Belief In Literal Adam/eve Required To Comprehend Atonement

[CV75]

And why couldn't that ignition be the entrance into mortality at birth and the story of the garden an allegory of that fall from the presence of God into mortality?

 

I still have not seen anything convincing about why the garden can't be an allegory or descriptive explanation for why we are in our current state. The garden doesn't have to be literal.

I think there are a couple of reasons:

 

Because equating the Fall to an individual’s the entrance into mortality is like equating the entrance into an environment with creating the conditions of that environment—just doesn’t happen that way.

 

Because birth is a consequence of the Fall and not the Fall itself, just as the fire is the consequence of the ignition, not the ignition itself; the ignition is the consequence of the igniting factors not the factors themselves, and the saved home is the consequence of the rescue and not the rescue itself.

 

Because the Atonement did not come about without an actual Person acting to address (answer) the Fall, which also came about by actual people acting to bring that Person into mortality. A real fireman has to act to extinguish the fire; a real homeowner with a real home has to act to manage (or mismanage) the resources that result in ignition.

 

Because the atonement is not the continuation of mortality any more than the rescue is continued burning, any more than the ignition is continued stasis of heat, oxygen and material. Because eternal life is not the exit from mortality (death is), and the rescued house is not the result of the fire (incineration is), and the ignition is not the result of unchanging levels of heat, oxygen and material (friction is). In each of these steps, someone had to make a choice and act in a physical world.

 

Now I think that still leaves room for allegory to be derived from actual people and events, and room to explain these actual people and events in allegorical terms, but the bottom line is that these are actual people and events.

[stemelbow]

Question posed in the OP:

If I view it as an allegory used to illustrate the concept of a fall and necessary atonement, why could I not truly comprehend the atonement?

I'm curious why no one has answered this question. I for one answer it by saying, it is not necessary to view Adam and Eve nor the fall as literal to comprehend the atonement.

Any answers as to why?

[The Nehor]

You'd like others to believe that, wouldn't you.

I'm done throwing pearls now.

Have fun, you guys.

 

When did the pearls of the gospel morph from critical insights and personal revelation and become basic theological doctrines.

[CV75]

Question posed in the OP:

Any answers as to why?

Here are a few answers to that specific question about comprehending the Atonement.:

 

From #192, I think Elder Holland's remark is for those who find it more difficult to accept an actual Adam, Eve, Eden and Fall than an actual Atonement and Resurrection, making that which is relatively easier to accept less completely understood or appreciated than it could be.

 

#23: “Christ is an actual God, had an actual mortality, and was an actual Man carrying out an actual Atonement and Resurrection for actual sons and daughters of God. I think Elder Holland is also saying we cannot fully comprehend Him and His Work without understanding where He came from and how He condescended into mortality, which was through actual generations that began with an actual couple who fell from an actual terrestrial place so as to enable the procreation of offspring in this telestial place.”

 

#24: “Christ would not have come into the world without at least one actual, fallen, mortal progenitor.”

 

#37: “Only God and His children have the agency to bring any of this this about. …We cannot comprehend the person, life and work of Christ without knowing the condescension of God (see 1 Nephi chapters 11-14). These chapters which describe it are prefaced by chapter 10 which says that His condescension applies to “all mankind.” Mosiah 4:7, Alma 12:22 and Helaman 14:16 teach that “all mankind” descended from Adam. Adam was the first man (Abraham 1:3, 1 Corinthians 15:45, D&C 84:16, Moses 1:34). Even without these scriptures, there had to be a first somewhere along the line, and he is called Adam.”

 

#44:

“See 2 Nephi 2. The atonement answers the ends of the law (the cut-off or fallen state)—see verses 5-7. If there was no end of the law (no fall), there would be no atonement. The actual event of the fall by the actual man Adam is described later in the chapter (verse 25).

 

“If you believe in an actual atonement, that Christ actually suffered in Gethsemane and on the cross and throughout His life as recorded in scripture, you must accept an actual fall juxtaposed to it (“an opposition in all things”—the condition of atonement is the eternal uniting of spirit and element; the condition of the fall is the permanent separation of the two). Otherwise you really can’t fully comprehend either to your greatest benefit.”

 

#87:

“The atoned condition (the consequence of the Atonement) and the fallen condition (the consequence of the Fall) are not actual events, they are actual conditions.

 

“On the other hand, the Lord’s atonement in Gethsemane and Adam’s fall from Eden were actual events!

 

“This is why “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 …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.” These things really happened -- it is not possible for the Atonement to have happened in the flesh and the Fall not.

 

“Elements of how we teach these events may come across to some as stories and tales for children – and Brigham Young was only referring to our relative understanding of the creation of Adam and Eve in this regard, not the Fall or Atonement – but they are still reflective of actual events, not conditions.

 

“If the Lord's life, His Atonement in Gethsemane and His Resurrection isn’t fables, the Fall of Adam isn't either. And for the literal, Adam is clearly laid out as Jesus' ancestor in the genealogies. He was the first man in Christ's genealogy, the man through whom Christ established the covenant of salvation in the flesh when he fell. If this is not understood, the rest isn't either.”

 

#147

“You mention belief, but not the comprehension and appreciation Elder Holland is talking about. We can believe in the Atonement and Resurrection without fully comprehending them, and without adequately appreciating the unique purpose of His life. And that may be good enough or all we have at the moment, but it is best to fully comprehend and adequately appreciate these things, and that is the greatest aim. One element of accomplishing that is by understanding that there was an actual Fall, even in face of not understanding how that can be in light of the imperfect meaning we attach to our science.

 

“We can likewise understand that there was an actual Adam and Eve who fell from an actual Eden, without understanding the mechanics.

 

“It may help to look at what an actual fall entails. Are you actually fallen? How did you get that way? What was the event? In biological terms, yes, you are mortal; you became mortal through heredity; the event was your conception and birth. Biologically, your Eden was remaining in the same potential state of being, never becoming a carrier of genetic material.

 

“How far back does inheriting genes from your parents go? At some point there was an Adam and an Eve, as identified in scripture, whose genealogy is recorded with them being first. Of course they had parents; some might say they were “pre-Adamites,” or some might say, “the last universal ancestor,” or “terrestrial beings from another planet.” Who is to say? At some point there was an actual Adam and Eve that got the genealogy or sealing chain that pertains to our atonement started, and who were as recognizably human as your parents. And without them, there would be no Jesus either to save you.

 

“How far back do fallen people go in this world? For practical purposes (and the life of Jesus was very practical!), to Adam and Eve. How far back does heredity go? To Adam and Eve, who were chosen as the starting point, at least by covenant and practical purposes. How far back did they actually live? Some say 6,000 years; some say far longer and the Biblical genealogy just picks up with that particular Adam and Eve.

 

“An Adam and Eve lived in an actual place (Eden). This, as with you, was only a potentially mortal existence (2 Nephi 2: 22-23; remaining forever static, never actually passing on their genetic material). Once they left or fell, they changed their estate and began their role as our first parents. The event of their leaving, the Fall, was their arrival into mortality by incorporating a particular material into their systems, just as your erstwhile gametes mutually incorporated themselves into each other. We may not understand the mechanics as much as we do fertilization or transfection, but it was just as much an actual event as are these.

 

“This is why the statement, "…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" does reflect reality.”

[Gray]

Huh? DO you think I’m like you? LOL I was asking these questions in direct reply to your assertions. You did not answer them.

 

From #157 (which led to #164) you said: “Babies are subject to death and pain naturally, so that part needs no fall to explain.”

 

So I asked, “How is it that mortal babies suffer and die if they are not fallen?” To rephrase this for you: “Since babies’ deaths need no fall to explain them, what does explain their deaths? In other words, why are they mortal?” – Don’t tell me, “That’s just the way it is” or, “It needs no explanation.” Especially since (I presume) you have explanations for the Atonement.

 

And so I also asked, “How is it that dead babies are resurrected if they were not fallen enough to die?” Again, to phrase another way: “Since the atonement answers the Fall, how is it that babies are resurrected without being fallen?”

 

Very straightforward questions which you dodged.

 

Then from #177, your reply was:

“I think what is being confused here is the state of being "fallen" (ie mortal, imperfect) with a specific event called the fall. You don't need the latter to get the former. The former is the natural state of life in a physical universe.”

 

So I said, “OK show me how a state or condition can exist and change without a formulating event preceding it, and then try to tell me what is being confused.” I’ll rephrase that for you too: “How is it you don’t need an event to create a state; or, how is it that an event does not create a state; or, how is it that a state is self-existing without any associated event (before or after the expression of that state)?”

 

Very straightforward request.

 

Not straightforward at all. Respectfully, your questions aren't very clearly expressed. If you wish to describe normal conditions of mortality as "fallen", that's fine. What explanation are you looking for? Life has always been mortal and "fallen". 

 

The atonement is to save us from death and sin, not from a couple of naked jay birds in a forest preserve. Death and sin did not results from any literal "fall" event. Life has always been mortal, intelligent life forms have always had behavior issues. That doesn't mean that those issues don't require redemption. It just means you're missing the point of the creation myth. It's a story about us. It is in our nature to sin and to die. Either we need redemption from that or we don't. How they came about has no bearing on the atonement. 

Edited September 25, 2015 by Gray

[thesometimesaint]

And why couldn't that ignition be the entrance into mortality at birth and the story of the garden an allegory of that fall from the presence of God into mortality?

 

I still have not seen anything convincing about why the garden can't be an allegory or descriptive explanation for why we are in our current state. The garden doesn't have to be literal.

 

I believe it is a combination of allegorical and factual.

[Ahab]

You stated that it is a basic church doctrine that the reason they weren't able to have children is that they didn't know how. I will again repeat: CFR. If that's doctrine, you should be able to come up with a reference.

My reference is to the reference in the very basic doctrine of the Church about Adam and Eve gaining knowledge of good and evil and what the knowledge of good and evil includes.

I don't have to tell you what book, chapter and verse you can find this doctrine in, or where you can see it referenced again in a conference address. You can easily find where this doctrine is referenced in our Church teachings, and I can reference this doctrine is taught by simply referring to where we teach that Adam and Eve gained their kmowledge of good and evil, including the good and evil knowledge of how to have children by eating fruit from the tree of knowledge of good and evil. They didn't gain their male and female body parts when they ate the fruit of that tree. They already had those. What they gained was a knowledge of how to use their male and female body parts to have children including the other knowledge they gained of both good and evil.

Now stop bugging me bro. I have referred to where that very basic doctrine is taught in the teachings of our Church and that's all the reference I am going to give you...to wherever it is found throughout ALL the teachings of our Church. I'm referring to ALL of our Church teachings on that and not just one or two or any other limited number of places where it can be found.

[jkwilliams]

My reference is to the reference in the very basic doctrine of the Church about Adam and Eve gaining knowledge of good and evil and what the knowledge of good and evil includes.

I don't have to tell you what book, chapter and verse you can find this doctrine in, or where you can see it referenced again in a conference address. You can easily find where this doctrine is referenced in our Church teachings, and I can reference this doctrine is taught by simply referring to where we teach that Adam and Eve gained their kmowledge of good and evil, including the good and evil knowledge of how to have children by eating fruit from the tree of knowledge of good and evil. They didn't gain their male and female body parts when they ate the fruit of that tree. They already had those. What they gained was a knowledge of how to use their male and female body parts to have children including the other knowledge they gained of both good and evil.

Now stop bugging me bro. I have referred to where that very basic doctrine is taught in the teachings of our Church and that's all the reference I am going to give you...to wherever it is found throughout ALL the teachings of our Church. I'm referring to ALL of our Church teachings on that and not just one or two or any other limited number of places where it can be found.

 

It was a simple request, and clearly you've decided not to answer it. You wrote: "What they gained was a knowledge of how to use their male and female body parts to have children including the other knowledge they gained of both good and evil." That is clearly how you interpret the scriptures, but it is not a doctrine of the church. 

[Ahab]

It was a simple request, and clearly you've decided not to answer it. You wrote: "What they gained was a knowledge of how to use their male and female body parts to have children including the other knowledge they gained of both good and evil." That is clearly how you interpret the scriptures, but it is not a doctrine of the church.

All you're doing is simply rejecting and denying the references I referred you to, but I did refer you to them.

I think you just don't accept or realize all of the knowledge that is included within the scope of knowledge of good and evil while you're rejecting the little bit I referred you to.

Typical you.

[jkwilliams]

All you're doing is simply rejecting and denying the references I referred you to, but I did refer you to them.

I think you just don't accept or realize all of the knowledge that is included within the scope of knowledge of good and evil while you're rejecting the little bit I referred you to.

Typical you.

 

I can't reject or deny a reference you won't give. Again, CFR that what you have said is a basic doctrine of the church. 

 

I think it would be typical of anyone to not accept broad assertions when a reference was called for. 

[bluebell]

And why couldn't that ignition be the entrance into mortality at birth and the story of the garden an allegory of that fall from the presence of God into mortality?

 

 

 

Because not being in God's actual presence is not a Fall.  Birth (leaving the pre-mortal existence) is not a Fall.  Birth does not cause spiritual death or the need for the Atonement to cover sins and transgressions.  

[pogi]

The atonement is to save us from death and sin, not from a couple of naked jay birds in a forest preserve. 

 

The scriptures state otherwise.  There are countless scriptures which speak of the need for redemption from the fall of Adam.

 

“And the Messiah cometh in the fulness of time, that he may redeem the children of men from the fall”

 

1 Corinth 15:22

For since by a man came death, by a man also came the resurrection of the dead. 22For as in Adam all die, so also in Christ all will be made alive. 

 

Rom 5:12

Why, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed on all men, for that all have sinned:

 

Rom 5:18

 

Therefore as by the offence of one judgment came upon all men to condemnation; even so by the righteousness of one the free gift came upon all men unto justification of life.

 

The problem that I have is that if you dismiss the fall as an allegory, then you must also dismiss the atonement as an allegory, because the scriptures clearly state that the atonement was necessary because of the fall.

 

If the fall is an allegory, what does this mean, "Adam fell that men might be and men are that they might have joy"?  How can that be applied to us individually exactly?

[CV75]

Not straightforward at all. Respectfully, your questions aren't very expressed. If you wish to describe normal conditions of mortality as "fallen", that's fine. What explanation are you looking for? Life has always been mortal and "fallen". 

 

The atonement is to save us from death and sin, not from a couple of naked jay birds in a forest preserve. Death and sin did not results from any literal "fall" event. Life has always been mortal, intelligent life forms have always had behavior issues. That doesn't mean that those issues don't require redemption. It just means you're missing the point of the creation myth. It's a story about us. It is in our nature to sin and to die. Either we need redemption from that or we don't. How they came about has no bearing on the atonement. 

Sorry that my "questions aren’t very expressed" (like I’m supposed to know what that means). LOL!

 

“As descendants of Adam and Eve, all people inherit the effects of the Fall.” https://www.lds.org/topics/atonement-of-jesus-christ?lang=eng This refers to the Fall as an event, and is quite a bit different than your assertion that “Death and sin did not results [sic] from any literal "fall" event.” Otherwise, “the effects of the Fall” is as useful/useless as saying, “the mortality of the mortality,” and I don't think that is what anything I've seen published by the Church is saying.

 

So for the (3^rd?) time, in another way: How is mortality a mortal state if some “mortalizing” event did not create that state from another state? More generally, which may be easier to answer, “How do you propose a defined state exists outside of an inducing event?”

[stemelbow]

Because not being in God's actual presence is not a Fall.  Birth (leaving the pre-mortal existence) is not a Fall.  Birth does not cause spiritual death or the need for the Atonement to cover sins and transgressions.

Apparently the choice we individually have made to come here is the cause of spiritual death. With this, the atonement was accomplished for the benefit all. Just as the fall can be seen by some as necessary and part of God's plan, so is the choice we made to come here. I'm not sure anyone can offer a reason why the fall must be seen as literal for one to comprehend the atonement. How would anyone be able to say that if they themselves do believe in a literal fall, Adam and Eve and all that? Particularly if that person can't answer why.

[Gray]

The scriptures state otherwise.  There are countless scriptures which speak of the need for redemption from the fall of Adam.

 

“And the Messiah cometh in the fulness of time, that he may redeem the children of men from the fall”

 

1 Corinth 15:22

For since by a man came death, by a man also came the resurrection of the dead. 22For as in Adam all die, so also in Christ all will be made alive. 

 

Rom 5:12

Why, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed on all men, for that all have sinned:

 

Rom 5:18

 

Therefore as by the offence of one judgment came upon all men to condemnation; even so by the righteousness of one the free gift came upon all men unto justification of life.

 

The problem that I have is that if you dismiss the fall as an allegory, then you must also dismiss the atonement as an allegory, because the scriptures clearly state that the atonement was necessary because of the fall.

 

If the fall is an allegory, what does this mean, "Adam fell that men might be and men are that they might have joy"?  How can that be applied to us individually exactly?

That's certainly one interpretation. Even a literal reading of scripture is an interpretation.

 

But all the physical evidence against the Genesis creation myth should tell us that a literal reading is the wrong interpretation. 

[pogi]

That's certainly one interpretation. Even a literal reading of scripture is an interpretation.

 

But all the physical evidence against the Genesis creation myth should tell us that a literal reading is the wrong interpretation. 

 

That's what I mean, if you dismiss the literal interpretation of the above scriptures, then you dismiss the literal atonement as well.  You kind of throw out the baby with the bath water. 

[Ahab]

I can't reject or deny a reference you won't give. Again, CFR that what you have said is a basic doctrine of the church.

Again? Okay the same references I referred you to before about Adam and Eve gaining knowledge of good and evil by eating some fruit from the tree of knowledge of good and evil. Knowledge that opened their eyes and awakened their senses to the fact that they were standing there naked with their body parts showing. Knowledge that made them notice and think "Hey lookie there!" and "Hey lookie here!" and "I better cover this up!" while making them wonder what they should and could do with all that equipment!

Before they had that knowledge of good and evil it didn't bother them a bit they they were walking around naked, standing next to each other while naked, not knowing and realizing the good and evil things they could do with those bodies. They didn't have any knowledge of good and evil in that regard. The references I referred you to show that it wasn't until they ate some fruit from the tree of knowledge of good and evil that they realized they were naked, and only then did they cover up what before then had gone unnoticed without any knowledge of the good or evil things they could do. They couldn't do any good until then, and not any evil until then either. Children? What were those? They hadn't had any yet and they didn't know how to make them because they lacked the knowledge of good and evil that would have enabled them to create them. Not that they lacked the equipment. They just didn't know it could be used for that purpose.

I think it would be typical of anyone to not accept broad assertions when a reference was called for.

References were given. I just can't make you accept them.

[Gray]

Sorry that my "questions aren’t very expressed" (like I’m supposed to know what that means). LOL!

 

You got me there!

 

“As descendants of Adam and Eve, all people inherit the effects of the Fall.” https://www.lds.org/topics/atonement-of-jesus-christ?lang=eng This refers to the Fall as an event, and is quite a bit different than your assertion that “Death and sin did not results [sic] from any literal "fall" event.” Otherwise, “the effects of the Fall” is as useful/useless as saying, “the mortality of the mortality,” and I don't think that is what anything I've seen published by the Church is saying.

 

Right, but as we know, scriptures aren't science texts. And we know scientifically that none of this stuff actually happened. Nevertheless, the conditions that the atonement is meant to correct exist. Sin and death are real. 

 

So for the (3^rd?) time, in another way: How is mortality a mortal state if some “mortalizing” event did not create that state from another state? More generally, which may be easier to answer, “How do you propose a defined state exists outside of an inducing event?”

 

In other words, you're asking me why we're mortal, yes? Why do things die? The assumption that life used to be immortal seems to be implicit in your question.

 

Living things have always been mortal - in fact they cannot be anything but mortal. For one thing, physical structures are not indestructible. That seems to be true of everything, including non-living things. If you destroy the structure, you kill the life. Does that need an explanation? We're just talking about the properties of matter here, which have been constant since the beginning of the universe. That holds true for living tissues and organic matter like proteins. Anything that is living and is following the laws of our universe must be mortal. Even planets aren't indestructible.

 

Of course there is also aging. As organisms regenerate their cells over the years, the replacement cells tend to deteriorate with each cycle. There are a few theories about that.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ageing#Biological_basis_of_ageing

 

Now some species age very slowly, and it's possible that some don't age at all. But even so, all physical beings are subject to death, because physical structures can be destroyed. 

 

To have any other condition (a hypothetical "pre-fall state") you'd need a whole different universe with a whole different set of natural laws. So the state of life before mortality was non-life, it wasn't "immortality". Of course that says nothing about the soul, which is not a subject that can be studied scientifically. 

 

I think the story of the fall was a story that was shared around campfires for many years before it got recorded. It would have been a great story to share among the tribe the night before a wedding. Like all such stories, it's no good focusing on the story as if it really happened. The value is deeper than that. 

Edited September 25, 2015 by Gray

[Robert F. Smith]

Oh sure, that would be possible, but it wouldn't really "overcome" the idea of abiogenesis. You'd just be moving abiogenesis off-planet. And even so, panspermia wouldn't make Adam and Eve into transplants from another world. It would just be simple biological materials as the basis for all evolved life forms. 

 

It's an interesting possibility but probably not testable. 

It does overcome the problem of being unable to demonstrate/test archebiosis (abiogenesis), but it does not actually move the problem off-planet, since in eternity there never need be a beginning point at all -- just eternal increase and continuation of already extant life.  They "have no beginning," and "they shall have no end, . . for they are . . . eternal" (Abr 3:18).

[Gray]

That's what I mean, if you dismiss the literal interpretation of the above scriptures, then you dismiss the literal atonement as well.  You kind of throw out the baby with the bath water. 

 

No, that doesn't follow. You can take a non-literal interpretation of either, neither or both. Some Orthodox Jews take a literal view of Genesis, but they certainly don't take a literal view of the atonement. For many liberal Christians, it's the opposite. 

[jkwilliams]

Again? Okay the same references I referred you to before about Adam and Eve gaining knowledge of good and evil by eating some fruit from the tree of knowledge of good and evil. Knowledge that opened their eyes and awakened their senses to the fact that they were standing there naked with their body parts showing. Knowledge that made them notice and think "Hey lookie there!" and "Hey lookie here!" and "I better cover this up!" while making them wonder what they should and could do with all that equipment!

Before they had that knowledge of good and evil it didn't bother them a bit they they were walking around naked, standing next to each other while naked, not knowing and realizing the good and evil things they could do with those bodies. They didn't have any knowledge of good and evil in that regard. The references I referred you to show that it wasn't until they ate some fruit from the tree of knowledge of good and evil that they realized they were naked, and only then did they cover up what before then had gone unnoticed without any knowledge of the good or evil things they could do. They couldn't do any good until then, and not any evil until then either. Children? What were those? They hadn't had any yet and they didn't know how to make them because they lacked the knowledge of good and evil that would have enabled them to create them. Not that they lacked the equipment. They just didn't know it could be used for that purpose.

References were given. I just can't make you accept them.

 

Please point to the references you gave. Your description, which I've quoted, is an interpretation of scripture, but it is not the doctrine of the church. If Adam and Eve truly did not know how to use their bodies, they also could not have eaten or moved or have done anything else. Humans don't need to be told how to eat or move or sleep or have sexual desire; if their bodies are functioning as designed, these things are instinctive. The scriptures tell us only that they could not have children, but nowhere are we told the reason. If you can point to a single scripture or correlated church publication that says anything near to "they couldn't have children because they didn't know how," you've had plenty of opportunities. Again, CFR.

Edited September 25, 2015 by jkwilliams

[bluebell]

Apparently the choice we individually have made to come here is the cause of spiritual death. 

 

This isn't what the scriptures or the church teaches though.  Where does this belief come from?

[Gray]

It does overcome the problem of being unable to demonstrate/test archebiosis (abiogenesis), but it does not actually move the problem off-planet, since in eternity there never need be a beginning point at all -- just eternal increase and continuation of already extant life.  They "have no beginning," and "they shall have no end, . . for they are . . . eternal" (Abr 3:18).

 

Well, this universe at least is apparently not eternal. But if you say that life in general has always existed, then the answer to the question, "why life?" is "who knows!"

 

God certainly wouldn't be the ultimate cause of life, if life is past-eternal. In fact it's hard to imagine what function God might fulfill, if everything always existed. Does the universe need gods? Or are gods just the evolved life form that happens to be at the top of the food chain?  

 

Then again, when we look for scientific answers to the "why" kinds of questions, the tentative answers we get are similarly frustrating. The answers often sound a lot like, "just because." Why does something exist rather than nothing? The answer from Mormonism and from science is not "because God did it." The answer is we don't know for sure. 

 

Regarding life, I think abiogenesis is the most likely answer, whether the organic compounds originated here or on Mars or on a comet. We already have examples of things that fall somewhere in between life and non-life (viruses, protocells). I think we will find that under the right conditions primitive living cells can be formed spontaneously. And with enough time evolve into more complex life forms.

Edited September 25, 2015 by Gray

[HappyJackWagon]

Because not being in God's actual presence is not a Fall.  Birth (leaving the pre-mortal existence) is not a Fall.  Birth does not cause spiritual death or the need for the Atonement to cover sins and transgressions.  

I think being removed from God's presence through birth is a fall. It's based on a decision we made. It's a change from spirit to mortal body. It's a change from the presence of God to being out of His presence. Being separated from the presence of God represents spiritual death and taking on mortality represents physical death.. I guess we'll just have to disagree.

[pogi]

You can take a non-literal interpretation of either, neither or both. 

 

Not when the fall and atonement are used in the same passage as a conditional statement.  Look at the passages again.  Either you take them both as literal or both as allegorical.  I don't know how you can separate the two when they are used this way in scripture.