock get it right only when you want it to, but get it wrong at all other times? Why can you believe that there were people along the Mississippi from AD 200-400 if you believe that all scientific clocks are too fast? They should be much younger than that.”

So using that same logic, the Hopewell, whom you believe to be the Nephites, would actually date to MUCH earlier than BOM times and could not be BOM peoples. All of the dates that Meldrumites use as evidence is now bunk. It comes down to the picking and choosing principle again. You cannot just accept the facts when they are convenient for you, and ignore them when they are not.

To conclude, Geneticist Michael Whiting makes a wise observation when he stated "Good science does not consist of someone dreaming up a pet theory and then quilting together pieces of evidence to support it from as many disparate sources as possible while conveniently ignoring pieces of evidence that may undercut the theory". Michael Whiting

Edited September 1, 2012 by livy111us

[theplains]

It is an artistic, not a literal representation. If one wanted to get really picky, one could imagine that its sacrifice comes next.

The lamb is symbolic of Christ, the willing future sacrifice, looking out at the posterity of Adam and Eve who are observing the depiction. It brings the observer into the moment as a participant in/observer or witness of His sacrifice.

The art has them wearing clothes so it looks like the time after they are expelled from the Garden of Eden. So why would

they be offering what seems like vegetables/fruits/or grains on the altar?

Regards,

Jim

[mfbukowski]

The art has them wearing clothes so it looks like the time after they are expelled from the Garden of Eden. So why would

they be offering what seems like vegetables/fruits/or grains on the altar?

Regards,

Jim

What is also misleading is that it is obviously preaching that Adam and Eve lived in the early 1960's because Eve's hairstyle clearly harks back to those days and her shift is also reminiscent of those styles, as is Adam's short hair.

I thought they lived much before the 1960's?

For those who are sarcasm challenged, this is sarcasm. The point is that it is art- not a doctrinal statement.

[Calm]

The art has them wearing clothes so it looks like the time after they are expelled from the Garden of Eden. So why would

they be offering what seems like vegetables/fruits/or grains on the altar?

Regards,

Jim

You will need to ask the artist, but perhaps he was thinking along these lines:

[shalamabobbi]

Apparently, none of you are aware of this article in Science magazine, Jan 2, 1998:279:29

The article is online for those who have access at: http://www.sciencema...5347/28.summary

In other words, the new evidence that "Eve", based on mDNA would be a mere 6,000 years old was ignored and rejected (even by the author), due to the dogma of the Theory of Evolution being scientifically inbred into today's species of scientists.

So if you want to go around believing that church "leaders [are] saying incorrect things and teaching them as truth," - I suggest you place that label on scientists who are trapped by their profession/industry to stick to teaching incorrect things - or end up unemployed in the soup line.

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB621_1.html

[BCSpace]

So if you want to go around believing that church "leaders [are] saying incorrect things and teaching them as truth," - I suggest you place that label on scientists who are trapped by their profession/industry to stick to teaching incorrect things - or end up unemployed in the soup line.

I don't think anyone is saying the leaders are wrong when it comes to actual doctrine. But in terms of science, some are quite wrong. In terms of expressing their opinion, some have come awfully close to denying existing doctrine without actually doing it. They are constrianed by that same doctrine. In any case, it is not against LDS doctrine to believe either science or creationism.

JFS never softened his position to my knowledge. But his works never were published by the Church though excerpts are included from time to time.. Same with BRM though he softened his stance late in life. RMN continues to snipe at evolution/big bang whenever he thinks he can get away with it but that's probably for the benefit of members who still accept creationism. He has been corrected publically and recently by his jr companion and had to back down. I wonder if Nelson has ever taken Wickman with him since then.

Edited September 1, 2012 by BCSpace

[Alvino]

We know due to comments made by early leaders that ADAM & EVE were real persons.

"early leaders"? Ahem...

Could the Fall be a story based on our coming to earth from the pre-existance and the church still be what it claims to be or does an actual Adam and Eve had to walk the earth?

Same stuff. I guess it depends on how much weight you think saying Adam and Eve had physical bodies with no blood in their veins in the official Church website has. That seems pretty official to me and if you accept that Adam and Eve had physical bodies with no blood in their veins then you can't say Adam and Eve are just symbols for us coming to Earth since we didn't have physical bodies with veins without blood before coming here.

Edited September 1, 2012 by Alvino

[David T]

Same stuff. I guess it depends on how much weight you think saying Adam and Eve had a physical body with no blood in their veins in the official Church website has. That seems pretty official to me and if you accept that Adam and Eve had physical bodies with no blood in their veins then you can't say Adam and Eve are just symbols for us coming to Earth since we didn't have physical bodies with veins without blood before coming here.

History of No Blood Before The Fall (SPOILER: It was first articulated as a speculation by Orson Pratt)