Fall Of Adam 6000 Years Ago... Doctrine?

[Nevo]

.

Edited October 1, 2014 by Nevo

[Brian 2.0]

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.

 

I remind you of what I said in my OP that you may have missed:

 

 I'm not saying the age of the earth is 6000 according to lds doctrine

 

 

My post is not about age of the earth, but time passed since the Fall of Adam.  

[Rob Osborn]

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.

It is doctrine that the fall happened around 6,000 years ago and that there was no death amongst all the creation before the fall. So to answer- there were no life forms living and dying previously to around 6,000 years ago. Does this mean that man and dinosaurs co-existed. Yes it does.

[mfbukowski]

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?

In car you haven't noticed church manuals say things all the time which are not doctrine or are later changed.  Were all the statements about blacks doctrine?

[thesometimesaint]

It is doctrine that the fall happened around 6,000 years ago and that there was no death amongst all the creation before the fall. So to answer- there were no life forms living and dying previously to around 6,000 years ago. Does this mean that man and dinosaurs co-existed. Yes it does.

 

No! Adam and Eve didn't ride around on dinosaurs.

Even BYU says so

http://cpms.byu.edu/ESM/index.html

[cinepro]

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.

 

Piling on because I can:

 

Doctrine and Covenants Student Manual

 

D&C 77:6-7

 

“‘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)

Old Testament Institute Manual:

 

Adam born around 4,000 B.C.

 

(See also the chronology chart on page 17 in the PDF)

 

These are the currently used manuals, so in addition to the new Seminary manual, LDS youth and adults in the Seminary and Institute program are given this information every time the manual is used in a class, whether or not the teacher specifically addresses it.

Edited February 6, 2014 by cinepro

[cinepro]

In car you haven't noticed church manuals say things all the time which are not doctrine or are later changed.  Were all the statements about blacks doctrine?

 

It's not just the manuals.  This is a contemporary revelation, given in English and canonized in the standard works.  The manuals are only reinforcing the plain and obvious reading of that scripture.

 

If that blessed day ever comes that the Church realizes the error and removes or edits D&C 77, then we'll all rejoice that the doctrine has been brought in line with modern scientific theories.  Until then, the scriptures say what they say, and the Church teaches what it teaches.

Edited February 6, 2014 by cinepro

[The Nehor]

It is doctrine that the fall happened around 6,000 years ago and that there was no death amongst all the creation before the fall. So to answer- there were no life forms living and dying previously to around 6,000 years ago. Does this mean that man and dinosaurs co-existed. Yes it does.

Ummmm.....no.

[The Nehor]

It's not just the manuals.  This is a contemporary revelation, given in English and canonized in the standard works.  The manuals are only reinforcing the plain and obvious reading of that scripture.

 

If that blessed day ever comes that the Church realizes the error and removes or edits D&C 77, then we'll all rejoice that the doctrine has been brought in line with modern scientific theories.  Until then, the scriptures say what they say, and the Church teaches what it teaches.

I hope not. If we do that there is no guarantee of a Second Coming in the next 1,000 years or so.

[cinepro]

I hope not. If we do that there is no guarantee of a Second Coming in the next 1,000 years or so.

 

That's why I predict it will happen only after it becomes woefully obvious that the 6,000 year timeline is off. 

[David T]

It's not just the manuals.  This is a contemporary revelation, given in English and canonized in the standard works.  The manuals are only reinforcing the plain and obvious reading of that scripture.

 

If that blessed day ever comes that the Church realizes the error and removes or edits D&C 77, then we'll all rejoice that the doctrine has been brought in line with modern scientific theories.  Until then, the scriptures say what they say, and the Church teaches what it teaches.

All they need to do for D&C 77 is add an interpretive note to the header. Bam. Solved.

 

I'm not denying the current institutional doctrine is, unfortunately, in terms of 6,000 years. It's just one of those that is demonstrably not true, and will likely be gently adjusted by degrees in the not-too-distant future.

 

FWIW, it's interesting that in our last Stake Conference, Elder Nelson noted he disliked talking about 'doctrines' plural, and noted the Book of Mormon only makes mention of positive doctrine in the singular - the doctrine of Christ - with all teachings being understood as facets of the one diamond-like multi-faceted doctrine of Christ. See, the doctrine doesn't change - but our understanding of the facets might! *grin* IE, the monthly Youth Emphases are not Doctrines, but explorations of facets/aspects of the Doctrine of Christ.

 

Wouldn't be surprised if this also hints that our institutional discourse on what constitutes 'doctrine' might be changing. "The doctrine (of Christ) never changes, but our understanding of the facets of the diamond of doctrine do change."

Edited February 6, 2014 by David T

[The Nehor]

That's why I predict it will happen only after it becomes woefully obvious that the 6,000 year timeline is off.

Nah, I expect to see Jesus come back within the next 100-400 years.

[thesometimesaint]

To me whether he comes to see me or I go to see him. If the results are still the same, I'm fine with that.

[daz2]

I think the number of years since the fall of Adam has as much eternal significance as whether the Garden of Eden was in Missouri or if Adam will really come back to Adam Ondi Ahman.  

 

Section 77 does not purport to be God speaking directly and audibly and Joseph recording the dictation.  It was prepared while the JST was being prepared.  http://josephsmithpapers.org/paperSummary/answers-to-questions-between-circa-4-and-circa-20-march-1832-dc-77?dm=image-and-text&zm=zoom-inner&tm=expanded&p=1&s=undefined&sm=none  I think it is of the same nature as the JST itself, or even the drafts of the Doctrine & Covenants, inspired, but not inerrant.  As Grant Underwood said, "the Word of God in the Words of Men"  (quoting the title of a book about the Bible). http://devotional.byuh.edu/node/327

Edited February 6, 2014 by daz2

[Brian 2.0]

In car you haven't noticed church manuals say things all the time which are not doctrine or are later changed.  Were all the statements about blacks doctrine?

 

In my mind, there is TRUE doctrine, and there is LDS CHURCH doctrine.  And they aren't always in line with each other.

 

There were church doctrines regarding blacks and the priesthood that have turned out to not be true doctrines.

 

Currently there appears to be church doctrine regarding the time span from the Fall of Adam... and it's around 6000 years.

 

Whether that piece of church doctrine is true doctrine is up to the individual I guess.  

[cinepro]

I think the number of years since the fall of Adam has as much eternal significance as whether the Garden of Eden was in Missouri or if Adam will really come back to Adam Ondi Ahman.  

 

Section 77 does not purport to be God speaking directly and audibly and Joseph recording the dictation.  It was prepared while the JST was being prepared.  http://josephsmithpapers.org/paperSummary/answers-to-questions-between-circa-4-and-circa-20-march-1832-dc-77?dm=image-and-text&zm=zoom-inner&tm=expanded&p=1&s=undefined&sm=none  I think it is of the same nature as the JST itself, or even the drafts of the Doctrine & Covenants, inspired, but not inerrant.  As Grant Underwood said, "the Word of God in the Words of Men"  (quoting the title of a book about the Bible). http://devotional.byuh.edu/node/327

 

People tend to equate the "eternal significance" of a doctrine with how much they agree with it.  There are families in my ward who regularly shop and eat out on Sundays, and interestingly, they feel the idea of the "Sabbath" isn't eternally significant either.

 

And to be clear, Section 77 does purport to be God speaking directly to Joseph Smith.

 

 

Revelation given to Joseph Smith the Prophet, at Hiram, Ohio, about March 1832. Joseph Smith’s history states, “In connection with the translation of the Scriptures, I received the following explanation of the Revelation of St. John.”

 

D&C 77 Heading

 

When Joseph says "I received the following explanation...", from where are you suggesting he "received" it?

 

“In connection with the translation of the Scriptures, I received the following explanation of the Revelation of St. John from Sidney Rigdon."

 

“In connection with the translation of the Scriptures, I received the following explanation of the Revelation of St. John from my own imagination.”

Edited February 6, 2014 by cinepro

[Brian 2.0]

Section 77 does not purport to be God speaking directly and audibly and Joseph recording the dictation.  It was prepared while the JST was being prepared.  http://josephsmithpapers.org/paperSummary/answers-to-questions-between-circa-4-and-circa-20-march-1832-dc-77?dm=image-and-text&zm=zoom-inner&tm=expanded&p=1&s=undefined&sm=none  I think it is of the same nature as the JST itself, or even the drafts of the Doctrine & Covenants, inspired, but not inerrant.  As Grant Underwood said, "the Word of God in the Words of Men"  (quoting the title of a book about the Bible). http://devotional.byuh.edu/node/327

 

I was about to type the same response as cinepro.

 

And daz, you realize that you can dismiss almost every single piece of doctrine or prophetic teaching you want with your statement.

Edited February 6, 2014 by Brian 2.0

[thatjimguy]

 

 

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).

 

Like, Adam and Eve ate from the Tree of Knowledge a.k.a. evolved into sentient beings.

[David T]

D&C 77 makes perfect sense in the context of the world Joseph envisioned. If he recieved his understanding in context of what he already understood, with a division of the world post-fall into 7 units, and with it already being a common belief that the world was that old, the context is clear.

 

Cosmology, biology, and many other sciences have had huge advances since Joseph Smith's views of the world. Basically, we just need a new scriptural text in the context of this new cosmological world.

 

Genesis spoke literally of 7 days, and the early Israelites likely took it literally.

Now, we don't take it literally, and add a new symbolic or interpretative (700! Seven Times! Seven Periods!) meaning to it to attempt to link it up with what we know of the world. We try to combine two worldpictures and paradigms and make one have reference to the other. This is unnecessary.

 

God speaks to us using our worldviews and paradigms until they are no longer sustainable. Once we have allowed them to shatter, he continues to speak and allow us to see him in the new world, patterned after the old one where we used to live. Joseph revised Genesis to make sense in his 19th Century doctrinal world. How awesome would it be if a modern prophet took Joseph's lead, and penned a new Genesis for a new world?

 

Wow, that would be exciting!

Edited February 6, 2014 by David T

[CV75]

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.

The verses say nothing about the Fall of Adam, so I just think it just means that the stopwatch on the 7,000 years started 6,000 years ago, which is only a subset of the total time since the Fall of Adam and Eve.

 

The seminary manual says “the time since,” but not when that time began. It says “continuance” and “temporal existence” from the point of view of the Biblical record, where the priority is a written preservation of the covenants over a 7,000 year period beginning when Adam and Eve left the garden, which could have taken place eons after the Fall (they need not have stepped out of the garden at that very moment, and may they have also been the last to leave). From the manual:

 

“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.

 

“Ask students to use their own words to summarize the questions and the answers. After completing this activity, point out how using the footnotes as we study the scriptures can help us discover what prophets have said about the scriptures we are reading.

 

“Point out that although only prophets have the authority to interpret the scriptures for the world, each of us should be searching for understanding and personal application as we study the scriptures individually.” https://www.lds.org/manual/doctrine-and-covenants-and-church-history-seminary-teacher-manual-2014/section-4/home-study-lesson-doctrine-and-covenants-76-81-119-77-83-unit-17?lang=eng

 

I think that last paragraph in the manual is what we are invited to do when the D&C answers begin with “We are to understand that…” – it is a starting point for deeper reflection for spiritual meaning.

Edited February 6, 2014 by CV75

[mfbukowski]

In my mind, there is TRUE doctrine, and there is LDS CHURCH doctrine.  And they aren't always in line with each other.

 

There were church doctrines regarding blacks and the priesthood that have turned out to not be true doctrines.

 

Currently there appears to be church doctrine regarding the time span from the Fall of Adam... and it's around 6000 years.

 

Whether that piece of church doctrine is true doctrine is up to the individual I guess.  

If you can pass a temple interview truthfully that's all that matters.  The rest is just talk.

[mfbukowski]

Forget deep reflection.  Get in tune and don't let the jargon get in the way.

[Brian 2.0]

The verses say nothing about the Fall of Adam, so I just think it just means that the stopwatch on the 7,000 years started 6,000 years ago, which is only a subset of the total time since the Fall of Adam and Eve.

 

The seminary manual says “the time since,” but not when that time began. It says “continuance” and “temporal existence” from the point of view of the Biblical record, where the priority is a written preservation of the covenants over a 7,000 year period beginning when Adam and Eve left the garden, which could have taken place eons after the Fall (they need not have stepped out of the garden at that very moment, and may they have also been the last to leave). From the manual:

 

“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.

 

“Ask students to use their own words to summarize the questions and the answers. After completing this activity, point out how using the footnotes as we study the scriptures can help us discover what prophets have said about the scriptures we are reading.

 

“Point out that although only prophets have the authority to interpret the scriptures for the world, each of us should be searching for understanding and personal application as we study the scriptures individually.” https://www.lds.org/manual/doctrine-and-covenants-and-church-history-seminary-teacher-manual-2014/section-4/home-study-lesson-doctrine-and-covenants-76-81-119-77-83-unit-17?lang=eng

 

I think that last paragraph in the manual is what we are invited to do when the D&C answers begin with “We are to understand that…” – it is a starting point for deeper reflection for spiritual meaning.

 

I can't quite figure what you're saying.  Aren't these two things in conflict with each other?

 

 I just think it just means that the stopwatch on the 7,000 years started 6,000 years ago, which is only a subset of the total time since the Fall of Adam and Eve.

the 7,000 years refers to the time since the Fall of Adam and Eve

 

Are you saying "the time since" doesn't denote the start point?

 

If I said,  "This has been the best 10 years of my life!  The 10 years referring to the time since my wedding day, of course."  

 

Is there any other explanation than the fact that my wedding day was 10 years ago?  Are you saying that I could be saying that the last 10 years have been the best of my life, but that my wedding day was actually 30+ years ago?  Does anyone talk like that? 

Edited February 6, 2014 by Brian 2.0

[Rob Osborn]

No! Adam and Eve didn't ride around on dinosaurs.

Even BYU says so

http://cpms.byu.edu/ESM/index.html

BYU guys are evolutionists like the rest of them. Next.

[Senator]

"I think that last paragraph in the manual is what we are invited to do when the D&C answers begin with “We are to understand that…” – it is a starting point for deeper reflection for spiritual meaning."

 

and...

 

"Forget deep reflection.  Get in tune and don't let the jargon get in the way."

 

 

 

This place can be a hoot sometimes!