Robert F. Smith Posted May 5, 2015 Posted May 5, 2015 ............................................................................ The Fall That leads us to the fall of Adam. To bring the plan of happiness to fruition, God issued to Adam and Eve the first commandment ever given to mankind. It was a commandment to beget children.23 A law was explained to them. Should they eat from “the tree of the knowledge of good and evil” (Gen. 2:17), their bodies would change; mortality and eventual death would come upon them.24 But partaking of that fruit was prerequisite to their parenthood.25 While I do not fully understand all the biochemistry involved, I do know that their physical bodies did change; blood began to circulate in their bodies. Adam and Eve thereby became mortal. Happily for us, they could also beget children and fulfill the purposes for which the world was created. Happily for them, “the Lord said unto Adam [and Eve26 ]: Behold I have forgiven thee thy transgression in the Garden of Eden” (Moses 6:53). We and all mankind are forever blessed because of Eve’s great courage and wisdom. By partaking of the fruit first, she did what needed to be done. Adam was wise enough to do likewise. Accordingly, we could speak of the fall of Adam in terms of a mortal creation, because “Adam fell that men might be” (2 Ne. 2:25).27 https://www.lds.org/...change?lang=eng ...................................................................................... The Creation and Garden story is meant to be understood as metaphorical and figurative, not as science and technology. 1
Rivers Posted May 5, 2015 Posted May 5, 2015 The Creation and Garden story is meant to be understood as metaphorical and figurative, not as science and technology.Elder Holland disagrees with you. 1
TheSkepticChristian Posted May 5, 2015 Posted May 5, 2015 (edited) Elder Holland disagrees with you. Adam did exist, but he was not the first man in Biology. Adam was the first man in theology. they did not have blood in their veins The church no longer teaches that Edited May 5, 2015 by TheSkepticChristian
mfbukowski Posted May 5, 2015 Posted May 5, 2015 Are you saying that BYU's Biology department teaches evolution because it's not a valid theory? I hate to break it to you, but the professors in that department really, really believe in the theory of evolution and treat it like it's the bedrock of modern biology. They teach it as if it is trueThat's odd. I searched that page twice and never found the word "true" Maybe they think it's the best explanation for the evidence instead.
carbon dioxide Posted May 5, 2015 Posted May 5, 2015 Adam did exist, but he was not the first man in Biology. Adam was the first man in theology. The church no longer teaches that Adam is the father of all mankind. Perhaps humanoids existed before Adam but they are not a part of the human family and I can't see ever a need to do temple work for them.
mfbukowski Posted May 5, 2015 Posted May 5, 2015 Indeed. Steven Peck is actually something of an evangelist for the theory of evolution. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CsDA4pSC9l4It's kind of sad that this is even an issue. Sigh. These folks need to study some real philosophy of science. This feels like 1932 or something. Scopes trial stuff. I can't believe there is even any controversy about this stuff anymore
TheSkepticChristian Posted May 5, 2015 Posted May 5, 2015 (edited) Adam is the father of all mankind. Perhaps humanoids existed before Adam but they are not a part of the human family and I can't see ever a need to do temple work for them. Abraham is the father of all members of the church, how can that be? Church members are counted as a descendant of Abraham and an heir to all the promises and blessings contained in the Abrahamic covenanthttps://www.lds.org/topics/patriarchal-blessings?lang=eng Adam is the father of all mankind If he is our biological father he must have lived about 100 thousand years ago. Some people believe that is the case Edited May 5, 2015 by TheSkepticChristian
thesometimesaint Posted May 5, 2015 Posted May 5, 2015 It's kind of sad that this is even an issue. Sigh. These folks need to study some real philosophy of science. This feels like 1932 or something. Scopes trial stuff. I can't believe there is even any controversy about this stuff anymore I agree. It is the assumptions from ignorance in both that is the problem. If one were to claim that religion disproves science; we're better off living in the caves afraid of things that go bump in the night. If one were to claim that science disproves religion; welcome to the dystopian world of "1984" and "Brave New World". 1
Robert F. Smith Posted May 5, 2015 Posted May 5, 2015 Elder Holland disagrees with you.Well, maybe D&C 77:2-4 is bunk. And maybe Brigham doesn't know what he is saying: “Though we have it in history that our Father Adam was made of the dust of this earth and that he knew nothing about his God previous to being made here, yet it is not so; and when we learn the truth we shall see and understand that he helped to make this world and was the chief manager in that operation.“He was the person who brought the animals and the seeds from other planets to this world and brought a wife with him and stayed here. You may read and believe what you please as to what is found written in the Bible. Adam was made from the dust of an earth, but not from the dust of this earth. He was made as you and I are made, and no person was ever made upon any other principle.” Journal of Discourses, 3:319. "Scant knowledge is available to us of Eve (the wife of Adam) and her achievements in pre-existence and in mortality. Without question she was like unto her mighty husband Adam in intelligence and in devotion to righteousness during both her first and second estates of existence. She was placed on earth in the same manner as was Adam, the Mosaic account of the Lord creating her from Adam's rib being merely figurative. (Moses 3:20-25.)" [bruce McConkie, Mormon Doctrine 2nd ed. [1966], p. 242]
canard78 Posted May 5, 2015 Posted May 5, 2015 -SNIP- And maybe Brigham doesn't know what he is saying:-SNIP-Given his track record on declaring matters of doctrine, I'd say your "maybe" could be removed from this sentence. Do we still teach that Adam and Eve were from another planet?Like so many other "original" doctrines taught by Brigham, this seems to be another that has been brushed under the carpet.
Gray Posted May 5, 2015 Posted May 5, 2015 (edited) Well I think it is too strong to call any of it "correct". How do we know what is "correct"? It's fairly tautalogical that humans have always been humans, whether or not you believe the science on evolution. I have no way to read his mind to know what he wanted to express. No, it appears that he does not "believe in evolution." But what does that MEAN? I think he means that there is no such thing as speciation. Does anyone really that that Darwinian evolution as we presently theorize it probably "happened" (whatever that could mean) will be the final position reified into the eternal "TRVTH" of science written in stone over the temple of ABSOLUTE KNOWLEDGE? Not sure about any of that, but the evidence in favor of evolution seems to be pretty mountainous. You have more faith than I do if that is the case. I suspect I do. Yes, it may be the best explanation for the data we have now. So does that make his statements "incorrect"? The specific statement I was referring to was correct. Technically. What exactly could he have said which would have been "fully correct"?? You need to understand that skepticism is a life long commitment. All you can know for sure is what is under your nose, and THAT is a statement in psychology about the certainty your brain is experiencing, and has nothing to do with the world "as it is". While all of that is true, there is a certain short-hand that must be employed, otherwise every conversation would be a tedious exercise in epistemological boundary maintanance. Science is hardly complete and never will be. Edited May 5, 2015 by Gray
Gray Posted May 5, 2015 Posted May 5, 2015 If you read this out loud to yourself does it still makes sense to you? So you're saying that humans have always been humans... except for when they weren't?If humans have non-human ancestors then who was the last generation of non-human that begat a human? Humans have obviously always been humans. How can a human be a non-human? Our ancesters were non-humans, certainly. Our species evolved from non humans, but humans have always been humans.
thesometimesaint Posted May 5, 2015 Posted May 5, 2015 But your parents were still human. My parents were members and they weren't the parents of my spiritual body either. What's your point? Yes they were. But I'm different than either one of my parents. But a pleasant combination of both. Speciation is where one generation of an organism is different enough that it can no longer interbreed with its parents generation.
cinepro Posted May 5, 2015 Author Posted May 5, 2015 (edited) That's odd. I searched that page twice and never found the word "true" Maybe they think it's the best explanation for the evidence instead. Not sure what your point is. Thinking something "is the best explanation for the evidence" is the same thing as believing something is "true". You just replaced the word "true" with its own definition. Edited May 5, 2015 by cinepro
cinepro Posted May 5, 2015 Author Posted May 5, 2015 (edited) The Creation and Garden story is meant to be understood as metaphorical and figurative, not as science and technology. That may be the case, but that isn't how the leaders or scriptures of the CoJCoLdS teach it. Adam, Eve, the Fall and the effects of the Fall are taught to have been very real. I don't know how you are defining "science" or "technology", but it's taught pretty clearly and consistently that these things are literal, and their effects were actual and physical, and effect us to this day. For example, this recent statement: Nevertheless, the simple truth is that we cannot fully comprehend the Atonement and Resurrection of Christ and we will not adequately appreciate the unique purpose of His birth or His death—in other words, there is no way to truly celebrate Christmas or Easter—without understanding that there was an actual Adam and Eve who fell from an actual Eden, with all the consequences that fall carried with it. Where Justice, Love, and Mercy MeetBy Elder Jeffrey R. Holland "Actual" = "existing in act or fact; real" Also, the LDS Bible Dictionary: Latter-day revelation supports the biblical account of the Fall, showing that it was a historical event that literally occurred in the history of man. Fall of Adam and Eve Edited May 5, 2015 by cinepro
mfbukowski Posted May 5, 2015 Posted May 5, 2015 Well I think it is too strong to call any of it "correct". How do we know what is "correct"? It's fairly tautalogical that humans have always been humans, whether or not you believe the science on evolution. I have no way to read his mind to know what he wanted to express. No, it appears that he does not "believe in evolution." But what does that MEAN? I think he means that there is no such thing as speciation. Does anyone really that that Darwinian evolution as we presently theorize it probably "happened" (whatever that could mean) will be the final position reified into the eternal "TRVTH" of science written in stone over the temple of ABSOLUTE KNOWLEDGE? Not sure about any of that, but the evidence in favor of evolution seems to be pretty mountainous. You have more faith than I do if that is the case. I suspect I do. Yes, it may be the best explanation for the data we have now. So does that make his statements "incorrect"? The specific statement I was referring to was correct. Technically. What exactly could he have said which would have been "fully correct"?? You need to understand that skepticism is a life long commitment. All you can know for sure is what is under your nose, and THAT is a statement in psychology about the certainty your brain is experiencing, and has nothing to do with the world "as it is". Science is hardly complete and never will be. Well, yes it is a tautology, but that makes it automatically true. I think that was his entire point. He was using a tautology to illustrate his point. Speciation? Well maybe he meant that maybe not, as you yourself implied with the words "I think he meant..." That is of course a notoriously difficult area in Darwinian evolution. Even an atheist philosopher for whom I hold a great deal of respect, Thomas Nagel, recently wrote "Mind and Cosmos" which calls central concepts of Darwinism into doubt. I don't know if he believes understands or was talking about speciation either but it doesn't seem to much matter, at least not to me. I mean what is the overall point of this discussion anyway? Now we get to the good stuff While all of that is true, there is a certain short-hand that must be employed, otherwise every conversation would be a tedious exercise in epistemological boundary maintanance. Yep, you are right- that's a problem. But it is only a problem if we are speaking different languages- different conceptions of what "correct" means. That is exactly why when I am here every silly point turns into a tedious exercise in epistemological boundary maintanance (sic) In these parts "correct" means that those precise words are etched in stone in a gleaming gold temple of Roman design, across the top of which is emblazoned in gleaming letters "VERUM ETERNUS" (eternal truth) Evolution didn't make it into the temple and never will, because the temple is empty. But if you mean that evolution has a "ton of evidence" and that it is scientifically reasonable and the best view we have out there right now to explain speciation and the origin of species and all that, while simultaneously PRESUMING no teleology and no God, then I agree with your statement. See you only have to go through the epistemology once to know what language you are speaking. The problem is that you have one idea of what "correct" means and Rob Osborne has another and this board contains both views and an infinity of grays (pun intended) in between and everybody reads these words and thinks we are saying what they think we are saying. phew. Was that enough of a tedious exercise? At this point I still don't know what he meant and who cares? Either he was correct or not. There a tautology. I am automatically right. 1
TheSkepticChristian Posted May 5, 2015 Posted May 5, 2015 (edited) That may be the case, but that isn't how the leaders or scriptures of the CoJCoLdS teach it. Adam, Eve, the Fall and the effects of the Fall are taught to have been very real. What effects? The church no longer teaches "no blood" and "no animal" death before the Fall, and they can't be found in the scriptures. t there was an actual Adam and Eve who fell from an actual Eden, True, but other teachings can be taken figuratively. Modern prophets have taught that the creation of woman from the rib of the man is to be taken figuratively. (See Spencer W. Kimball, Ensign, Mar. 1976, p. 71.) Also, the LDS Bible Dictionary: The Bible dictionary says "This dictionary is provided to help your study of the scriptures and is not intended as an official statement of Church doctrine" Adam is the father of all mankind. Perhaps humanoids existed before Adam but they are not a part of the human family and I can't see ever a need to do temple work for them. Abraham is the father of all members of the church, how can that be? Church members are counted as a descendant of Abraham and an heir to all the promises and blessings contained in the Abrahamic covenanthttps://www.lds.org/topics/patriarchal-blessings?lang=eng So it may be that every human born after the Fall is counted as a descendant of Adam. It may also be that Adam lived about 100 thousand years ago Here are some interesting arguments, but they are probably not peer-reviewed http://www.reasons.org/articles/the-genesis-genealogies Edited May 5, 2015 by TheSkepticChristian
Gray Posted May 5, 2015 Posted May 5, 2015 (edited) Well, yes it is a tautology, but that makes it automatically true. I think that was his entire point. He was using a tautology to illustrate his point. I don't think he was making a winking, knowing tautology. I've heard that reasoning many times from creationists. Speciation? Well maybe he meant that maybe not, as you yourself implied with the words "I think he meant..." That is of course a notoriously difficult area in Darwinian evolution. Even an atheist philosopher for whom I hold a great deal of respect, Thomas Nagel, recently wrote "Mind and Cosmos" which calls central concepts of Darwinism into doubt. Elder Nelson has said pretty clearly that he rejects natural selection, organic evolution and the big bang theory (to be fair, the show isn't that funny anymore). Maybe he's being ironic, but it doesn't sound like it to me. See: post 74 Now we get to the good stuff In these parts "correct" means that those precise words are etched in stone in a gleaming gold temple of Roman design, across the top of which is emblazoned in gleaming letters "VERUM ETERNUS" (eternal truth) Yes, that's the assumption. It's almost universal among orthodox Mormons and orthodox Ex-Mormons alike. I gave up that assumption a couple of years ago. But if you mean that evolution has a "ton of evidence" and that it is scientifically reasonable and the best view we have out there right now to explain speciation and the origin of species and all that, while simultaneously PRESUMING no teleology and no God, then I agree with your statement. Yes, that's what I mean. See you only have to go through the epistemology once to know what language you are speaking. The problem is that you have one idea of what "correct" means and Rob Osborne has another and this board contains both views and an infinity of grays (pun intended) in between and everybody reads these words and thinks we are saying what they think we are saying. Perhaps we should all have a disclaimer in our sigs about what we think the word "true" means. It might save time phew. Was that enough of a tedious exercise? At this point I still don't know what he meant and who cares? Either he was correct or not. There a tautology. I am automatically right. Either that was a tautology or it wasn't Edited May 5, 2015 by Gray
cinepro Posted May 5, 2015 Author Posted May 5, 2015 (edited) What effects? The church no longer teaches "no blood" and "no animal" death before the Fall, and they can't be found in the scriptures. I don't know how you are defining "no longer teaches", but if anyone asked "did Adam and Eve have blood in their veins before the fall" and "were animals outside the Garden mortal before the Fall?", and they went to official Church publications and statement from leaders on the Church website for answers, here are two examples of what they would find: While I do not fully understand all the biochemistry involved, I do know that their physical bodies did change; blood began to circulate in their bodies. Constancy Amid ChangeElder Nelson “Adam had a spiritual body until mortality came upon him through the violation of the law under which he was living, but he also had a physical body of flesh and bones.“… Now what is a spiritual body? It is one that is quickened by spirit and not by blood. …“… When Adam was in the Garden of Eden, he was not subject to death. There was no blood in his body and he could have remained there forever. This is true of all the other creations” (Joseph Fielding Smith, Doctrines of Salvation, 1:76–77).Doctrines of the Gospel Student Manual (2010 Second Edition)Emphasis added If you can find any statements on the Church website (in any talk or publication) that say that Adam and Eve did have blood before the fall, or that animals outside the Garden were mortal, do share! Also, it seems fashionable to theorize that during the creation period and the Garden of Eden period, there was an area on Earth that had mortal plants and animals (evolving over the centuries). Yet Church leaders and publications have always indictated that the scope of the Creation was the entire planet (and it was a Terrestrial or Paradisiacal planet): The plan required the Creation, and that in turn required both the Fall and the Atonement. These are the three fundamental components of the plan. The creation of a paradisiacal planet came from God. 12Mortality and death came into the world through the Fall of Adam. 13 The Creation(Emphasis added) This first temporal creation of all things, as we shall see, was paradisiacal in nature. In the primeval and Edenic day all forms of life lived in a higher and different state than now prevails. The coming fall would take them downward and forward and onward. Death and procreation had yet to enter the world. Christ and the Creation Edited May 5, 2015 by cinepro 1
mfbukowski Posted May 5, 2015 Posted May 5, 2015 Well, yes it is a tautology, but that makes it automatically true. I think that was his entire point. He was using a tautology to illustrate his point. I don't think he was making a winking, knowing tautology. I've heard that reasoning many times from creationists. Speciation? Well maybe he meant that maybe not, as you yourself implied with the words "I think he meant..." That is of course a notoriously difficult area in Darwinian evolution. Even an atheist philosopher for whom I hold a great deal of respect, Thomas Nagel, recently wrote "Mind and Cosmos" which calls central concepts of Darwinism into doubt. Elder Nelson has said pretty clearly that he rejects natural selection, organic evolution and the big bang theory (to be fair, the show isn't that funny anymore). Maybe he's being ironic, but it doesn't sound like it to me. See: post 74 Now we get to the good stuff In these parts "correct" means that those precise words are etched in stone in a gleaming gold temple of Roman design, across the top of which is emblazoned in gleaming letters "VERUM ETERNUS" (eternal truth) Yes, that's the assumption. It's almost universal among orthodox Mormons and orthodox Ex-Mormons alike. I gave up that assumption a couple of years ago. But if you mean that evolution has a "ton of evidence" and that it is scientifically reasonable and the best view we have out there right now to explain speciation and the origin of species and all that, while simultaneously PRESUMING no teleology and no God, then I agree with your statement. Yes, that's what I mean. See you only have to go through the epistemology once to know what language you are speaking. The problem is that you have one idea of what "correct" means and Rob Osborne has another and this board contains both views and an infinity of grays (pun intended) in between and everybody reads these words and thinks we are saying what they think we are saying. Perhaps we should all have a disclaimer in our sigs about what we think the word "true" means. It might save time phew. Was that enough of a tedious exercise? At this point I still don't know what he meant and who cares? Either he was correct or not. There a tautology. I am automatically right. Either that was a tautology or it wasn't See this is what I am up againstNot sure what your point is. Thinking something "is the best explanation for the evidence" is the same thing as believing something is "true". You just replaced the word "true" with its own definition. We now have dictionary writers as the definers of "truth". What does one do with that kind of thinking?
TheSkepticChristian Posted May 5, 2015 Posted May 5, 2015 (edited) If you can find any statements on the Church website (in any talk or publication) that say that Adam and Eve did have blood before the fall, or that animals outside the Garden were mortal, do share! Doctrine in official publications is always found in the scriptures. Where do the scriptures teach about "no blood" or "no animal death" before the Fall? Doctrines of the Gospel Student Manual (2010 Second Edition) It is 2000, not 2010. I don't know how you are defining "no longer teaches" For the past 10 years statements about "no blood" and "no animal death" before the fall have not appeared in any church publication for doctrine. Please tell me if you find one, but please do not use the Bible dictionary This dictionary is provided to help your study of the scriptures and is not intended as an official statement of Church doctrine Edited May 5, 2015 by TheSkepticChristian
cinepro Posted May 5, 2015 Author Posted May 5, 2015 See this is what I am up against We now have dictionary writers as the definers of "truth". What does one do with that kind of thinking? Uh, please explain any definition of the word "true" which makes the following statement...not false: "BYU biology professors do not believe the Theory of Evolution is true."
cinepro Posted May 5, 2015 Author Posted May 5, 2015 (edited) Doctrine in official publications is always found in the scriptures. Where do the scriptures teach about "no blood" or "no animal death" before the Fall?You referred to what "the church teaches". If you don't count what Apostles teach in General Conference or past Prophets quoted in official Church publications and curriculum as "church teachings", then I guess that's up to you. For the past 10 years statements about "no blood" and "no animal death" before the fall have not appeared in any church publication for doctrine.First, you should realize that one of those quotes is from a manual last published in 2010 called "Doctrines of the Gospel". Whether that counts as a "church publication for doctrine" from "the past 10 years", I don't know, but common sense would seem to indicate it should. And where did you get "10 years"? You can make up whatever time frame you want. Why not say three months? Only the stuff that is newly taught in the previous three months counts? You say this as if you would believe it if Elder Nelson or some other Apostle had mentioned it again last month. "Oh, they just taught it in Conference again, so I'll believe it for the next 10 years!"That isn't how that works. Unless you can tell me that you did believe that there was "no physical death anywhere on the planet until the Fall" back in 2000 when Elder Nelson taught it, and only stopped believing it in 2010. Now that would be interesting. "Yes, I firmly believed in 'no death before Fall' as soon as Elder Nelson said it in 2000 and continued to firmly believe it until 2010". Maybe we should all set up little count-down apps like Scott Lloyd is so fond of for what we hear in Conference. Then if we go 10 years without something being mentioned, we no longer have to believe it or follow it. That would certainly make Conference more interesting, especially if they accidentally went 9.5 years without specifically mentioning murder or adultery.But by that reasoning, it would be okay to have double-pierced ears and play poker now. Please tell me if you find one, but please do not use the Bible dictionaryI agree that if you don't reference the places where the Church teaches "no blood before the Fall", then the Church hasn't taught "no blood before the Fall." Edited May 5, 2015 by cinepro 2
mfbukowski Posted May 5, 2015 Posted May 5, 2015 Uh, please explain any definition of the word "true" which makes the following statement...not false: "BYU biology professors do not believe the Theory of Evolution is true."Golly I couldn't find that one in the dictionary. We live on different planets. Klatu, veradda niktu.
TheSkepticChristian Posted May 5, 2015 Posted May 5, 2015 (edited) You referred to what "the church teaches". If you don't count what Apostles teach in General Conference or past Prophets quoted in official Church publications and curriculum as "church teachings", then I guess that's up to you.\ Doctrines taught in General Conference, official publications, and curriculum are also found in the scriptures, that is how it works. There is a problem with "no blood" and "no animal" death before the Fall because they are not found in the scriptures. If you can find any statements on the Church website (in any talk or publication) that say that Adam and Eve did have blood before the fall, or that animals outside the Garden were mortal, do share! There is evidence that the church is moving away from those ideas, the evidence is that "no blood" has been deleted in newer editions of the same manuals. First, you should realize that one of those quotes is from a manual last published in 2010 called "Doctrines of the Gospel". Very interesting, can you give me a link? You can make up whatever you want. Why not say three months Sure, three months. Where is "no blood" before the Fall taught in lds.org from the last 12 years or 3 months?12 years is a long time, the church publishes thousands of pages (General Conference, magazines, manuals) in that time period. I agree that if you don't reference the places where the Church teaches "no blood before the Fall", then the Church hasn't taught "no blood before the Fall." The First Presidency has probably not read the Bible dictionary, it is simply not a publication for doctrine. Edited May 5, 2015 by TheSkepticChristian
Recommended Posts