Belief In Literal Adam/eve Required To Comprehend Atonement

[thesometimesaint]

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).

 

They don't give out Nobel Prizes in Medicine for things that aren't demonstrated.

 

Eternity maybe forever, but matter in this universe isn't. Entropy works. Whether the Gods did/will intervene is a non-testable question.

[Robert F. Smith]

Well, this universe at least is apparently not eternal.

I suspect that we are dealing with a multiverse or infinite dimensions.

 

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?

Yes, and what are "intellligences" anyhow, and what is this sequence of intelligence - spiritual body -- human body -- divine glory?  That may be the real evolving sequence, aided by already extant divinities.  Biological evolution, if it proves true, may be the least of our concerns.

 

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.

Or, it's what gods do, and we don't know why or how.

 

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.

Archebiosis (abiogenesis) is a dead end so far, which is why so many scientists are preferring panspermia.  So much easier to put off that ultimate question.

 

Not that synthetic life will not be formed in the lab in coming years, but that tells us nothing about spontaneous generation of life, which still eludes science and technology.

[Robert F. Smith]

They don't give out Nobel Prizes in Medicine for things that aren't demonstrated.

 

Eternity maybe forever, but matter in this universe isn't. Entropy works. Whether the Gods did/will intervene is a non-testable question.

You are thinking in small, limited, and very traditional terms here.  See my post #252.

[stemelbow]

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

It just follows. Where did Spiritual death come from? The fall? How so?

[bluebell]

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.

 

If birth is the fall, then Christ would have been born fallen.  

[Ahab]

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.

You'll have to think if you want to comprehend this issue. If the scriptures are true in stating Adam and Eve could not have had children before they ate fruit from the tree of knowledge of good and evil then you should think about why that would be. Why not until they gained kmowledge of good and evil? What did the knowledge of good and evil give them that enabled them to have children? They had their male and female body parts before they got that knowledge. So what changed as a result of gaining knowledge of good and evil? Do you think only mortals like us can have children, or that the ability to have children requires us to be mortal? That people like us but who are immortal can not have children if they know how to do it?

You've had plenty of references/witnesses. What you need to do now is think some more about what you have been given.

[jkwilliams]

You'll have to think if you want to comprehend this issue. If the scriptures are true in stating Adam and Eve could not have had children before they ate fruit from the tree of knowledge of good and evil then you should think about why that would be. Why not until they gained kmowledge of good and evil? What did the knowledge of good and evil give them that enabled them to have children? They had their male and female body parts before they got that knowledge. So what changed as a result of gaining knowledge of good and evil? Do you think only mortals like us can have children, or that the ability to have children requires us to be mortal? That people like us but who are immortal can not have children if they know how to do it?

You've had plenty of references/witnesses. What you need to do now is think some more about what you have been given.

 

It's fine that you think I need to interpret things the way you do, but that doesn't answer my call for references. 

[bluebell]

It just follows. Where did Spiritual death come from? The fall? How so?

 

Spiritual death came from the Fall.  When Adam and Eve fell they introduced spiritual and physical death into the world, and thus our physical as well as our spiritual natures became subject to death.  This is what the scriptures and prophets teach.  This is the authority that the teaching of the Fall (as taught by the LDS church) stands on.  

 

What do your beliefs stand on?  Is 'common sense' it?  Sincere question, i'm not trying to be snotty.

Edited September 25, 2015 by bluebell

[Ahab]

It's fine that you think I need to interpret things the way you do, but that doesn't answer my call for references.

3 minutes obviously wasn't enough time.

Take some more time to think about the information I referred you to before you even think about writing a post to respond to me.

Take a lot more time.

Take 3 whole days, or even 3 years.

No rush. Take a lot more time than you think you need.

[CV75]

Duplicate --

Edited September 25, 2015 by CV75

[jkwilliams]

3 minutes obviously wasn't enough time.

Take some more time to think about the information I referred you to before you even think about writing a post to respond to me.

Take a lot more time.

Take 3 whole days, or even 3 years.

No rush. Take a lot more time than you think you need.

 

Let me put it this way: By your logic, the only reason Adam and Eve couldn't die in the Garden of Eden is that they didn't know how to die. 

 

Either way, I'm not arguing about your interpretation. I'm asking for a reference that your interpretation is church doctrine. So far, you have been either unwilling or unable to provide such a reference.

[pogi]

They don't give out Nobel Prizes in Medicine for things that aren't demonstrated.

 

I don't know...they gave a peace prize to Obama!    

Edited September 25, 2015 by pogi

[stemelbow]

Spiritual death came from the Fall.  When Adam and Eve fell they introduced spiritual and physical death into the world, and thus our physical as well as our spiritual natures became subject to death.  This is what the scriptures and prophets teach.  This is the authority that the teaching of the Fall (as taught by the LDS church) stands on.  

 

What do your beliefs stand on?  Is 'common sense' it?  Sincere question, i'm not trying to be snotty.

The fall seems nothing but allegorical--from clothing themselves to eating fruit...it seems nothing but allegory to me. Not sure how someone can read it as literal, particularly considering our understanding of science. Thus, I choose to read them as allegory. We all, afterall, have chosen to eat of the fruit to learn and grow by coming here.

It seems to me the Church and the scriptures are wrong about a number of things, just like the rest of us. I don't see a need to accept it just because someone tells me to.

Thus, the question that opens this is interesting. Some might say I can't really understand atonement, but how would they know? And if they do know, why is that the case?

[CV75]

You got me there!

 

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. 

 

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.

***

 

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. 

If you agree that “the mortality of the mortality” is a useless phrase, then you’d have to agree that so is any science that posits the same thing, especially as far as comprehending the Atonement and Resurrection goes.

 

For the (4^th?) time I’m asking “How do you propose a defined state exists outside of an inducing event?” I am making this as generic as possible so as not to stay hung up on life science vs. scripture.

 

-- This is not the same question as “Why are we mortal?” -- which answer must go further than, “We are mortal because the precipitating events were carried out by mortal life forms (another version of the useless phrase),” or, “Random events by non-living materials and forces induced mortal life” if a full comprehension of the Atonement is to be gained, which should go without saying since science can’t explain it.

 

The Atonement was envisioned and prepared by God before the foundation of the world as part of plan, but you’re saying it only came about in response to random events. This is hardly the route to a fuller comprehension.

Edited September 25, 2015 by CV75

[Gray]

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. 

 

What can I say? This is a false dilemma. The atonement saves us from death and sin. How we got death and sin aren't that relevant. 

[thesometimesaint]

You are thinking in small, limited, and very traditional terms here.  See my post #252.

 

They don't give Nobel Prizes in Medicine for dead ideas.

 

Not many scientists subscribe to the Panspermia Model. It is an interesting possibility however. I like the idea that life exists throughout the universe. Now if we could just find a rock with the remains of a complex living cell from another planet. So far all we have is a few relatively simple carbon based compounds, that may have come from Mars. If Mars had life on it it died out over a billion years ago. When life on this planet was pretty simple single celled organisms.

[CV75]

What can I say? This is a false dilemma. The atonement saves us from death and sin. How we got death and sin aren't that relevant. 

It absolutely is relevant, just relevant as how we got atoned for--how we became mortal has everything to do with it (hint:agency).

[thesometimesaint]

I don't know...they gave a peace prize to Obama!    

 

Yep; He was/is against stupid wars unlike his predecessor.   

[pogi]

What can I say? This is a false dilemma. The atonement saves us from death and sin. How we got death and sin aren't that relevant. 

 

I am open to other interpretations, but I can't simply disregard the first part of a passage as irrelevant and accept the second part as relevant.  That to me is a real dilemma. 

Edited September 25, 2015 by pogi

[Ahab]

Let me put it this way: By your logic, the only reason Adam and Eve couldn't die in the Garden of Eden is that they didn't know how to die.

Close enough. They couldn't do something they didn't know how to do but more to the point they also couldn't even get a good or evil desire to do something they had the physical ability to do because they had no knowledge of good and evil, or at least not any they could remember. They had NO way in Eden to gain ANY good or evil knowledge without becoming mortal. So having either the good or evil knowledge of how to have sexual relations would have also been excluded.

Either way, I'm not arguing about your interpretation. I'm asking for a reference that your interpretation is church doctrine. So far, you have been either unwilling or unable to provide such a reference.

When you think about what the knowledge of good and evil includes do you not include the knowledge of how to have sexual relations?

Knowing how to do ANYTHING requires knowledge and knowledge is either good or evil or both.

Think about what the knowledge of good and evil includes. It's more than just words.

[HappyJackWagon]

If birth is the fall, then Christ would have been born fallen.  

If Christ wasn't born fallen, then he would have been incapable of death. If he wasn't born fallen it wouldn't have been a condescension to come into mortality. He was born into a fallen world and was therefore subject to the fall just as we are. The difference is he was also God so he was able to overcome that fall whereas we can't without him.

[CV75]

I am open to other interpretations, but I can't simply disregard the first part of a passage as irrelevant and the second part as relevant.  That to me is a real dilemma. 

I agree--it doesn't make sense to look at the Atonement through a spiritual lens and the Fall through a scientific lens (or deny it altogether) to gain a fuller comprehension of the Atonement, which answers the Fall.

[pogi]

Yep; He was/is against stupid wars unlike his predecessor. 

 

Exactly, it was more of a critique of his predecessor than it was a reward for some extraordinary act of peace that was demonstrated by Obama.  Any elected democrat would have acted in the same way.  Nothing special.  I am not criticizing Obama as much as I am criticizing the decision.  I simply did not see any great achievement or extraordinary act of peace demonstrated by him.  He was the commander and chief amidst 2 wars. Previous recipients would not have approved. 

 

I'm against stupid wars too, do I get a nobel...nope!   

[jkwilliams]

Close enough. They couldn't do something they didn't know how to do but more to the point they also couldn't even get a good or evil desire to do something they had the physical ability to do because they had no knowledge of good and evil, or at least not any they could remember. They had NO way in Eden to gain ANY good or evil knowledge without becoming mortal. So having either the good or evil knowledge of how to have sexual relations would have also been excluded.

When you think about what the knowledge of good and evil includes do you not include the knowledge of how to have sexual relations?

No. I'm 50 years old, and that thought never crossed my mind until you posted your speculation in this thread. Eve was given to Adam as a wife and help meet for him. There would have been nothing remotely evil about them having sexual relations as husband and wife.

Knowing how to do ANYTHING requires knowledge and knowledge is either good or evil or both.

Nonsense. We know how to breathe, eat, sleep, walk, and talk long before we have any conception of good or evil. If we take the story of the Fall literally, Adam and Eve knew how to do a lot of things before they learned the difference between good and evil. Your saying that they didn't know how to use their sexual organs is just your speculation, nothing more.

Think about what the knowledge of good and evil includes. It's more than just words.

Once again, you've had an opportunity to provide a reference to support your interpretation, and you have declined to do so.

[HappyJackWagon]

No. I'm 50 years old, and that thought never crossed my mind until you posted your speculation in this thread. Eve was given to Adam as a wife and help meet for him. There would have been nothing remotely evil about them having sexual relations as husband and wife.

Nonsense. We know how to breathe, eat, sleep, walk, and talk long before we have any conception of good or evil. If we take the story of the Fall literally, Adam and Eve knew how to do a lot of things before they learned the difference between good and evil. Your saying that they didn't know how to use their sexual organs is just your speculation, nothing more.

Once again, you've had an opportunity to provide a reference to support your interpretation, and you have declined to do so.

Ahab, please, I beg you. Stop saying you've provided references when you haven't.

 

You have yet to answer the CFR. If you can't answer, please withdraw the comment. It's pretty normal to have an engrained idea that makes perfect sense to us because we've always been taught a certain way, even though there is no documentation. I think this is the boat you're in. I don't doubt you really believe what you wrote or that you were taught what you wrote, but to me it is pure speculation. I'll be very interested to read your references if you have them. If not, it may be time to give up the fight.