Belief In Literal Adam/eve Required To Comprehend Atonement

[ERayR]

It's not terribly rational to object to science on theological baseis, though

 

It's not terribly rational to object to science theology on theological scientific baseis,

[TheSkepticChristian]

I have no argument with micro-evolution.

 

We are still waiting for you to define micro-Evolution. 

 

How do you explain the predictions? You can't make the "just an interpretation" excuse

 

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 

Edited September 22, 2015 by TheSkepticChristian

[bluebell]

But the atonement happened around 33 CE. It says Children are alive in Christ from the foundation of the world. 

 

Your idea still sounds like original sin to me, which I don't think has a foundation in LDS theology. 

 

As you know, one of the doctrines of the church is that the Atonement is retroactive.  Even before it occurred, it is often spoken of as if it already had, especially in the BOM. It's just a literary tool.

 

As for the difference between LDS belief of the Fall and original sin, I like how Robert Millet explains it.  He says-

 

"To say that man is not under sin is not to say that man is untainted or unaffected.  Jehovah explained to Adam:  "Inasmuch as thy children are conceived in sin, even so when they begin to grow up, sin conceiveth in their hearts,..." (Moses 6:55).  We do not believe that children are born in sin, that they inherit the so-called "sin of Adam" either through sexual union or by birth.  Rather, children are conceived in sin:  meaning first, that they are conceived into a world of sin, and second, that conception is the vehicle by which the effects of the Fall (not the original transgression, which God has forgiven) are transmitted to Adam's posterity.  To say that we are not punished for [Adam and Eve's] transgression is not to say that we are unaffected by it."

 

"Again, conception is the mechanism of transmission, the means by which Adam's fallen nature is passed on to his children and thereby from generation to generation.  Thus sin is implanted in man's nature at conception, just as death is implanted at the same time.  Both of these--death and sin--are present in seed form at conception, and therefore, a child is neither dead nor sinful when born. Death and sin do, however, come to pass as a result of man's nature as he grows up.  Sin comes naturally, just as does death."                                                                                                               ~These quotes are from Millet's book "Jesus Christ, the Only Sure Foundation", on pages 11 and 12.

 

Original sin is the belief that children are born sinful.   You are right, the LDS church doesn't teach that, and it wasn't what i was saying either so i'm sorry if i was confusing.  

 

For references to the doctrine that it is the Atonement of Christ that saves children from suffering the affects of their sins before they are accountable (as well as those who aren't accountable for other reasons) try 2 Ne. 9:25-26; Mosiah 3:11, 15:24; Moroni 8:22; Moses 6:53-54; D&C 29:46-48; and 93:38-42.

Edited September 22, 2015 by bluebell

[Gray]

I don't have a problem if this is your belief as long as you are willing to concede that it is not what the LDS church teaches on the subject, is not what the Plan of Salvation teaches, and is also in opposition to the teachings of the Fall and the Atonement in scripture.

 

That concession explains why Elder Holland's beliefs and your's are opposed to each other on this topic. 

 

I absolutely concede that orthodox Mormon doctrine includes a quite literal view of the fall, and the necessity of the fall to have happened to start the whole ball rolling. I just don't concede that it follows logically that one must follow the other. 

Edited September 22, 2015 by Gray

[Gray]

It's not terribly rational to object to science theology on theological scientific baseis,

 

It is when theology enters the realm of the physical world (ie, the turf of science). 

[Gray]

As you know, one of the doctrines of the church is that the Atonement is retroactive.  Even before it occurred, it is often spoken of as if it already had, especially in the BOM. It's just a literary tool.

 

As for the difference between LDS belief of the Fall and original sin, I like how Robert Millet explains it.  He says-

 

"To say that man is not under sin is not to say that man is untainted or unaffected.  Jehovah explained to Adam:  "Inasmuch as thy children are conceived in sin, even so when they begin to grow up, sin conceiveth in their hearts,..." (Moses 6:55).  We do not believe that children are born in sin, that they inherit the so-called "sin of Adam" either through sexual union or by birth.  Rather, children are conceived in sin:  meaning first, that they are conceived into a world of sin, and second, that conception is the vehicle by which the effects of the Fall (not the original transgression, which God has forgiven) are transmitted to Adam's posterity.  To say that we are not punished for [Adam and Eve's] transgression is not to say that we are unaffected by it."

 

"Again, conception is the mechanism of transmission, the means by which Adam's fallen nature is passed on to his children and thereby from generation to generation.  Thus sin is implanted in man's nature at conception, just as death is implanted at the same time.  Both of these--death and sin--are present in seed form at conception, and therefore, a child is neither dead more sinful when born. Death and sin do, however, come to pass as a result of man's nature as he grows up.  Sin comes naturally, just as does death."                                                                                                               ~These quotes are from Millet's book "Jesus Christ, the Only Sure Foundation", on pages 11 and 12.

 

Original sin is the belief that children are born sinful.   You are right, the LDS church doesn't teach that, and it wasn't what i was saying either so i'm sorry if i was confusing.  

 

For references to the doctrine that it is the Atonement of Christ that saves children from suffering the affects of their sins before they are accountable (as well as those who aren't accountable for other reasons) try 2 Ne. 9:25-26; Mosiah 3:11, 15:24; Moroni 8:22; Moses 6:53-54; D&C 29:46-48; and 93:38-42.

 

Fair enough about the atonement being retroactive. But I'm curious - do you have anything from an official church source about the atonement covering "sins" of children under the age of accountability? Not a formal CFR, just a friendly question. 

[bluebell]

I absolutely concede that orthodox Mormon doctrine includes a quite literal view of the fall, and the necessity of the fall to have happened to start the whole ball rolling. I just don't concede that it follows logically that one must follow the other. 

 

The Fall is the only thing that explains the need for an Atonement because it is the only thing that explains the fallen nature that Children are born with.   It is impossible to understand why everyone, even babies, need the Atonement without believing in the Fall.

 

And if someone doesn't understand that everyone needs the Atonement, even babies, then they don't understand the Atonement correctly.

[thesometimesaint]

I have no argument with micro-evolution.

 

Neither do I. Plus I have no argument with macro-evolution. It is all just evolution.

SEE

[bluebell]

It is when theology enters the realm of the physical world (ie, the turf of science). 

 

All theology does that though, doesn't it?  As was said earlier, even the Atonement of Christ enters the realm of the physical world.

[ERayR]

Neither do I. Plus I have no argument with macro-evolution. It is all just evolution.

 

If it works for you, enjoy.

[bluebell]

Fair enough about the atonement being retroactive. But I'm curious - do you have anything from an official church source about the atonement covering "sins" of children under the age of accountability? Not a formal CFR, just a friendly question. 

 

I listed all those verses, which i think is considered an official church source.  To quote King Benjamin in the end of Mosiah 3:16-"As in Adam, or by nature, [little children] fall, even so the blood of Christ atoneth for their sins."

[CV75]

No, you don't need to accept a literal/actual fall in order to accept the atonement. The "fall" is a "just so" story that explains why people die and why people err. But it's hardly the only possible explanation. Sin is what stands in opposition to the atonement. The fall is a myth that attempts to explain the origins of sin and physical hardship. 

You keep conflating things.

 

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 aren'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.

[Gray]

The Fall is the only thing that explains the need for an Atonement because it is the only thing that explains the fallen nature that Children are born with.   It is impossible to understand why everyone, even babies, need the Atonement without believing in the Fall.

 

And if someone doesn't understand that everyone needs the Atonement, even babies, then they don't understand the Atonement correctly.

 

No, as I said, natural laws are more than sufficient to explain our fallen nature. You'd need an explanation if we were perfect, but imperfection is the perfectly natural state of the universe. 

[bluebell]

No, as I said, natural laws are more than sufficient to explain our fallen nature. You'd need an explanation if we were perfect, but imperfection is the perfectly natural state of the universe. 

 

Maybe i have missed something that you said before.  Which natural law explains why/how toddlers who sin would be damned without the Atonement of Christ?

[Bobbieaware]

It has not been clearly demonstrated. It not possible to clearly demonstrate this.

Here's where I believe the primary impasse exists between those who are persuaded by modern science and those who believe the plain meaning of the scriptural accounts: Those who subscribe to modern science don't believe God is a God of miracles, if they do believe in God at all, while those who have testimonies of the restored Gospel believe God can perform unimaginably great miracles. If the scriptures are to be believed, they testify that at some time in the future billions of deceased human beings, who's bodies are now dissolved to back to dust, will instantaneously be made alive again by receiving their tangible bodies back in the resurrection from the dead. We are also informed that, against all geological precedent, God's power is going to very rapidly transform the planet earth we know today into a gigantic "sea of glass" that will become the glowing abode of celestial beings. And I contend that the miraculous, instantaneous restoration of spirit to body of billions dead of humans, and the very rapid transformation of the earth into a glorious celestial orb, is more difficult to believe than it is to believe there was a real historical Adam and Eve. So I'm trying to understand what of any benefit is going to be accomplished by all of this back and forth between those who believe God is a God of miracles and those who don't? Where is there room for common ground that can even begin to bridge such a wide chasm? Edited September 22, 2015 by Bobbieaware

[The Nehor]

Fair enough about the atonement being retroactive. But I'm curious - do you have anything from an official church source about the atonement covering "sins" of children under the age of accountability? Not a formal CFR, just a friendly question. 

 

Moroni Chapter 8

[KevinG]

While hard core scientists and hard core religionists argue with each other...

 

I quietly ponder the wonder that is the creation and mechanics of our universe, and consider the vastness of what we do not know.  Even our limited understanding of what is right in our own backyards.

 

Given that the current knowledge of Mitochondrial Eve and population bottlenecks, the use of people, family, and covenant people almost interchangeably at times, and other continuing revelations...  I am perfectly comfortable with the idea that there is a literal Adam and Eve for our current family of man.

 

There is so much we don't know that any new information or variable could add much light to the story that is in the Bible.  Taking an absolute stance on incomplete information strikes me as provincial thinking.

[HappyJackWagon]

While hard core scientists and hard core religionists argue with each other...

 

I quietly ponder the wonder that is the creation and mechanics of our universe, and consider the vastness of what we do not know.  Even our limited understanding of what is right in our own backyards.

 

 

Reminds me of this quote from BR MCConkie.

 

"The last word has not been spoken on any subject...there are more things we do not know about the doctrines of salvation than there are things we do know."

 Bruce R McConkie- A New Commandment; Save Thyself and Thy Kindred pg 11

[Gray]

All theology does that though, doesn't it?  As was said earlier, even the Atonement of Christ enters the realm of the physical world.

 

No, not all theology intersects with or contradicts science. Atonement doesn't necessarily do so either - depends on the particulars of the atonement theology. 

[bluebell]

No, not all theology intersects with or contradicts science. Atonement doesn't necessarily do so either - depends on the particulars of the atonement theology. 

 

Coming back to life three days after death with a perfected physical body that will never die again does not contradict science?  Could you explain what you mean?

[Gray]

I listed all those verses, which i think is considered an official church source.  To quote King Benjamin in the end of Mosiah 3:16-"As in Adam, or by nature, [little children] fall, even so the blood of Christ atoneth for their sins."

 

Thanks, I think that is sufficient to demonstrate that original sin may exist in LDS canon in at least some form (although the sentence structure of the verse is a little jumbled and the meaning is not totally clear, IMO).

 

Not sure if it's really ever distilled down to our teachings, but that's another issue. You've demonstrated your views to my satisfaction. 

[Gray]

You keep conflating things.

 

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 aren'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.

 

The fall of Adam is most certainly a mythical event. But can you demonstrate why sin and death and hardship cannot be explained without the fall?

[Gray]

Maybe i have missed something that you said before.  Which natural law explains why/how toddlers who sin would be damned without the Atonement of Christ?

 

What I am saying is behavior that we consider sinful can be fully and completely explained by the particulars of evolution of life on earth. Whatever rules you want to say govern salvation or damnation are another matter, and are of course subjective in nature. 

[Gray]

Coming back to life three days after death with a perfected physical body that will never die again does not contradict science?  Could you explain what you mean?

 

Not all theories of atonement posit a resurrection. Even so, the resurrection of a single person living in Palestine in the early First Century is unfalsifiable. It may be unlikely, but it doesn't outright contradict science. A literal reading of the story of the fall can be falsified in various ways, and doesn't hold up to scientific scrutiny. 

[bluebell]

Not all theories of atonement posit a resurrection. Even so, the resurrection of a single person living in Palestine in the early First Century is unfalsifiable. It may be unlikely, but it doesn't outright contradict science. A literal reading of the story of the fall can be falsified in various ways, and doesn't hold up to scientific scrutiny. 

 

Doctrinally, the Atonement is not a theory, it's a fact.  Second, in our religion the Atonement does posit a resurrection so assume that no matter what i say, its with the assumption that we are talking about LDS theology.  Elder Holland is talking about LDS theology so let's stick to that since it's the topic of the OP.

 

Third, per the scriptural record, it was not the resurrection of just one person in Palestine, but many.

 

Fourth, whether or not the story is 'falsifiable' (leaving out the obvious argument on whether or not a actual Adam and Eve is falsifiable because that has certainly not been decided), does that change the fact that the resurrection also does not hold up to scientific scrutiny?