When Did Adam First Walk The Earth?

[cinepro]

I still enjoy a big glass of cold chocolate milk.

OD2 jokes are never appropriate.

[pmccombs1]

Do you really think we should be stuck with what say Joseph Fielding Smith may have uttered, or that we should repeatedly trot out Ezra Taft Benson's Cold War paranoia rants from when he was an Apostle? I don't think so. Prophets are human and they should be allowed to go off the rails from time to time, if for no other reason than to keep us from going comatose during Gospel discussions.

 

I appreciate that sentiment, and I do not mind when prophets go off the rails. In fact, I suspect that in those moments, they are more likely to utter something genuinely prophetic.

 

Do you think that the JoD is akin to paranoia rants and what-have-you?  Do you believe that we now have a way, at the institutional level, to filter out the "noise" once present in the speech of our church's leaders, and to separate that from the "true" signal from heaven? Because the gist of Brother Smith's commentary on consistent, continuing revelation is that he thinks that what we now get from the HQ is of an entirely different quality than what was once considered revelation. I imagine that much of what we now sometimes think of as non-doctrinal blather, spewed by imperfect men expressing their imperfect view of things, was once received as gospel truth by spiritual witness to numerous members of the church. Does the nature of things change with the times?

 

It used to be pretty easy to identify the words of the Lord, because His servants used to preface the Lord's words with, "Thus said the Lord."  Now that President Kimball has dismissed that necessity, all bets are off. It might be. It might not be. Perhaps it is conditional, temporary, meant only for the present circumstances. Correlation says this, the Spirit says that. Oh! Does it jive with the Standard Work? It has been said by one apostle, at least, that even the Lord's servants must stay within that framework. (A Standard Work! A Standard Work! We have got a Standard Work, and there cannot be any more Standard Work!)

 

It's as if the government declared all policemen to now work in plain clothes, and if they pull you over and assert some authority, why, it's now up to you to "find out for yourself" if they are really policemen.

 

Should the teaching prove embarrassing in the future, oh well; "if there are faults, they are the mistakes of men." 

 

You know, if you want to build on top of something, you hope that the thing stays put. Maybe we should be stuck with it.

[JLHPROF]

It used to be pretty easy to identify the words of the Lord, because His servants used to preface the Lord's words with, "Thus said the Lord."  Now that President Kimball has dismissed that necessity, all bets are off. It might be. It might not be. Perhaps it is conditional, temporary, meant only for the present circumstances. Correlation says this, the Spirit says that. Oh! Does it jive with the Standard Work? It has been said by one apostle, at least, that even the Lord's servants must stay within that framework. (A Standard Work! A Standard Work! We have got a Standard Work, and there cannot be any more Standard Work!)

 

It's as if the government declared all policemen to now work in plain clothes, and if they pull you over and assert some authority, why, it's now up to you to "find out for yourself" if they are really policemen.

 

Should the teaching prove embarrassing in the future, oh well; "if there are faults, they are the mistakes of men." 

You know, if you want to build on top of something, you hope that the thing stays put. Maybe we should be stuck with it.

Now, this I agree with.  We no longer get given the Word of God, we get official declarations and press releases that we are asked to assume are inspired.   Is God required to provide "Thus Saith The Lord"?  No, but the Lord clearly thought it was necessary to identify himself when speaking to Joseph Smith, Brigham Young, John Taylor, Wilford Woodruff, etc to ensure that we knew his will for us.  And now God no longer needs to identify himself as speaking and we are supposed to take someone else's word for it for the will of the Lord.  Oh we can pray about it, but we can never question the source.

I like the analogy of the plain clothes policemen with no badges asking us to respect the authority.  And as I've said so many times, if we decide we don't like a teaching, all we have to do is wait for them to pass to call it false.  What kind of eternal truths are we being taught if they aren't eternal?

[Johnnie Cake]

To what end?

 

Anyway I have no idea how long ago Adam lived. My testimony is not built upon such trivial matters. I believe he was real and that the events described in the scriptures took place maybe not exactly as it is laid out. Do I think the times lines are accurate? I am not sure. Does that matter much? I remained unconviced that it does.

 

Trivial matters? 

 

The very existence of an Adam is absolutely essential to the need for a Christ.  If Adam didn’t exist…then there was no fall…if no fall then no need for a savior if no need for a savior then no need for Jesus.  Likewise the same could be said regarding physical death.  If there was physical death prior to Adam…then everything the LDS churches about life, death, atonement, resurrection and salvation has been built on a false premise.

 

The existence of an actual Adam and Eve falling and thereby introducing both a physical and spiritual death into the world is ESSENTUAL to Mormonism 101 and its truth claims…if any part of this doctrine...Called in official parlance "The Plan of Salvation" falls apart as being untrue…Mormonism’s claims fall with it.

 

Anyone want to throw LDS Scripture under the bus?

 

“And I, the Lord God, formed man from the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul, the first flesh upon the earth, the first man also; nevertheless, all things were before created; but spiritually were they created and made according to my word” (Moses 3:4–7;

Edited October 15, 2013 by Johnnie Cake

[Stone holm]

I appreciate that sentiment, and I do not mind when prophets go off the rails. In fact, I suspect that in those moments, they are more likely to utter something genuinely prophetic.

 

Do you think that the JoD is akin to paranoia rants and what-have-you?  Do you believe that we now have a way, at the institutional level, to filter out the "noise" once present in the speech of our church's leaders, and to separate that from the "true" signal from heaven? Because the gist of Brother Smith's commentary on consistent, continuing revelation is that he thinks that what we now get from the HQ is of an entirely different quality than what was once considered revelation. I imagine that much of what we now sometimes think of as non-doctrinal blather, spewed by imperfect men expressing their imperfect view of things, was once received as gospel truth by spiritual witness to numerous members of the church. Does the nature of things change with the times?

 

It used to be pretty easy to identify the words of the Lord, because His servants used to preface the Lord's words with, "Thus said the Lord."  Now that President Kimball has dismissed that necessity, all bets are off. It might be. It might not be. Perhaps it is conditional, temporary, meant only for the present circumstances. Correlation says this, the Spirit says that. Oh! Does it jive with the Standard Work? It has been said by one apostle, at least, that even the Lord's servants must stay within that framework. (A Standard Work! A Standard Work! We have got a Standard Work, and there cannot be any more Standard Work!)

 

It's as if the government declared all policemen to now work in plain clothes, and if they pull you over and assert some authority, why, it's now up to you to "find out for yourself" if they are really policemen.

 

Should the teaching prove embarrassing in the future, oh well; "if there are faults, they are the mistakes of men." 

 

You know, if you want to build on top of something, you hope that the thing stays put. Maybe we should be stuck with it.

 

Well if the product that we can continue to expect from Correlation is what we are getting in our Ensign Articles and manuals, I am sure that it is consistent.  But there are several ways to obtain consistency, and one of those ways is to not talk at all our talk a lot without saying much.  I tend to not like that approach, I would prefer to try to work with what has been said in the past in developing what is said in the future, and where there have been mistakes or where what was said in the past was based only on a partial revelation of the picture (truth) to simply say so and correct it.  I prefer that to the "well we don't emphasize that" type of comment, or plain unadulterated avoidance of anything but milk.  Personally, I am  mildly lactose intolerant -- I read a book recently that suggested that lactose tolerance was a mutation that occurred because of agricultural settlement and the increased use of milk as a food, so someone had a mutation that made them tolerant of milk as an adult which was abnormal.  We may be evolving in the Church towards lactose tolerance because if we say anything besides milk then it gets spread in the media and we get attacked by our political allies amongst the Christian Right Fundamentalists -- so better to just provide milk skip the meat and hope we don't rear up a generation of potential GAs who are so clueless as to the meat that when they get released from their callings as 70s they apostasize over something they read on one of these blogs.

[Stone holm]

Trivial matters? 

 

The very existence of an Adam is absolutely essential to the need for a Christ.  If Adam didn’t exist…then there was no fall…if no fall then no need for a savior if no need for a savior then no need for Jesus.  Likewise the same could be said regarding physical death.  If there was physical death prior to Adam…then everything the LDS churches about life, death, atonement, resurrection and salvation has been built on a false premise.

 

The existence of an actual Adam and Eve falling and thereby introducing both a physical and spiritual death into the world is ESSENTUAL to Mormonism 101 and its truth claims…if any part of this doctrine...Called in official parlance "The Plan of Salvation" falls apart as being untrue…Mormonism’s claims fall with it.

 

Anyone want to throw LDS Scripture under the bus?

 

“And I, the Lord God, formed man from the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul, the first flesh upon the earth, the first man also; nevertheless, all things were before created; but spiritually were they created and made according to my word” (Moses 3:4–7;

 

Well I was almost with you all the way, until you got to that last quote.  You might want to read what BY had to say about "the dust of the ground" or "red adobe" as he put it in the Discourses of BY.

[cdowis]

 If there was physical death prior to Adam…then everything the LDS churches about life, death, atonement, resurrection and salvation has been built on a false premise.

 

 

 

Really?

 

Please help me understand how death in the five days of creation would cause the entire Plan of Salvation to collapse.  Is it possible that death was a part of the initial creation process, and suspended on the sixth day where the Garden of Eden was created.

 

Help me with the logic here.

Edited October 15, 2013 by cdowis

[thesometimesaint]

OD2 jokes are never appropriate.

 

I must be slow today. I don't get it.

[thesometimesaint]

Now, this I agree with.  We no longer get given the Word of God, we get official declarations and press releases that we are asked to assume are inspired.   Is God required to provide "Thus Saith The Lord"?  No, but the Lord clearly thought it was necessary to identify himself when speaking to Joseph Smith, Brigham Young, John Taylor, Wilford Woodruff, etc to ensure that we knew his will for us.  And now God no longer needs to identify himself as speaking and we are supposed to take someone else's word for it for the will of the Lord.  Oh we can pray about it, but we can never question the source.

I like the analogy of the plain clothes policemen with no badges asking us to respect the authority.  And as I've said so many times, if we decide we don't like a teaching, all we have to do is wait for them to pass to call it false.  What kind of eternal truths are we being taught if they aren't eternal?

 

If a plain clothes cop in an unmarked police car tries to pull you over. Keep driving.

[JLHPROF]

If a plain clothes cop in an unmarked police car tries to pull you over. Keep driving.

So not the point...

[danieldemol]

Refer to duplicate post 2nd below

Edited October 15, 2013 by danieldemol

[Stone holm]

Really?

 

Please help me understand how death in the five days of creation would cause the entire Plan of Salvation to collapse.  Is it possible that death was a part of the initial creation process, and suspended on the sixth day where the Garden of Eden was created.

 

Help me with the logic here.

 

Are you sure that was the physical creation being referred to or the spiritual creation?

[danieldemol]

“And I, the Lord God, formed man from the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul, the first flesh upon the earth, the first man also; nevertheless, all things were before created; but spiritually were they created and made according to my word” (Moses 3:4–7;

I'm still confused on something here, is Adam the biological descendant of God and His mother, or is He made from the dust of the earth in your understanding of LDS thought?

Edited October 15, 2013 by danieldemol

[Stone holm]

I'm still confused on something here, is Adam the biological descendant of God and his mother, or is he made from the dust of the earth?

 

Well according to BY yes, and the only reason he was not considered the first born in the flesh is because he was not born a mortal, but an unmortal.

[Stone holm]

Well according to BY yes, and the only reason he was not considered the first born in the flesh is because he was not born a mortal, but an unmortal.

 

Course this is where it gets dicey because that is in the JoD and in the Discourses of Brigham Young....

[danieldemol]

Well according to BY yes, and the only reason he was not considered the first born in the flesh is because he was not born a mortal, but an unmortal.

Are you saying the view that Adam was born of biological God the Father and an unspecified mother came from Brigham Young, but is not in the writings of Joseph Smith?

[Stone holm]

Are you saying the view that Adam was born of biological God the Father and an unspecified mother came from Brigham Young, but is not in the writings of Joseph Smith?

 

I am not that well read on everything that Joseph Smith wrote.  But this was a subject that BY talked about a lot -- some of what he reputedly said has been subsequently renounced by the Church, but to my knowledge they have never renounced what he said about how Adam and Eve were created, namely the old fashioned way not out of modeling clay.

[pmccombs1]

Well if the product that we can continue to expect from Correlation is what we are getting in our Ensign Articles and manuals, I am sure that it is consistent.  But there are several ways to obtain consistency, and one of those ways is to not talk at all our talk a lot without saying much.  I tend to not like that approach, I would prefer to try to work with what has been said in the past in developing what is said in the future, and where there have been mistakes or where what was said in the past was based only on a partial revelation of the picture (truth) to simply say so and correct it.  I prefer that to the "well we don't emphasize that" type of comment, or plain unadulterated avoidance of anything but milk.  Personally, I am  mildly lactose intolerant -- I read a book recently that suggested that lactose tolerance was a mutation that occurred because of agricultural settlement and the increased use of milk as a food, so someone had a mutation that made them tolerant of milk as an adult which was abnormal.  We may be evolving in the Church towards lactose tolerance because if we say anything besides milk then it gets spread in the media and we get attacked by our political allies amongst the Christian Right Fundamentalists -- so better to just provide milk skip the meat and hope we don't rear up a generation of potential GAs who are so clueless as to the meat that when they get released from their callings as 70s they apostasize over something they read on one of these blogs.

 

Well, it's certainly true that the church has found a voice, and that it has become a consistent one as it has been subjected to certain algorithms.  

 

Your analogy is also an interesting one, because it poses the question of whether or not we are prepared for "restoration." It is part of the Mormon story that the world had been prepared for restoration, but I am increasingly hearing this self-fulfilling message that says, no, actually, we aren't living up to it at at all, and that's why we hear the same old things over and over and over again. We're falling into a sufficiency dogma of our own. Perhaps those who claim the sufficiency of scripture are correct, because we just aren't ready for meat.

 

And if this is the story, that the world isn't ready for meat, then I think we ought to be facing the real possibility that we haven't got it. If that's the case, what have we got? How far did Joseph Smith get in his restoration work? Or was he even engaged in that work at all? There are some who claim that what he got wasn't what we now have, and that restoration wasn't even the point. So, what did he really give us? Are we looking at images and symbols, and worshiping those in the body of a church, or are we participating in the substance of things? I don't have those answers; others may claim to have them along with some ability to witness to it. Certainly I am not the first to ask the questions.

[Tacenda]

I want to clarify, that while I don't consider the JoD as scripture, it just bothers me when we apply a double standard to them.

The discourses in the JoD have the exact same origins as the General Conference talks in the Ensign. Both were published with the approval and encouragement of the First Presidency. Both were considered official Church teachings at the time they were published.

I don't like it when we apply standards unevenly to the teachings of Church leaders. Having a living church should not prevent us from finding truth in the past teachings, or worse, allow us to treat them dismissively. JoD is not scripture, but it is as much part of the spectrum of official church teachings over time as anything said by David O. McKay, Spencer W. Kimball, Gordon B. Hinkley, or today's leaders, and we shouldn't ignore the teachings of our early prophets any more than we should ignore the Old Testament or New Testament in favour of the D&C.

I agree, and feel the people that gave their lives because they tried living those teachings are in need of substantiation. We cheapen their lives somewhat when we don't include the teachings as part of our LDS canon.

[Stone holm]

Well, it's certainly true that the church has found a voice, and that it has become a consistent one as it has been subjected to certain algorithms.  

 

Your analogy is also an interesting one, because it poses the question of whether or not we are prepared for "restoration." It is part of the Mormon story that the world had been prepared for restoration, but I am increasingly hearing this self-fulfilling message that says, no, actually, we aren't living up to it at at all, and that's why we hear the same old things over and over and over again. We're falling into a sufficiency dogma of our own. Perhaps those who claim the sufficiency of scripture are correct, because we just aren't ready for meat.

 

And if this is the story, that the world isn't ready for meat, then I think we ought to be facing the real possibility that we haven't got it. If that's the case, what have we got? How far did Joseph Smith get in his restoration work? Or was he even engaged in that work at all? There are some who claim that what he got wasn't what we now have, and that restoration wasn't even the point. So, what did he really give us? Are we looking at images and symbols, and worshiping those in the body of a church, or are we participating in the substance of things? I don't have those answers; others may claim to have them along with some ability to witness to it. Certainly I am not the first to ask the questions.

Well I do think he restored the Gospel in almost its fullness, but it seems like we are going to have to go through some kind of leveling catastrophe before we start trying to fully live it because I don't see us giving up on the cushy lifestyle we currently have to do it. Which is also unlikely given the the advancement track which leads to GA status. We seem to have an abundance of cheerleaders and excellent businessmen and professionals. Not sure what happened to the imaginative fishermen and carpenters. Oh well nothing of interest here move along...the milk dispenser is on aisle 6 .

[JLHPROF]

Well I do think he restored the Gospel in almost its fullness, but it seems like we are going to have to go through some kind of leveling catastrophe before we start trying to fully live it because I don't see us giving up on the cushy lifestyle we currently have to do it. Which is also unlikely given the the advancement track which leads to GA status. We seem to have an abundance of cheerleaders and excellent businessmen and professionals. Not sure what happened to the imaginative fishermen and carpenters. Oh well nothing of interest here move along...the milk dispenser is on aisle 6 .

 

I think Joseph Smith restored the gospel in its doctrinal fulness, and only left us to determine how to administer it  correctly.  After all, what he restored was supposedly sufficient to get us from the gates of baptism up through our calling and election and on to Godhood.  Not sure what else could be needed.

But with so many of those requirements presumed to be held in abeyance until the Millennium, it's kind of hard to claim these things were restored for the last time.  There is going to have to be some sort of additional restoration.  Perhaps that restoration will be necessary in order to start the Millennium.

Maybe there will be another "last dispensation"....and then we can all eat some meat for a change.

Edited October 16, 2013 by JLHPROF

[MDalby]

So what was the date of Adam's fall, as "documented" in scripture?

 

I am not quoting any references or scriptures that all of you are not already overly familiar with.

 

12 Q. What are we to understand by the sounding of the trumpets, mentioned in the 8th chapter of Revelation?

A. We are to understand that as God made the world in six days, and on the seventh day he finished his work, and sanctified it, and also formed man out of the dust of the earth, even so, in the beginning of the seventh thousand years will the Lord God sanctify the earth, and complete the salvation of man, and judge all things, and shall redeem all things, except that which he hath not put into his power, when he shall have sealed all things, unto the end of all things; and the sounding of the trumpets of the seven angels are the preparing and finishing of his work, in the beginning of the seventh thousand years the preparing of the way before the time of his coming.

D&C 77:12

 

According to the divine plan, our earth has been allotted a mortal or temporal existence of seven thousand years, patterned after the seven days of creation. The first four thousand years began with the fall of Adam and ended at the birth of Christ. But 1966 more years have come and gone since that time. Therefore, on the divine calendar we are now living in the late Saturday evening of time. This glorious second coming of Christ is scheduled to usher in the earth's Sabbath of a thousand years, known to the prophets as the millennium. During this period Christ will reign personally upon the earth.

(SW SILL, CR, April 1966)

 

There are seven seals.  The Savior was born "in" the meridian of time (Moses 7:46).  There were roughly 4,000 years, 4 seals, in the temporal existence of the earth before the birth of the Savior and there have been roughly 2,000 years, 2 seals, since the birth of the Savior.  The fall of Adam was roughly 4,000 BC.  

 

The Second Coming of the Savior will be within the seventh seal, AFTER events have occurred in the seventh seal, "preparing and finishing of his work, in the beginning of the seventh thousand years the preparing of the way before the time of his coming."

 

There is some uncertainty and there are some things that we don't know.  It appears from scripture and statements form the brethren that a seal is roughly a thousand year period of the temporal existence of the earth (.  

 

6 Q. What are we to understand by the book which John saw, which was sealed on the back with seven seals?

A. 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.

7 Q. What are we to understand by the seven seals with which it was sealed?

A. We are to understand that the first seal contains the things of the first thousand years, and the second also of the second thousand years, and so on until the seventh.

(D&C 77:6-7)

 

The scriptures state that the following will happen in the 7th seal:

 

- There will be events that will happen in the beginning of the seventh seal that will prepare and finish His work before the second coming in glory.

- The second coming in glory

- A thousand year of millennial conditions

- The Little Season that Satan will be loosed

- The Battle of Gog and Magog

 

Since there are things happening after the 7th thousand year period starts before the Savior return in glory and then there is a "thousand" year period of the Millennium and then there are events after the millennium, all of that can't occur within 1,000 years.  So maybe the "thousand" years of the millennial conditions is just a general statement and not precise.  

 

We are living in the Saturday night of the world's history. Earth has labored six days, and will rest upon the seventh, her period of sanctification. Earth has labored six days but they are not days of twenty-four hours each. Joseph taught that there is a great planet named Kolob, nearest the Celestial Throne, and that it revolves once in a thousand years. That is a day with God. It was such a day that Adam was warned of when told: "The day that thou eatest thereof, thou shalt surely die; for Adam, after eating of the forbidden fruit, lived to the age of nine hundred and thirty years. It was such a day that Peter had in mind when he wrote: "A day with the Lord is as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day." According to our Prophet's teachings, God gave to this planet, Mother Earth, seven thousand years as the period of "its temporal existence;" and four thousand years, or four of those great days, had passed before Christ was crucified, while nearly two thousand years, or two more days, have gone by since. Consequently, we stand at the present moment in the Saturday Evening of Time, near the close of the sixth day, at the week's end of human history. Morning will break upon the Millennium, the thousand years of peace, the Sabbath of the World.

(OF WHITNEY, CR, April 1920)

Edited October 16, 2013 by MDalby

[MDalby]

Are you saying the view that Adam was born of biological God the Father and an unspecified mother came from Brigham Young, but is not in the writings of Joseph Smith?

 

No, it did not come from Brigham Young.  It did not come from Joseph Smith.  It came from the scriptures that were restored through the prophet Joseph Smith.

[Stone holm]

I think Joseph Smith restored the gospel in its doctrinal fulness, and only left us to determine how to administer it  correctly.  After all, what he restored was supposedly sufficient to get us from the gates of baptism up through our calling and election and on to Godhood.  Not sure what else could be needed.

But with so many of those requirements presumed to be held in abeyance until the Millennium, it's kind of hard to claim these things were restored for the last time.  There is going to have to be some sort of additional restoration.  Perhaps that restoration will be necessary in order to start the Millennium.

Maybe there will be another "last dispensation"....and then we can all eat some meat for a change.

I am not sure an additional restoration is required. There probably does need to be something to break us out of what I term the Millenium syndrome which defers anything that might make us look peculiar rather than good old fashioned middle class 1950's Americans. If people turn purple and froth at the mouth over certain socio economic views currently professed, can you imagine what the reaction would be if the Church said we were going to start setting up United Order colonies again and started calling people to colonize say parts of Central America or even Independence?

[danieldemol]

A. We are to understand that as God made the world in six days, and on the seventh day he finished his work, and sanctified it, and also formed man out of the dust of the earth,

D&C 77:12

So if my parents were born on earth, and raised on earth, and eat the food of the earth, then I could understand how my parents could biologically reproduce me *and* I could be formed "of the dust of the earth" since the physical aspect of my parents is nothing more than dust of the earth from which I am physically formed at reproduction.

However, if Adam's mother and Father were extra terrestrials (ie kolobites or whatever), then when they reproduced Adam could be formed of the dust of Kolob, but presumably not Earth.

How do you explain Adam as both biologically descended of God Kolobite *and* formed of the dust of the earth?