Belief In Literal Adam/eve Required To Comprehend Atonement

[bluebell]

Sure! Free agency is what allows us to choose good from evil. We apparently had that in the pre-existence, no need for assistance from trees of knowledge. Natural laws give us things like hunger, scarcity of resources, droughts, famine, earthquakes, and all the other "deficiencies" we might ascribe to the fallen world. Paradise is not the earth's natural state. 

 

I get what you are saying, but i still don't see how it can be reconciled to the doctrine of the Fall and the Atonement.

 

For example, something else we also had in the preexistence was spiritual life.  

 

The doctrine of the plan of salvation is that spiritual death is necessary for growth and learning, but spiritual death could not be inflicted upon someone without due cause.     God could not end someone's spiritual life for them.  Children cannot be born spiritual dead for no reason.  It is a state of being that must be caused by a choice.    

 

Because spiritual death occurs at birth, it is impossible to suggest that the agency of the child caused it.  Therefore, it must have been caused by someone else's choice.  Otherwise, the principle of agency has been thwarted and denied. 

[Gray]

I get what you are saying, but i still don't see how it can be reconciled to the doctrine of the Fall and the Atonement.

 

For example, something else we also had in the preexistence was spiritual life.  

 

The doctrine of the plan of salvation is that spiritual death is necessary for growth and learning, but spiritual death could not be inflicted upon someone without due cause.     God could not end someone's spiritual life for them.  Children cannot be born spiritual dead for no reason.  It is a state of being that must be caused by a choice.    

 

Because spiritual death occurs at birth, it is impossible to suggest that the agency of the child caused it.  Therefore, it must have been caused by someone else's choice.  Otherwise, the principle of agency has been thwarted and denied. 

 

Are you saying spiritual death occurs at birth? That sounds like original sin. We don't generally say that anyone needs the atonement until they reach the age of accountability. It is generally understood that anyone who dies before that age will go to the Celestial Kingdom. 

 

Spiritual Death as I understand it is intentional sin, which separates us from God. All of my sins have been done under my own steam - I didn't need Adam's transgression to push me along. 

[bluebell]

That is precisely the idea that is being disputed. 

 

I'm was explaining that because Elder Holland included all the effects of the fall in his point about the need for an actual adam and eve to correctly understand the Atonement,  all aspects of the fall would seem to be relevant to the OP.

 

I wasn't arguing that his quote proved itself true.

[Gray]

I'm was explaining that because Elder Holland included all the effects of the fall in his point about the need for an actual adam and eve to correctly understand the Atonement,  all aspects of the fall would seem to be relevant to the OP.

 

I wasn't arguing that his quote proved itself true.

 

But that argument only works if you assume that Adam and Eve existed in the first place in a paradisaical and innocent state. There is no need for a fall to explain the current state of the human race, however. Only by assuming they existed in that state do you need a fall to account for both the current state of the world and for the need for an atonement. Without that initial assumption, there is no need to connect the atonement with the fall. 

[bluebell]

Are you saying spiritual death occurs at birth? That sounds like original sin. We don't generally say that anyone needs the atonement until they reach the age of accountability. It is generally understood that anyone who dies before that age will go to the Celestial Kingdom. 

 

Spiritual Death as I understand it is intentional sin, which separates us from God. All of my sins have been done under my own steam - I didn't need Adam's transgression to push me along. 

 

It is absolutely the doctrine of the church that children need the Atonement before the age of 8.  They don't need to repent, but the Atonement is the only thing that saves them.  The Atonement is how they receive the celestial kingdom.  

 

Spiritual death is our separation from God.  It's not caused only by intentional sin, it's caused by all sin.  

 

Spiritual death did not exist in the world until the Fall and it is one of the things that children inherit from the Fall.  Children are not born spiritually dead, but they are born with the absolute inevitably of spiritual death (the same is true for physical death).   

 

You were spiritually separated from God before you turned 8, because sin is possible long before you know the difference between right and wrong.  Sin is the breaking of the law of justice, regardless of your age.  If the Atonement had never occurred, your first lie as a toddler would have damned you forever.

 

The Atonement saved you, as a child, from that effect of the Fall of Adam and Eve.  The effect (that spiritual death) very much would have claimed you otherwise, because your ability to spiritual die existed from birth, not from the moment you gained the ability to exercise your agency.

[bluebell]

There is no need for a fall to explain the current state of the human race, however. 

 

I disagree.

 

The Fall is the only way to explain spiritual death.

[Gray]

It is absolutely the doctrine of the church that children need the Atonement before the age of 8.  They don't need to repent, but the Atonement is the only thing that saves them.  The Atonement is how they receive the celestial kingdom.  

 

Spiritual death is our separation from God.  It's not caused only by intentional sin, it's caused by all sin.  

 

Spiritual death did not exist in the world until the Fall and it is one of the things that children inherit from the Fall.  Children are not born spiritually dead, but they are born with the absolute inevitably of spiritual death (the same is true for physical death).   

 

You were spiritually separated from God before you turned 8, because sin is possible long before you know the difference between right and wrong.  Sin is the breaking of the law of justice, regardless of your age.  If the Atonement had never occurred, your first lie as a toddler would have damned you forever.

 

The Atonement saved you, as a child, from that effect of the Fall of Adam and Eve.  The effect (that spiritual death) very much would have claimed you otherwise, because your ability to spiritual die existed from birth, not from the moment you gained the ability to exercise your agency.

 

Well, I realize everyone's experience in church education is different, but I don't recognize this doctrine. Can you point me to a lesson manual or something similar that teaches this? My understanding is that the atonement saves all from physical death and the repentant from spiritual death. 

 

Edit:

 

A passage from Moroni 8 that seems to contradict your idea:

 

 11 And their little children need no repentance, neither baptism. Behold, baptism is unto repentance to the fulfilling the commandments unto the remission of sins.

 

12 But little children are alive in Christ, even from the foundation of the world; if not so, God is a partial God, and also a changeable God, and a respecter to persons; for how many little children have died without baptism!

Edited September 21, 2015 by Gray

[Gray]

I disagree.

 

The Fall is the only way to explain spiritual death.

 

If by spiritual death you mean sin, evolved mammalian behaviors fully account for everything we humans do. 

[ttribe]

The word comprehend refers to what is included in the comprehensive (as in complete) story, in this case a true story (rather than a fictional story) involving our family history beginning with our primary ancestors on this planet. Before they fell, and how they got here. The fact that they were real people, and not just mythical or fictional characters in a fictional story. And also including what the atonement of Christ does for us to restore us to that same condition Adam and Eve were in, as they were, in that prefall condition.

The whole shebang. The full and complete story of the way Adam and Eve were before the fall and how we will be again because of the atonement of Christ. Physically at least, if not as intellectually equal to how Christ and Adam and Eve are now.

 

I read this at least four times and, other than indicators that Ahab believes in a literal Adam and Eve, I have no idea what he's trying to say.  Can someone interpret for me?

[cinepro]

To me, the literalness of Adam & Eve may be more of a requirement to believe in the restoration than it is to believe in the atonement because the church treats Adam as a historical figure who will return. But I don't see how that impacts upon the atonement of Christ.

 

LDS Doctrine on the relationship between the creation, fall and atonement is pretty clear.  If we set aside concerns about whether it is scientifically probable that "Adam" ever lived, it's a pretty core part of the doctrine. 

 

This is usually seen most clearly by those who aren't concerned about the scientific probability of LDS Doctrines, such as this guy:

 

 

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. That death would be Adam’s gift to man, and, then, the gift of God would be eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord.

 

Thus, existence came from God; death came by Adam; and immortality and eternal life come through Christ. And thus, in Lehi’s precise and eloquent language, all men are in “a state of probation” because of the Fall. And “if Adam had not transgressed he would not have fallen, but he would have remained in the garden of Eden.” He was then in a state of physical immortality; meaning he would have lived forever because there was as yet no death. “And they [our first parents] would have had no children”; they would have been denied the experiences of a mortal probation and a mortal death; and it is out of these two things—out of death and the tests of mortality—that eternal life comes. But—thanks be to God—“Adam fell that men might be; and men are, that they might have joy. And the Messiah cometh in the fulness of time, that he may redeem the children of men from the fall.” (2 Ne. 2:21–26.)

 

Knowing all these things about the plan of salvation, we are in a position to consider the creation of this earth, of man, and of all forms of life. Knowing that the Creation is the father of the Fall, and that the Fall made possible the Atonement, and that salvation itself comes because of the Atonement, we are in a position to put the revealed knowledge about the Creation in a proper perspective.

 

Christ and the Creation

 

As we become more concerned about what is logical and probable, the idea of a paradisaical creation and real "Adam" and "Eve" becomes less and less likely.  If we are still committed to pretending to believe in LDS Doctrines, then we have to start looking for more creative interpretations of the teachings of the scriptures and Church leaders.  One of the things that has to go is the idea of a non-evolved "Adam".  I think Elder McConkie, President Joseph Fielding Smith and other more traditional LDS leaders have seen very clearly how this line of thinking works, and they were obviously very worried about it. 

 

The biggest surprise is that Elder Holland has also seen it, and addressed it very clearly in General Conference (to the great disappointment to those who were hoping that a "gray area" would be created on this issue without a recent mention).  So this mention gives the doctrine of a "literal Adam" another boost for at least 10 years, at which point the anti-Adamites can once again start to test the boundaries of the wiggle room on the issue.

Edited September 21, 2015 by cinepro

[HappyJackWagon]

That's not LDS doctrine though.

 

LDS doctrine does not teach that birth = the fall.  It also doesn't teach that birth is the reason the Atonement is necessary.

Yes, I realize it's not doctrine but what I'm trying to show is that an allegorical story of the fall (garden story representing the choice to leave the premortal world with HF and accept the spiritual and physical death that accompanies mortal life) also requires an atonement be made. So whether the fall was from a literal garden, or from the premortal world, or something else, the effect is the same. An atonement must be made to reconcile man to God by helping the individual overcome physical and spiritual death.

 

I don't need to believe in a literal garden in Jackson County Missouri to believe in the necessity of the atonement.

[CV75]

That is precisely the idea that is being disputed. To assume that it is true would be to beg the question. 

 

Scientifically we know that the conditions we observe about the world, that we would describe as "fallen", are completely natural and predate the existence of human beings by many millions of years. So obviously the Fall was not necessary to bring to pass the current condition of the world. But can you have the atonement without the fall? I think the answer is obviously yes. Humans are naturally prone (under the right circumstances) to acting upon feelings of anger, violence, greed, lust, etc. If any of this requires vicarious atonement, then atonement is needed regardless of whether or not there was any fall. 

This is may be why the docrine is based on Adam, Eve and Christ. 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.

 

Just as the Atonement was actualy effective for all life before Jesus came into the world to carry it out in His temporal flesh (the faithful could still act on the Redemption as if it already was), so was the Fall actually effective for all life before Adam and Eve partook of the forbidden fruit--creation acted as if Adam and Eve already brought the Fall. They were reserved to be the first motal human beings, when they chose, just as Jesus was reserved for the Meridian of time as He chose.

 

No matter how simplisticlly we take Elder Holland's words, they apply to actual people and events.

[HappyJackWagon]

I disagree.

 

The Fall is the only way to explain spiritual death.

But isn't spiritual death a separation from God? That separation comes from the choices we make. We choose to accept mortality and thus separate from God just like a child will separate from the parent to go off to college. That separation can be explained by the garden as a metaphor just as it could as a literal history. It seems that the principle is what's most important, not the literal history.

 

ETA- In 1994 the Pontifical Commission under Pope John Paul II declared the work of the Bible to be the work of Human authors. This is similar to the way many protestants and jews scripture. (generalization)

 

"The texts of the Bible are the expression of religious traditions which existed before them. The mode of their connection with these traditions is different in each case, with the creativity of the authors shown in various degrees...Biblical traditions bore the mark of the socio-cultural milieu which trnasmitted them."

Joseph A Fitzmyer, The Biblical Commission's Document; The Interpretation of the Bible in the Church- pg 132-134

 

Reduced to a very simple idea, this suggests that scripture and it's implementation in theology is based on tradition and the application of that tradition to the current culture and time. It would seem reasonable to consider the possibility that current church leaders like Elder Holland are building off the tradition of Joseph Smith which was building off the tradition of centuries of literal interpretation.

Edited September 21, 2015 by HappyJackWagon

[Gray]

This is may be why the docrine is based on Adam, Eve and Christ. 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.

 

Just as the Atonement was actualy effective for all life before Jesus came into the world to carry it out in His temporal flesh (the faithful could still act on the Redemption as if it already was), so was the Fall actually effective for all life before Adam and Eve partook of the forbidden fruit--creation acted as if Adam and Eve already brought the Fall. They were reserved to be the first motal human beings, when they chose, just as Jesus was reserved for the Meridian of time as He chose.

 

No matter how simplisticlly we take Elder Holland's words, they apply to actual people and events.

 

Scientifically there is no "first" man. Evolution is more gradual than that. You've explained the theology, but I don't think this explains why the atonement can't stand on its own without a specific and literal Fall event. 

Edited September 21, 2015 by Gray

[ERayR]

The logic falls apart in line 2. 

 

If there was no fall there could have been no atonement.  Yours is but one understanding of the fall and doesn't really stand on a solid footing taken all that has been taught about the fall.  Example: I Corinthians 15:22  For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive.

[ERayR]

Scientifically there is no "first" man. Evolution is more gradual than that. You've explained the theology, but I don't think this explains why the atonement can't stand on its own without a specific and literal Fall event. 

 

And this brings us right back to a discussion on how valid macro-evolution is and we have been down that rabbit hole ad-nauseam.

[bluebell]

But isn't spiritual death a separation from God? That separation comes from the choices we make.  That separation comes from the choices we make. We choose to accept mortality and thus separate from God just like a child will separate from the parent to go off to college.

 

 

 

Spiritual death is a spiritual separation from God, not a physical one.  Adam and Eve in the garden of Eden were spiritual alive, even when they weren't literally in the presence of God.  I don't think that us leaving God's presence to be born counts as spiritual death as the plan of salvation defines it.

 

 

If by spiritual death you mean sin, evolved mammalian behaviors fully account for everything we humans do. 

 

I'm not sure that evolved mammalian behaviors account for us being spiritually separated from God.  Evolved mammalian behaviors don't explain or validate the existence of eternal laws, for example.  Nor do they account for the act of, say... worshipping idols leading to eternal damnation.  Not that i understand anyway.

 

 

Well, I realize everyone's experience in church education is different, but I don't recognize this doctrine. Can you point me to a lesson manual or something similar that teaches this? My understanding is that the atonement saves all from physical death and the repentant from spiritual death. 

 

Edit:

 

A passage from Moroni 8 that seems to contradict your idea:

 

 11 And their little children need no repentance, neither baptism. Behold, baptism is unto repentance to the fulfilling the commandments unto the remission of sins.

 

12 But little children are alive in Christ, even from the foundation of the world; if not so, God is a partial God, and also a changeable God, and a respecter to persons; for how many little children have died without baptism!

 

 

Verse 12 is a great example because it is teaching exactly what i said.  I was probably confusing in the way that i said it before.  

 

Children are alive in Christ-it is His Atonement that keeps them free from the affects of their sins. Without Christ they would be damned if they died before they could repent,  be baptized, etc.  

 

Their salvation is a free gift from God.  They can and do sin, but they are not accountable for their sins for a season because of the Atonement of Christ.  

[TheSkepticChristian]

And this brings us right back to a discussion on how valid macro-evolution is and we have been down that rabbit hole ad-nauseam.

 

Macro-Evolution is very valid, but how do you define Macro-Evolution anyway? 

 

Macro-Evolution predictions 

 

1. Darwin predicted, based on homologies with African apes, that human ancestors arose in Africa. That prediction has been supported by fossil and genetic evidence (Ingman et al. 2000)

2. Human Chromosome 2 predicted by Biologists 

3. thousands more 

 

Macro-Evolution never predicted a "first Man". It is clear you do not understand Macro-Evolution. 

[CV75]

Scientifically there is no "first" man. Evolution is more gradual than that. You've explained the theology, but I don't think this explains why the atonement can't stand on its own without a specific and literal Fall event. 

LOL!!! scientifically there is no theology. No first man, no Christ, no fall, no atonement. You are conflating the two.

 

Elder Holland used the word "actual" not "literal": a big, big difference. You are conflating the two. Please see post #23 (and #8 would be worthwhile) and let me know whether that explains the tie-in between the atonement and the fall.

 

The atonement is for those things which are lost / fallen / in need of reclaiming. At some point, both these things had to have actually happened through actual people in order for there to be any theology about it.

 

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.

[Teancum]

In Elder Holland's last conference talk, Where Justice, Love, and Mercy Meet, he says...

 

"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."

 

There are many people who look at the Garden story as an allegory for the premortal world and birth into this world. 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? In either case it's accepting the principle behind the story that has the power, not the literalness of the story.

 

It doesn't seem helpful to me to require literal belief in the historicity of an old testament story but I'm open to being convinced.

 

To me, the literalness of Adam & Eve may be more of a requirement to believe in the restoration than it is to believe in the atonement because the church treats Adam as a historical figure who will return. But I don't see how that impacts upon the atonement of Christ.

 

 

I think this issue is a problem for Christianity but even more so for the LDS Church.  Even today, as in the past, LDS Prophets and apostles as well as unique LDS scripture hinges on a literal Adam and Eve.  

 

And it seems pretty clear to me based on science and such, and in my opinion, that there was no literal Adam and Eve. Things seem to fall apart from there.

[Teancum]

Based upon many of the things the Ptophet Joseph Smith said about the role and position of the man Adam within the kingdom of God, it looks like there's a real problem with rejecting a belief in a literal Adam. Here"s a sampling of the Prophet Joseph's comments on the subject:

"This then is the nature of the priesthood, every man holding the presidency of his dispensation and one man holding the presidency of them all even Adam, and Adam receiving his presidency and authority from Christ, but cannot receive a fulness, untill Christ shall present. the kingdom to the Father which shall be at the end of the last dispensation." (Words of Joseph Smith, 5 Oct. 1840, p.40-41)

"The Priesthood was first given to Adam; he obtained the First Presidency, and held the keys of it from generation to generation. He obtained it in the Creation, before the world was formed.... He had dominion given him over every living creature. He is Michael the Archangel, spoken of in the Scriptures. Then to Noah, who is Gabriel: he stands next in authority to Adam in the Priesthood; he was called of God to this office, and was the father of all living in this day, and to him was given the dominion. These men held keys first on earth, and then in heaven.

"The Priesthood is an everlasting principle, and existed with God from eternity, and will to eternity, without beginning of days or end of years. The keys have to be brought from heaven whenever the Gospel is sent. When they are revealed from heaven, it is by Adam's authority." (Teachings, p. 157)

 

 

Indeed. This is why the LDS Church, among other reasons, has a doctrinal problem.

[Teancum]

If there were no Adam and Eve there was no fall.

If there was no fall there was no atonement.

If there was no atonement then Christ could not have been.

If there was no Christ then all of Christianity is false.

 

This is Bruce R. McConkie and JSF's position.  I think this creates a major problem.  There was not a literal Adam and Eve.  Science has clearly demonstrated this.

[pogi]

Indeed. This is why the LDS Church, among other reasons, has a doctrinal problem.

 

It's only a problem if it isn't true. 

 

 There was not a literal Adam and Eve.  Science has clearly demonstrated this.

 

 

It is non-demonstrable. 

[Teancum]

 

LDS Doctrine on the relationship between the creation, fall and atonement is pretty clear.  If we set aside concerns about whether it is scientifically probable that "Adam" ever lived, it's a pretty core part of the doctrine. 

 

This is usually seen most clearly by those who aren't concerned about the scientific probability of LDS Doctrines, such as this guy:

 

 

 

As we become more concerned about what is logical and probable, the idea of a paradisaical creation and real "Adam" and "Eve" becomes less and less likely.  If we are still committed to pretending to believe in LDS Doctrines, then we have to start looking for more creative interpretations of the teachings of the scriptures and Church leaders.  One of the things that has to go is the idea of a non-evolved "Adam".  I think Elder McConkie, President Joseph Fielding Smith and other more traditional LDS leaders have seen very clearly how this line of thinking works, and they were obviously very worried about it. 

 

The biggest surprise is that Elder Holland has also seen it, and addressed it very clearly in General Conference (to the great disappointment to those who were hoping that a "gray area" would be created on this issue without a recent mention).  So this mention gives the doctrine of a "literal Adam" another boost for at least 10 years, at which point the anti-Adamites can once again start to test the boundaries of the wiggle room on the issue.

 

 

Well said.

[TheSkepticChristian]

Well said.

 

Nope, it is not a virtue to encourage fellow LDS to believe in Creationism.  

Edited September 21, 2015 by TheSkepticChristian