Fall Of Adam 6000 Years Ago... Doctrine?

[Brian 2.0]

With all this Bill Nye vs Ham stuff going on I went back and read stuff on where the church stands on it all.  A lot of things are up for personal interpretation (evolution, etc).  But it seems that there are some points that are pretty solid.

 

D&C 77 being a big one that the temporal life of the earth (Fall of Adam to it's celestialization) is 7000 years.  So the Fall of Adam and the beginning of man/woman was at most 6000 years ago.   No real way around that, right?

 

Obviously this leads to other questions of death before the fall, length of time of creation, etc.  I'm not saying the age of the earth is 6000 according to lds doctrine, but it does seem like the age of mortal man is 6000 years according to LDS doctrine.

 

 

*  Edited to add "mortal" to last sentence.

Edited February 6, 2014 by Brian 2.0

[Buzzard]

Fall of Adam is not necessarily the beginning of human life on the earth. It just means that Adam, the man, fell. And dispensations are not required to be exactly one thousand years any more than the days of Genesis are required to be 24 hours. 

Time is such a mortal thing. We get all hung up on it, but God has always said it doesn't even exist for him. 

[mfbukowski]

No, not doctrine.

[cinepro]

The simple answer to your question is that yes, the Church teaches that the Fall of Adam took place around 4,000 BC.

 

This was recently reiterated in the Church's brand new seminary manual for the Doctrine and Covenants, which teaches the following regarding D&C 77:

 

 

 

Invite a student to read Doctrine and Covenants 77:6–7 aloud. Ask the class to follow along, looking for Joseph Smith’s questions about Revelation 5:1 as well as the Lord’s responses. It may be helpful to explain that the 7,000 years refers to the time since the Fall of Adam and Eve. It is not referring to the actual age of the earth including the periods of creation.

 

Doctrine and Covenants and Church History Seminary Manual (2013 Edition)

 

There's no polite way to say this, so I'll just be blunt.  The idea that all humans are solely descended from a man and woman who lived ~6,000 years ago is preposterous based on even the most basic science, so anyone with half a brain has to come up with some creative re-definition of some part of the equation.

 

If we want to still believe in a literal Adam and Eve (and that all humans are solely descended from them following the Fall), then we can question the time frame and theorize the Fall happened much, much longer ago.  This totally destroys the chronology of Genesis, so it solves one problem while creating many others (especially questions about the literal nature of the people and events described in Genesis).

 

We can also theorize that Adam and Eve weren't the sole ancestors of the human race, but instead were a chosen pair from among the many humanoids alive at that time, and their posterity intermingled with the other people after the fall (i.e. a "Limited Adam and Eve" theory).

 

Obviously these theories (and any others) are totally contradictory to many, many scriptures and teachings of the latter day Apostles and Prophets, but what else can you do if you are determined to believe both the science and maintain some sort of testimony of the Church?

Edited February 6, 2014 by cinepro

[Brian 2.0]

Fall of Adam is not necessarily the beginning of human life on the earth. It just means that Adam, the man, fell. 

 

I should say the beginning of "mortal" man on earth.

 

And dispensations are not required to be exactly one thousand years any more than the days of Genesis are required to be 24 hours. 

Time is such a mortal thing. We get all hung up on it, but God has always said it doesn't even exist for him. 

 

 

This is from lds.org as well.

 

Doctrine and Covenants 77:6–7 teaches us that the seven seals symbolize one thousand years of history. Thus, what John saw as each seal was opened symbolized events that occurred during that thousand years of history—the first seal representing the first thousand years after the Fall, the second seal representing the second thousand years, and so forth.

 

source:  https://www.lds.org/manual/new-testament-student-study-guide/the-revelation-of-saint-john-the-divine/revelation-5-7-a-book-with-seven-seals?lang=eng

 

All occurrences of this talked about in seminary manuals, teaching manuals, lds.org all talk about it being 1000 years per seal.  "1000 years of history"  Never a mention of "this just refers to a period of time" or it being symbolic.  You'll find plenty of talk about a "day" of creation is just a period of time, but not in regards to this... at least from what i can find.

[cinepro]

Fall of Adam is not necessarily the beginning of human life on the earth. It just means that Adam, the man, fell. And dispensations are not required to be exactly one thousand years any more than the days of Genesis are required to be 24 hours. 

Time is such a mortal thing. We get all hung up on it, but God has always said it doesn't even exist for him. 

 

D&C 77 doesn't refer to "dispensations".  It refers to periods that are specifically 1,000 years. Seven of them.

 

Scriptures do need to be understood based on the culture and language in which they were revealed.  D&C 77 was revealed in the culture of 19th century America, in English. 

 

 

 

Revelation given to Joseph Smith the Prophet, at Hiram, Ohio, about March 1832.

 

Based on my research, it appears that "thousand years" in that culture and language roughly translates to "thousand years" as we would understand it.

 

It's fine to admit that you just don't believe this (the polite way to admit this is to say that it "isn't doctrinal" - see post #3).  But don't try to pretend the scriptures and Church don't teach it.

Edited February 6, 2014 by cinepro

[Brian 2.0]

The simple answer to your question is that yes, the Church teaches that the Fall of Adam took place around 4,000 BC.

 

This was recently reiterated in the Church's brand new seminary manual for the Doctrine and Covenants, which teaches the following regarding D&C 77:

 

 

 

 

There's no polite way to say this, so I'll just be blunt.  The idea that all humans are solely descended from a man and woman who lived ~6,000 years ago is preposterous based on even the most basic science, so anyone with half a brain has to come up with some creative re-definition of some part of the equation.

 

If we want to still believe in a literal Adam and Eve (and that all humans are solely descended from them following the Fall), then we can question the time frame and theorize the Fall happened much, much longer ago.  This totally destroys the chronology of Genesis, so it solves one problem while creating many others (especially questions about the literal nature of the people and events described in Genesis).

 

We can also theorize that Adam and Eve weren't the sole ancestors of the human race, but instead were a chosen pair from among the many humanoids alive at that time, and their posterity intermingled with the other people after the fall (i.e. a "Limited Adam and Eve" theory).

 

Obviously these theories (and any others) are totally contradictory to many, many scriptures and teachings of the latter day Apostles and Prophets, but what else can you do if you are determined to believe both the science and maintain some sort of testimony of the Church?

 

I'm with you on this.

 

I hear plenty of theories, even really good ones, but in most cases those theory go against current church doctrine that the fall of Adam occurred no more that 6000 years ago.

 

Canonized D&C 77 states this as well as current official church explanations for that canonized scripture.  Which is why I feel confident calling it doctrine.

[thesometimesaint]

With all this Bill Nye vs Ham stuff going on I went back and read stuff on where the church stands on it all.  A lot of things are up for personal interpretation (evolution, etc).  But it seems that there are some points that are pretty solid.

 

D&C 77 being a big one that the temporal life of the earth (Fall of Adam to it's celestialization) is 7000 years.  So the Fall of Adam and the beginning of man/woman was at most 6000 years ago.   No real way around that, right?

 

Obviously this leads to other questions of death before the fall, length of time of creation, etc.  I'm not saying the age of the earth is 6000 according to lds doctrine, but it does seem like the age of mortal man is 6000 years according to LDS doctrine.

 

 

*  Edited to add "mortal" to last sentence.

 

I think we need to exercise extreme caution when conflating Church doctrine with established fact.

[David T]

The simple answer to your question is that yes, the Church teaches that the Fall of Adam took place around 4,000 BC.

 

This was recently reiterated in the Church's brand new seminary manual for the Doctrine and Covenants, which teaches the following regarding D&C 77:

 

 

 

 

There's no polite way to say this, so I'll just be blunt.  The idea that all humans are solely descended from a man and woman who lived ~6,000 years ago is preposterous based on even the most basic science, so anyone with half a brain has to come up with some creative re-definition of some part of the equation.

 

If we want to still believe in a literal Adam and Eve (and that all humans are solely descended from them following the Fall), then we can question the time frame and theorize the Fall happened much, much longer ago.  This totally destroys the chronology of Genesis, so it solves one problem while creating many others (especially questions about the literal nature of the people and events described in Genesis).

 

We can also theorize that Adam and Eve weren't the sole ancestors of the human race, but instead were a chosen pair from among the many humanoids alive at that time, and their posterity intermingled with the other people after the fall (i.e. a "Limited Adam and Eve" theory).

 

Obviously these theories (and any others) are totally contradictory to many, many scriptures and teachings of the latter day Apostles and Prophets, but what else can you do if you are determined to believe both the science and maintain some sort of testimony of the Church?

 

I can't wait for David Bokovoy's book for LDS audiences, Authoring The Old Testament: Volume 1 - Genesis - Deuteronomy to come out. It's a primer to higher criticism for LDS, from a faithful and fully scholastic perspective. Check out some of the names giving advance reviews. This is a HIGHLY needed book for LDS audiences. I will be distributing and hawking this book as much as I can. So important to discussions like this. Would love to get people in CES and the COB to read it. 

 

I believe it's due out next month.

 

Ben Spackman is also writing a book on Genesis 1 that (I believe?) will be published by the Neal A Maxwell Institute, which discusses the history, production, meaning, and relevance of Genesis 1 in the ancient worldview, and how it is written from the perspective of the ancient worldview, and not the modern one.

 

Add to this the growing biology department at BYU, and material such as the Interpreter's Science and Mormonism conference , the body of the Church is very much heading towards understanding. I predict in a few years, the institutional church will begin to head that way as well. Notice that the OT manuals are the last things that they are getting around to updating . . .

Edited February 6, 2014 by David T

[Brian 2.0]

I think we need to exercise extreme caution when conflating Church doctrine with established fact.

 

Should we not think of church doctrine as fact?

 

 

For the record... I don't believe mortal man is 6000 years old.  My point is that church doctrine seems to indicate such, and I don't know how to easily get around it.

[cinepro]

I can't wait for David Bokovoy's book for LDS audiences, Authoring The Old Testament: Volume 1 - Genesis - Deuteronomy to come out. It's a primer to higher criticism for LDS, from a faithful and fully scholastic perspective. Check out some of the names giving advance reviews. This is a HIGHLY needed book for LDS audiences. I will be distributing and hawking this book as much as I can. So important to discussions like this. Would love to get people in CES and the COB to read it. 

 

I believe it's due out next month.

 

 

How will a book about the Old Testament clarify a scripture in the Doctrine and Covenants that is explaining a scripture in the New Testament?  Frankly, I'd be a little leery of anyone that tries to "explain" Jesus's revealed and canonized explanation.

Edited February 6, 2014 by cinepro

[thesometimesaint]

Should we not think of church doctrine as fact?

 

 

For the record... I don't believe mortal man is 6000 years old.  My point is that church doctrine seems to indicate such, and I don't know how to easily get around it.

 

It always comes down to the nitty-gritty of what is Church doctrine, as far as it is translated correctly, and what is fact. IE; Pi in the Bible as opposed to its actual value.

 

Of interest is that human ability to read and write is about 6000 years old. So was that when man first appeared on earth or was it at some much earlier date?

[David T]

How will a book about the Old Testament clarify a scripture in the Doctrine and Covenants that is explaining a scripture in the New Testament?  Frankly, I'd be a little leery of anyone that tries to "explain" Jesus's revealed and canonized explanation.

 

Come on, we all know 7 scripturally means 'a full amount/perfection/complete', and sums of thousands are used as intensifiers in scripture OT, NT, and Book of Mormon. The D&C scripture is easy in that context. Or even just as using the expressions as understood in John's/Joseph's conceptual world - which has since changed. God spoke to Joseph according to his language and framework. It too, perhaps needs to be re-translated into our modern understanding in worldview. The two don't even need to be mutually exclusive.

 

I'm more worried about people viewing Genesis as history written by Moses within the context of our modern worldview, and seeing The Book of Moses as the genesis Ur-text, rather than as a modern inspired expansion/midrash/doctrinal update.

Edited February 6, 2014 by David T

[Nofear]

We can also theorize that Adam and Eve weren't the sole ancestors of the human race, but instead were a chosen pair from among the many humanoids alive at that time, and their posterity intermingled with the other people after the fall (i.e. a "Limited Adam and Eve" theory).

 

I suppose it is one way to interpret Genesis 6:2: Adam and Eve were special but other human forms existed.

"That the sons of God saw the daughters of men that they were fair; and they took them wives of all which they chose."

[Tacenda]

No, not doctrine.

Oh, come on. 

[Brian 2.0]

It always comes down to the nitty-gritty of what is Church doctrine, as far as it is translated correctly, and what is fact. IE; Pi in the Bible as opposed to its actual value.

 

The question of "what is doctrine" comes up on this board all the time, and it's always fun because of how foggy it gets and everyone ends up picking certain quotes from talks over others.  But even the strictest definitions on those threads would incorporate this, which is canonized scripture with modern-day church interpretation provided.

 

Scripture can be "wrong" such as Pi being 3.14.... and not 3 as in the bible, but that's where modern-day church interpretation can help us, or remain silent and let us interpret for ourselves.  Thankfully the seminary manuals of today don't say "As we read the bible, Pi is equal to 3."  And then we're forced to reconcile that with the fact of Pi is 3.1415.....  

 

But modern-day church interpretations of the scripture don't help us on timeframe from the Fall, and they are not silent on it either, they reinforce the 6000 year old mortal man concept. 

 

Of interest is that human ability to read and write is about 6000 years old. So was that when man first appeared on earth or was it at some much earlier date?

 

It sort of comes down to how you define "man" in this.  You could say Adam & Eve fell 6000 years ago and that was beginning of our lineage of "man," and we had the ability to read and write which is learned from our parents.  While acknowledging all non-Adam-Eve line of men that occurred previously.

 

As I said, I like a lot of the theories.  But it seems if you want your theory to fit into current church doctrine, you've got to make the Fall of Adam happening no less than 6000 years ago.  Otherwise your theory requires you to say that current church teaching on the matter is incorrect (which I'm not opposed to saying, personally).

[Danzo]

I love it!

People who don't believe the doctrines of the church telling us what the church believes.

 

I haven't heard anyone use the 6,000 year number in the last 30 years!

 

Read the institute manual.

[ERayR]

With all this Bill Nye vs Ham stuff going on I went back and read stuff on where the church stands on it all.  A lot of things are up for personal interpretation (evolution, etc).  But it seems that there are some points that are pretty solid.

 

D&C 77 being a big one that the temporal life of the earth (Fall of Adam to it's celestialization) is 7000 years.  So the Fall of Adam and the beginning of man/woman was at most 6000 years ago.   No real way around that, right?

 

Obviously this leads to other questions of death before the fall, length of time of creation, etc.  I'm not saying the age of the earth is 6000 according to lds doctrine, but it does seem like the age of mortal man is 6000 years according to LDS doctrine.

 

 

*  Edited to add "mortal" to last sentence.

 

Here it is "Its figurative".

[David T]

I still love Adam Miller's expression, “I believe in a literal reading of this text. I believe the Hebrews literally thought the world was like that, and I believe that God literally ran with it and revealed his grace at work in their lives through it.  More, I believe that God is just as literally showing himself to us in and through the continually rolling revelation that is science as we know it.  The world given to us is not the same world given to them.  We have two worlds here.  But though our worlds diverge, it is the same God peeping through.  Believing that the God of their world is just as surely the God of ours doesn’t commit us to believing in their version of the world.  Rather, it commits us to believing in a God whose grace is full enough to fill them both.”  - from Letters to a Young Mormon, Neal A Maxwell Institute

 

In Joseph's pre-Darwinian world, the idea of 7000 years got the point across in the context of that scriptural worldview. 

Edited February 6, 2014 by David T

[Brian 2.0]

I love it!

People who don't believe the doctrines of the church telling us what the church believes.

 

I haven't heard anyone use the 6,000 year number in the last 30 years!

 

Read the institute manual.

 

Tell me where to read please, because the institute manual is where I read it.

 

Also... I was unaware that actual belief in a church doctrine was a prerequisite for discussing church doctrine.   That's sad as it's quite limiting for discussion.

Edited February 6, 2014 by Brian 2.0

[thesometimesaint]

The question of "what is doctrine" comes up on this board all the time, and it's always fun because of how foggy it gets and everyone ends up picking certain quotes from talks over others.  But even the strictest definitions on those threads would incorporate this, which is canonized scripture with modern-day church interpretation provided.

 

Scripture can be "wrong" such as Pi being 3.14.... and not 3 as in the bible, but that's where modern-day church interpretation can help us, or remain silent and let us interpret for ourselves.  Thankfully the seminary manuals of today don't say "As we read the bible, Pi is equal to 3."  And then we're forced to reconcile that with the fact of Pi is 3.1415.....  

 

But modern-day church interpretations of the scripture don't help us on timeframe from the Fall, and they are not silent on it either, they reinforce the 6000 year old mortal man concept. 

 

 

It sort of comes down to how you define "man" in this.  You could say Adam & Eve fell 6000 years ago and that was beginning of our lineage of "man," and we had the ability to read and write which is learned from our parents.  While acknowledging all non-Adam-Eve line of men that occurred previously.

 

As I said, I like a lot of the theories.  But it seems if you want your theory to fit into current church doctrine, you've got to make the Fall of Adam happening no less than 6000 years ago.  Otherwise your theory requires you to say that current church teaching on the matter is incorrect (which I'm not opposed to saying, personally).

 

That is the problem. We have no stated doctrine outside the Bible on the value of Pi. So are we actually free to dismiss stated doctrine? We kinda get around that problem with, "as far as it is translated correctly". But so far no doctrine has corrected that statement in the Bible. My purpose is not to defame the Bible, or any other Scripture. It is to call attention to how fuzzy religion is in terms of fact.

 

I'm not too sure it does. A lot depends on what religion says is mortal man and what science says is mortal man. I'm content to let Adam a Eve being the first humans to read, write, and answer to God some 6000 years ago. But no I don't believe they were the first humans of earth. Hugh Nibley presented ideas very similar to mine. I don't believe he was an apostate.

 

As I said we get into trouble when we attempt to conflate Church doctrines with facts. I don't see a resolution happening any time soon. But we do keep trying to conflate them anyway. Myself included.

[Brian 2.0]

Here it is "Its figurative".

 

i would like to say so as well.  And it'd take the few keystrokes it took you to type it to include it in the manuals, etc.  Yet those words are absent in the seminary manuals where it is discussing it as "1000 years of history" 

 

Even the questions it proposes the teacher to ask in the seminary teaching manuals:

 

• •

  How long will the earth exist in a temporal state? (see vv. 6–7).

• •

  What thousand-year period do you think we are in now? (The sixth.)

https://www.lds.org/manual/doctrine-and-covenants-and-church-history-seminary-teacher-resource-manual/ohio-and-missouri-period/doctrine-and-covenants-77?lang=eng

 

Just throw the figurative word in there somewhere if that's really what the stance is.

[Danzo]

Tell me where to read please, because the institute manual is where I read it.

 

Also... I was unaware that actual belief in a church doctrine was a prerequisite for discussing church doctrine.   That's sad as it's quite limiting for discussion.

 

If you look on the online version (no page numbers) you will find a discussion in chapter 2

 

You will find the following quote

 

"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."

 

https://www.lds.org/manual/old-testament-student-manual-genesis-2-samuel/genesis-1-2-the-creation?lang=eng

 

According to the header, this is from 1980 so it is at least that old.

 

I know you are going to say this is not what we really believe, but this is what I have always been taught, what was taught in Sunday school at my ward a few weeks ago.

 

Its kind of odd to say we really believe something that we don't teach.

[strappinglad]

I believe that the Earth is 6000 years old....at least.

I believe Joseph when he said that ,were he to tell all he knew, the folks would rise up and kill him.

I also believe Joseph when he said that the Earth was created for more than one reason.

As a youth ,science told me that man was about 25,000 years old and the universe was about 10 billion years old.

Now we have the beginnings of man about 1.5 million years ago and the universe heading toward 20 billion.

I have a bag of salt in my pantry for those that might need a grain or two.

[Brian 2.0]

I love it!

People who don't believe the doctrines of the church telling us what the church believes.

 

I haven't heard anyone use the 6,000 year number in the last 30 years!

 

Read the institute manual.

 

 

Tell me where to read please, because the institute manual is where I read it.

 

Also... I was unaware that actual belief in a church doctrine was a prerequisite for discussing church doctrine.   That's sad as it's quite limiting for discussion.

 

I actually read it in the seminary manual.  Here's what the institute manual had to say about it:

 

“‘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.)

 

I couldn't find anything further about this topic in the Institute teachers manual.  The Seminary Teacher's manual has some more that Cinepro has already posted.  

 

Invite a student to read Doctrine and Covenants 77:6–7 aloud. Ask the class to follow along, looking for Joseph Smith’s questions about Revelation 5:1 as well as the Lord’s responses. It may be helpful to explain that the 7,000 years refers to the time since the Fall of Adam and Eve. It is not referring to the actual age of the earth including the periods of creation.

 

Doctrine and Covenants and Church History Seminary Manual (2013 Edition)

 

Edited February 6, 2014 by Brian 2.0