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

[Alvino]

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

I don't get how this is an objection to the fact that it is taught as true in the official Church website. And, regardless, this is also irrelevant to whether Adam and Eve had physical bodies. Is that, for you, also mere speculation?

[blackstrap]

Scientists are absolutely positive that the earth is 4.5 billion years old(+/-)

Scientists have one measurement that they have had access to for over 150 years,the strength of the earth's magnetic field.

Seems that the strength has been decreasing over time.

That decrease appears to follow a descending exponential curve.

Extrapolating the curve back 20,000 years gives the strength sufficient to affect the production of C14

Going back 4.5 billion years is,well,...... we don't want to talk about it.

Similar problems arise when trying to explain the loss of energy from Io's volcanos and Enceledus' geysers over 4.5 billion years.

Edited September 1, 2012 by blackstrap

[mfbukowski]

"early leaders"? Ahem...

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.

Just fyi, if you look at the preface to the gospel dictionary, after explaining its purposes, it elucidates what it is NOT. What it actually says is this:

It is not intended as an official or revealed endorsement by the Church of the doctrinal, cultural, historical, and other matters set forth. Many of the items have been drawn from the best available scholarship of the world and are subject to re evaluation based on new research or discoveries or on new revelation.

In other words, it specifically labels itself as non-doctrinal.

I couldn't find the preface online anymore but it is in every edition of the LDS scriptures.

[Calm]

In other words, it specifically labels itself as non-doctrinal.

The new Bible dictionary is not intended as a revealed treatment or official version of doctrinal, historical, cultural, chronological, and other matters found in the Bible. Much of the information has been drawn from nonscriptural scholarly sources and will be subject to reevaluation as new discoveries or additional revelation may require. The topics are treated briefly and in an introductory rather than a definitive way, so that the dictionary could be used by the average reader as well as the more serious student or teacher. If an in-depth discussion is desired, the student should consult a more exhaustive dictionary.

https://www.lds.org/...the-lds-edition

Just for you, mfb

Edited September 1, 2012 by calmoriah

[Alvino]

Just fyi, if you look at the preface to the gospel dictionary, after explaining its purposes, it elucidates what it is NOT. What it actually says is this:

In other words, it specifically labels itself as non-doctrinal.

I couldn't find the preface online anymore but it is in every edition of the LDS scriptures.

I said it looks pretty official to me and that it depends on how much weight one gives these statements. I also never mentioned "official doctrine", I mentioned the official website of the Church. The whole "official doctrine" discussion in Mormonism is silly to me as it is often discussed.. You might want to clarify what "official doctrine" is and how you come to accept that "official doctrine" is what you believe it is and has the weight you think it has. I would imagine that official doctrine would have to meet this requirement: An official LDS doctrine is one that, if it is false, then the LDS Church is a false Church. Few believers would dare to put their beliefs to the test like this and that's why the whole discussion is often (though it doesn't have to be) quite boring.

Edited September 1, 2012 by Alvino

[BCSpace]

You might want to clarify what "official doctrine" is and how you come to accept that "official doctrine" is what you believe it is and has the weight you think it has.

It all boils down to everything published by the Church (see my siggy) except where noted such as the Bible Dictionary, which, despite the 1982 article recently referred to, still has the disclaimer on the most recent editions. This doesn't mean it doesn't contain much actual doctrine, it simply means it can't be used as a doctrinal reference and one will have to find the same published officially (without disclaimer) elsewhere in order to prove the doctrine in question.

An official teaching is one that, if it is false, then the Church is a false Church. Few believers would dare to put their beliefs to the test like this and that's why the whole discussion is often (though it doesn't have to be) quite boring.

Without official doctrine, there is no need for the Church which the Bible says is necessary to disseminate correct doctrine in the first place (Ephesians 4:11-14)

Edited September 1, 2012 by BCSpace

[shalamabobbi]

Scientists are absolutely positive that the earth is 4.5 billion years old(+/-)

Scientists have one measurement that they have had access to for over 150 years,the strength of the earth's magnetic field.

Seems that the strength has been decreasing over time.

That decrease appears to follow a descending exponential curve.

Extrapolating the curve back 20,000 years gives the strength sufficient to affect the production of C14

Going back 4.5 billion years is,well,...... we don't want to talk about it.

Similar problems arise when trying to explain the loss of energy from Io's volcanos and Enceledus' geysers over 4.5 billion years.

boy, you need to stop reading comic books..

http://www.talkorigi...c/CD/CD701.html

https://eyeonicr.wor...us-creationism/

http://www.talkorigi...c/CE/CE230.html

take your pick: CHEERS or regards..

[Maidservant]

To the OP: Yes, much of what happens in the temple and the Genesis story is replete with information about our pre-mortal life; even in the past few months or so I have seen more and more, even to the point that it isn't until the end of the temple progression/story of Adam and Eve that one even arrives on the mortal earth. Of course, both the Garden of Eden and the temple are sigils containing multiple sets of overlaid symbols and therefore are endless in the information they yield, including that of our lives past, present and future.

I cannot for the life of me remember right now, but there are ancient circular maps that have the same drawings on them, but depending on the key you use, they become a map of the earth OR a map of the heavens. Or a few other choices. Using the same bits. Hmm. I think they might be called mandala maps. Anyway, the Genesis account does the same thing, as does the temple.

For the record, I am of the understanding at this point in my journey that Adam and Eve are not and never were expressed (in Genesis) as two lone people put alone on a wild planet for purposes of physical population. For the record, I am of the understanding that human beings are born from other human beings, full stop, period. I am aware of the D & C vision that speaks of Father Adam and Mother Eve as individuals, and I take that in suspension until I learn more, but I also am aware of the places such as in Moses where it says Adam is many; and Genesis itself which as has been mentioned is not a history and never was and cannot retroactively be smooshed into that can.

And I am of the understanding that the gospel does not teach us how to GET to heaven but how to CREATE it and SEE it here and now.

And, yes, the fall means being born here on earth in these physical bodies in this particular configuration of world for a very specific reason. We are creating heaven out of hell.

It's what we do.

Edited September 1, 2012 by Maidservant

[Tacenda]

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.

The leaders have a heavy load, to sustain so many LDS in their faith. They have to be very careful when it comes to not believing in a literal Adam/Eve.

Edited September 1, 2012 by Tacenda

[mfbukowski]

https://www.lds.org/...the-lds-edition

Just for you, mfb

Hey that's great! Thank you! Forget all that rotten stuff I have been saying about you!

[mfbukowski]

I said it looks pretty official to me and that it depends on how much weight one gives these statements. I also never mentioned "official doctrine", I mentioned the official website of the Church. The whole "official doctrine" discussion in Mormonism is silly to me as it is often discussed.. You might want to clarify what "official doctrine" is and how you come to accept that "official doctrine" is what you believe it is and has the weight you think it has. I would imagine that official doctrine would have to meet this requirement: An official LDS doctrine is one that, if it is false, then the LDS Church is a false Church. Few believers would dare to put their beliefs to the test like this and that's why the whole discussion is often (though it doesn't have to be) quite boring.

So we are supposed to ignore it's own statement that it is not doctrinal because we don't give weight to such statements? Boy that was a tricky one! I am glad that it "looks pretty official to you" but unfortunately you don't get to define doctrine for the church.

And precisely what COULD constitute "false doctrine" when, according to you, no one is even sure what "true doctrine" is?

[Alan]

To me the whole premise of this thread is questionable. I consider myself to be rational. I am qualified and work as a scientist. And yet, I believe Adam and Eve left the garden around 6,000 years ago (give or take) and that we are all descended from them. There is plenty of evidence for this. As ever, it all comes down to the interpretation of the evidence and the assumptions made.

Conditions outside the garden must have been different to that which existed inside, but perhaps still much better than now. The flood had a profound effect upon the environment and altered our habitat significantly. Therefore, our AofF points out that upon Christ's return the Earth will be restored to it's former paradisical glory.

[shalamabobbi]

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

Interesting post. Thanks.

Makes one think about the Savior's blood. He chose to die but presumably could have lived forever. How was that possible with blood in His veins?

[MormonMason]

It also does not help when later study showed that there could be as much a margin of error of up to 50% in the human mtDNA databases. That was reported in Nature a few years ago but I do not now recall the date or issue of the news article that discussed it. They issue so many issues in a year that it has been hard for me to keep track of it all in my head for any length of time. I'm sure someone can find it if s/he looks for it.

[MormonMason]

I said it looks pretty official to me and that it depends on how much weight one gives these statements. I also never mentioned "official doctrine", I mentioned the official website of the Church. The whole "official doctrine" discussion in Mormonism is silly to me as it is often discussed.. You might want to clarify what "official doctrine" is and how you come to accept that "official doctrine" is what you believe it is and has the weight you think it has. I would imagine that official doctrine would have to meet this requirement: An official LDS doctrine is one that, if it is false, then the LDS Church is a false Church. Few believers would dare to put their beliefs to the test like this and that's why the whole discussion is often (though it doesn't have to be) quite boring.

As to what is and what is not true, we can begin by following the advice in Journal of Discourses 9:91-92 (I even bring it up at all because it agrees in principle with Doctrine and Covenants 102 and other places). If the First Presidency and Quorum of Twelve are unanimous on anything you can set it down as true. When they are not united, it is questionable and not to be taken for doctrine. You might be surprised as to how stuff would be tossed out on that grounds. It would tend to take a lot away from the critics to use if they understood this principle.

You should take careful note of Paul's teaching even in scripture! He talks in Galatians, making a whole argument about references to scripture about only "one seed" and thus referring to Christ, and not to "seeds" and so forth. See Galatians 3 and pay close attention to verse 16. Funny thing about that argument is that he based it upon the Greek Septuagint version of Genesis 17:7-8 and not on the original Hebrew text.

The Hebrew text, however, does not support such an argument as this because the singular "seed" is used pretty much the same way throughout the book of Genesis and elsewhere to refer to more than one descendent or groups of descendents as well as one descendent or groups of descendents. The Septuagint makes distinctions whereas the Hebrew does not.

In addition, the internal and external contexts make pretty clear that multiple descendents were being addressed in these verses. Had Paul relied on the Hebrew text he never would have made the argument he did from that passage. I think if Paul had been quoting from the text instead of quoting from memory he also would not have made this argument. It is pretty hard to make sense of this in the light and thinking that Paul does when the texts of the verses themselves refer to "their generations" and God being "their God."

In other words, Paul was wrong--in scripture, no less! How's that for irony?!? If think if people keep trying to qualify prophets using the Bible as a criteria and start noticing stuff like this they are likely going to come out receiving the short end of the stick, spiritually.

Edited September 8, 2012 by MormonMason

[Mansquatch]

"32 Yea, verily I say unto you, in that ^aday when the Lord shall come, he shall ^breveal all things—

33 Things which have passed, and ^ahidden things which no man knew, things of the ^bearth, by which it was made, and the purpose and the end thereof"

Sure doesn't make sense for the Lord to reveal things which no man knew and include the creation of the earth when we have the Book of Genesis which is a fully accurate account.

I think it was Bokovoy that referenced the Genesis account as derived from Sumerian science. Would anyone know anything about that and/or have any reading to offer a fellow?