Belief In Literal Adam/eve Required To Comprehend Atonement

[Gray]

 

I know that's what you believe, but you haven't demonstrated that its possible with any evidence yet.  

 

Well, human behavior is fully accounted for without the need for a fall. In LDS doctrine, the purpose of atonement is to rescue us from sin and death. Scientifically those things exist without need for a fall. So conceptually you don't need a fall to account for the atonement. 

 

 

A person's individual fall does not explain why babies need the Atonement, for example.  

 

I would argue that while you can find it hinted in the BOM that babies might need the atonement, it's not necessarily part of orthodox LDS doctrines on atonement.

 

 

 

In your belief, why do babies, who cannot fall (as you define the term) need the Atonement?  You might have shared your thoughts on that before and i just missed it with all the posts going back and forth.  If so then i apologize for asking for it again.

 

I don't think they need the atonement. 

 

 

 

Edited to clarify what I didn't say very well the first time.

 

Edited September 23, 2015 by Gray

[Gray]

I'm saying that if the LDS doctrine of the Atonement is true, then the Fall is the only thing that explains why everyone, including babies, needs it.

 

Babies are subject to death and pain naturally, so that part needs no fall to explain. The one remaining item is if you believe that babies sin. I don't think this is something that is currently taught. 

[pogi]

Please excuse me if I'm missing the obvious (I can be obtuse at times), but just to make things clear so I'll have a better understanding of where you stand in future posts, do I correctly observe you do not believe in the resurrection and immortality?

 

I do believe in the resurrection and immortality.  

[thesometimesaint]

I do believe in the resurrection and immortality.  

 

So do I. I just can't explain it using known science,

[bluebell]

Babies are subject to death and pain naturally, so that part needs no fall to explain. The one remaining item is if you believe that babies sin. I don't think this is something that is currently taught. 

 

It is church doctrine that children's sins are covered by the Atonement of Christ.  It's both in the scriptures and has been taught from the pulpit in GC.  

 

So the question is a valid one.  And i see in your other post that you have no answer for it because you don't believe children are fallen.  Your beliefs about the fall only work if you disbelieve certain aspects of the Atonement as taught by the LDS church. This is what Elder Holland was talking about.  

 

If the church's doctrine on the Atonement is true, then your lack of belief in an actual Fall has caused you to misunderstand the doctrine of the Atonement.

[CV75]

Appreciate the well thought out post here. You always make me think. I will add that I was not addressing Elder Holland's point but merely responding to Bluebell wondering why a literal fall gives some people pause, while the atonement does not.

I know -- just looking for an opening to say something since other exchanges seemed to get cut short! LOL

[CV75]

Babies are subject to death and pain naturally, so that part needs no fall to explain. The one remaining item is if you believe that babies sin. I don't think this is something that is currently taught. 

The fallen condition is death, pain, etc. (mortality). How is it that mortal babies suffer and die if they are not fallen? You may want to read post #147 to get a better idea of what I'm asking.

 

How is it that dead babies are resurrected if they were not fallen enough to die?

 

The Atonement brings about the Resurrection. https://www.lds.org/topics/atonement-of-jesus-christ?lang=eng

 

It seems like you're missing out comprehending some of our basic doctrine about the atonement and resurrection.

[Ahab]

It is church doctrine that children's sins are covered by the Atonement of Christ. It's both in the scriptures and has been taught from the pulpit in GC.

So the question is a valid one. And i see in your other post that you have no answer for it because you don't believe children are fallen. Your beliefs about the fall only work if you disbelieve certain aspects of the Atonement as taught by the LDS church. This is what Elder Holland was talking about.

If the church's doctrine on the Atonement is true, then your lack of belief in an actual Fall has caused you to misunderstand the doctrine of the Atonement.

While I generally agree with your argument I don't agree that our Lord or his prophets have taught that little children sin.

They do things that aren't good, sometimes, and they often disobey their mortal parents directives, but the ability to sin requires a lot more than that. They have to actually know the difference between good and evil on an issue, rather than just what their mortal parents say is good or evil, because without that knowledge it is impossible for them to commit any sin.

I sometimes think little children can know the difference between good and evil on an issue before they are 8 years old, but considering how many adults I've seen who don't seem to know the difference between good and evil on some issues I don't think that knowledge comes as "naturally" as some people suppose.

[Calm]

It is taught that little children can do wrong, but that they are not accountable for it even though we teach and often expect them to do right, such as not hitting another child, telling the truth, etc.

https://www.lds.org/manual/primary-3/lesson-22-the-atonement-of-jesus-christ?lang=eng

This doing wrong...some are careful not to call it sin and only use that for accountable wrongs. Others don't make that distinction. As long as the accountable/not accountable qualifier is there, I don't see it as problematic.

Edited September 23, 2015 by Calm

[Gray]

It is church doctrine that children's sins are covered by the Atonement of Christ.  It's both in the scriptures and has been taught from the pulpit in GC.  

 

So the question is a valid one.  And i see in your other post that you have no answer for it because you don't believe children are fallen.  Your beliefs about the fall only work if you disbelieve certain aspects of the Atonement as taught by the LDS church. This is what Elder Holland was talking about.  

 

If the church's doctrine on the Atonement is true, then your lack of belief in an actual Fall has caused you to misunderstand the doctrine of the Atonement.

 

But it is taught by the LDS church? Not everything in the canon is currently taught or emphasized. 

[Gray]

The fallen condition is death, pain, etc. (mortality). How is it that mortal babies suffer and die if they are not fallen? You may want to read post #147 to get a better idea of what I'm asking.

 

How is it that dead babies are resurrected if they were not fallen enough to die?

 

The Atonement brings about the Resurrection. https://www.lds.org/topics/atonement-of-jesus-christ?lang=eng

 

It seems like you're missing out comprehending some of our basic doctrine about the atonement and resurrection.

 

You misunderstand. Mortality is the a natural condition for life. Human beings and related species have always been mortal. In fact if we were not mortal we'd soon overrun the earth and deplete all its resources. Death is as old as life, and has always been a part of life. You don't need the fall to explain why people die, any more than you need Rudyard Kipling to explain how the camel got his hump. 

Edited September 23, 2015 by Gray

[pogi]

Both the fall and the atonement require faith to believe in. Neither has a scientific explanation. However, to accept a literal fall means that I must close my eyes to a good portion of all these fields of study and the mountains of evidence they have produced. I must look at my hand and say it doesn't exist. Accepting a literal atonment requires none of this. I can believe in the atonment without rejecting a single scientific theory, or paper. 

 

If I understand you correctly, you are saying that current scientific understanding negates the possibility of the fall.  On the other hand, you are saying that while science cannot explain the resurrection it does not necessarily negate the possibility.  Am I understanding you correctly?  I will assume that I am and respond to that.

 

You listed a number of scientific fields that all point to a certain conclusion, leaving no room for Adam and Eve.  You would have to completely dismiss mounds of evidence that leave no room for such an event.  It would be like looking at your left hand and saying it doesn't exist, right?  

 

My argument is that the medical and other sciences are just as conclusive, leaving no room for resurrection.  It is not that science simply cannot explain the resurrection, but that it negates the possibility.  Cellular biology, cytophysiology, pathophysiology, microbiology, biology, physiology, histology, hematology, neurology, cardiology, biophysical chemistry, etc. have also come a long way in recent years and have not been able to challenge the certain conclusion of death and decomposition, leaving no room for resurrection and regeneration of neurons etc.  This evidence has remained conclusive and has endured tests, scientific scrutiny, and time, much longer than DNA has. There are indeed thousands of scientific papers in medical journals that all point to the same conclusion.  The evidence is as solid as DNA, it is way more solid than any archeological find, etc.  It works EVERY time without fail.  There is no exception.  

  

Again, it is not that we simply don't know "how" the resurrection happened, it is that we would have to dismiss thousands of years of evidence, and possibly thousands of scientific papers that point to the contrary.  The medical sciences would be turned on their head, and they would have to re-write everything they know about the potential limits of human biology.  It would be as radical a breakthrough as discovering that Adam really did exist!

 

My point being that in accepting either Adam or the resurrection, one would have to conclude that they are either miracles (in which case it would not effect science), or that science simply has it wrong at present.  We would have to reject what we think we know in either case.  For me, with my medical background, I find it no more difficult to accept Adam than I do to accept the resurrection.  It would be like looking at my left hand and saying it doesn't exist, as you say.  So, I am left to either dismiss the piles of medical evidence, or call it a miracle, because it simply is an impossibility medically speaking, just as Adam is an impossibility archeologically and biologically speaking.  Again, not simply because we don't know "how" it happened (leaving room for possibility), but because we "know" the properties and limitations of cells, etc. and know it is not possible.   Just like we "know" the properties of DNA and thereby "know" that Adam is not possible.

Edited September 23, 2015 by pogi

[bluebell]

But it is taught by the LDS church? Not everything in the canon is currently taught or emphasized.

 

The doctrine that the transgressions of those who aren't accountable (due to age or intellect) are automatically covered by the Atonement is currently taught in lesson manuals of the church.  

 

I found one reference in the D&C and Church History seminary manual from 2013-

 

"The Savior declares that little children and those without understanding are redeemed through His Atonement

 

Explain that in Doctrine and Covenants 29:46–50, we see that the consequences of transgressing God’s laws are different for little children and for others who are not accountable before God."

 

This is in the BOM seminary manual-

 

“We understand from our doctrine that before the age of accountability a child is ‘not capable of committing sin’. During that time, children can commit mistakes, even very serious and damaging ones that must be corrected, but their acts are not accounted as sins” (“Sins and Mistakes,”Ensign,Oct. 1996, 65).

 

Little children are saved through the Atonement of Jesus Christ."

[CV75]

You misunderstand. Mortality is the a natural condition for life. Human beings and related species have always been mortal. In fact if we were not mortal we'd soon overrun the earth and deplete all its resources. Death is as old as life, and has always been a part of life. You don't need the fall to explain why people die, any more than you need Rudyard Kipling to explain how the camel got his hump. 

This is a pitiful dodge. You can answer my questions ("How..." not "Why..") without denying the doctrines of the Pre-mortal life and the Fall and getting all pseudo-preachy about mortality. Come on!  LOL

 

How is it that mortal babies suffer and die if they are not fallen?

 

How is it that dead babies are resurrected if they were not fallen enough to die?

 

Think: "fallen" as in "fallen from the pre-mortal state of immortality spirit life in the presence of the Father" as synonymous with "mortal."

 

Pick out how 'mortal" is used here: https://www.lds.org/topics/fall-of-adam?lang=eng

Edited September 23, 2015 by CV75

[bluebell]

While I generally agree with your argument I don't agree that our Lord or his prophets have taught that little children sin.

They do things that aren't good, sometimes, and they often disobey their mortal parents directives, but the ability to sin requires a lot more than that. They have to actually know the difference between good and evil on an issue, rather than just what their mortal parents say is good or evil, because without that knowledge it is impossible for them to commit any sin.

I sometimes think little children can know the difference between good and evil on an issue before they are 8 years old, but considering how many adults I've seen who don't seem to know the difference between good and evil on some issues I don't think that knowledge comes as "naturally" as some people suppose.

 

I see Cal answered this objection already so i'll just leave it at that.  

[Ahab]

You misunderstand.

I understand what you've been saying and I can see some things that you are either dismissing or failing to realize as truth.

Mortality is the a natural condition for life.

A condition. Not the only condition. Mortality is only a phase and a very small part of what we as eternal beings go through. A transitory experience that Adam and Eve have already gone through.

Human beings and related species have always been mortal.

No, and you're just assuming that other species are related to us (our kind, people) because of similarities you see among species. There are other ways to explain those similarities without assuming we are related.

In fact if we were not mortal we'd soon overrun the earth and deplete all its resources.

Fortunately as an eternal species we have fugured out how to transform and inhabit other planets. Some of us are just not at that phase of our eternal lives yet.

Death is as old as life, and has always been a part of life.

Yes, as a phase or part of it, but we have a way of overcoming it eventually.

You don't need the fall to explain why people die, any more than you need Rudyard Kipling to explain how the camel got his hump.

To comprehend what the atonement is all about we need to realize that there was eternal life before the fall to mortality though. Without comprehending that we have only a partial understanding of all of the life in the universe.

[SeekingUnderstanding]

If I understand you correctly, you are saying that current scientific understanding negates the possibility of the fall. On the other hand, you are saying that while science cannot explain the resurrection it does not necessarily negate the possibility.  Am I understanding you correctly?  I will assume that I am and respond to that.

Close. It's not really the scientific understanding though (sorry it's hard to communicate via forum), but rather the mountain of evidence that the scientific understanding is built on. And here is where we are talking past one another. We agree that a literal fall just like a literal atonement / resurrection go against how things in the natural world (the world accessible to science) work. Accepting that miracles can occur means that we accept that science doesn't and can't have all the answers.

A resurrection defies all of our scientific understanding of how things happen. I agree. But the resurrection of a man 2000 years ago does not require dismissing or reinterpreting any physical evidence or theories. Cell decay, decomposition, the laws of thermodynamics etc. all still act to the laws of science in our everyday life. Religious medical doctors don’t treat disease any different than their non-religious counterparts.

A literal fall is very different. This article dates humans to the Americas to 50,000 years ago. Carbon dating is well understood. It has been used to date various event with a high degree of accuracy going back thousands of years (even biblical events). Accepting a literal fall means that I have to propose that God somehow changed the nuclear decay of the carbon molecule starting about 5000-6000 years ago for some unknown reason.

DNA mutation rates have been studied thoroughly over the last few decades. We are able to test the DNA of samples going back thousands of years. From this we can view mutation rates in certain areas of our genes and how those mutation rates are fairly stable. In order to account for the diversity found in the human genome however, requires our species to be very ancient. Accepting a literal fall requires God to have stepped in and changed the mutation rate at some point in the past for some unknown reason. DNA from Neanderthals is found in most humans across the globe except in parts of Africa. Accepting a literal fall requires me to figure out, one what were the Neanderthals anyway, and two how come their DNA is just in part of the human population.

The fossil record shows the gradual evolution of ape like creatures to human like creatures over the last 6 million years. Accepting a literal fall means that figuring out what to do with this. Did God plant the evidence to test us? The DNA sequences of universal proteins tell us that we evolved from a common ancestor? Accepting a literal fall makes me wonder why God made the all the evidence point that way.

Accepting the atonement means accepting that miracles happen, God exists, and science doesn’t have a full understanding of everything that happens in the world. Accepting a literal fall means accepting that miracles happen, God exists, science doesn’t have a full understanding of everything that happens in the world and it means I must reject all of the evidence across multiple fields and disciplines that point to an ancient earth, common descent,

While the resurrection defies the scientific model (by definition all miracles do), it does not require the dismissal of any physical evidence left behind. Let’s propose that I had a video tape of Christ’s tomb. This video showed Christ’s body being removed by his follower’s and then someone else came in that looked very similar to Christ (with crucifixion wounds) and that this person proceeded to lay down and then to come out of the tomb and claim to be resurrected. Let’s further propose that DNA testing was done on both Christ and this later imposter and this testing showed them to be two different people. Let’s also say that upon further examination of eye witness testimony this imposter’s spear wound was found to be on the wrong side of the body. If I had all of this evidence, I would have a hard time accepting that Christ was really resurrected. Maybe there is some miraculous explanation that explains all of the forensic evidence (his DNA changed because now he is immortal, the eye witnesses were wrong on the location of the spear wound, and the video doesn’t really prove that Christ wasn’t resurrected at all does it).

It is the same with the fall. All the forensic evidence points to no literal fall. In the case of Christ resurrection, there is no forensic evidence to explain away so no problem.

 

You listed a number of scientific fields that all point to a certain conclusion, leaving no room for Adam and Eve.  You would have to completely dismiss mounds of evidence that leave no room for such an event, right?

Its not the scientific fields themselves, but rather the forensic evidence left behind for all to see that points to a certain conclusion.

[CV75]

It is the same with the fall. All the forensic evidence points to no literal fall. In the case of Christ resurrection, there is no forensic evidence to explain away so no problem.

 

Its not the scientific fields themselves, but rather the forensic evidence left behind for all to see that points to a certain conclusion.

I don’t think accepting the scientific evidence that earth life evolved (without any evidence to accept for falling from a terrestrial garden) forces the conclusion that there was no actual Adam and Eve or Fall (I avoid using “literal” because the scriptural record exists, plus is doesn’t mean the same thing as “actual”). The latter could have occurred along a separate track entirely, just as the Atonement and Resurrection, and with as absent forensic evidence.

[VideoGameJunkie]

Aren't we supposed to take the temple video as literal? Otherwise it makes the endowment session pointless to me.

[Ahab]

All the forensic evidence points to no literal fall. In the case of Christ resurrection, there is no forensic evidence to explain away so no problem.

The fall is essentially mortality, but I think I understand what you meant. What scientists should be looking for is evidence that life is eternal with a brief transition to mortality and then back again, but most mortal scientists don't even know where to look for evidence like that and they just assume that mortality is all there is. Edited September 23, 2015 by Ahab

[Ahab]

Aren't we supposed to take the temple video as literal? Otherwise it makes the endowment session pointless to me.

Yes. Just get used to the fact that not everyone takes things as they should.

[pogi]

All the forensic evidence points to no literal fall. In the case of Christ resurrection, there is no forensic evidence to explain away so no problem.

 

I'm not sure what you mean by "forensic evidence" as there was no crime, but I think I understand what you are trying to say. 

 

Are you trying to compare the fall to a criminal case where we have the actual body to examine, and the resurrection to a criminal case where there is no body to examine?

 

In actuality, there is no body in either case.  In other words, there is no primary evidence in either case, only supporting evidence in both cases.  

 

I agree that the practical consequences of an actual Adam would be greater on science than the practical consequences of a resurrection would be on medicine.  You are right that the resurrection would have little to no immediate impact on our practice of medicine.  However, the intellectual revolution and impact on medical theory would be just as great.  

 

In essence, your argument is that the fall is harder to accept practically speaking for science than the resurrection is.  I don't disagree, but that doesn't make it less likely to have occurred, it just makes it harder to accept. 

Edited September 23, 2015 by pogi

[SeekingUnderstanding]

I'm not sure what you mean by "forensic evidence" as there was no crime, but I think I understand what you are trying to say. 

 

Are you trying to compare the fall to a criminal case where we have the actual body to examine, and the resurrection to a criminal case where there is no body to examine?

 

In actuality, there is no body in either case.  In other words, there is no primary evidence in either case, only supporting evidence for both cases.  We would actually need the body of Adam to make a conclusive determination in regards to if we are all related to him or not, and to determine how old he really is, etc. We would need more information to determine what is fact and what is metaphorical or symbolic in genesis.

Close enough. Forensic evidence as in not just a body, but all the circumstantial and other types of physical evidence we would expect to see left behind. Yes we don't have Adam's body, but there is a lot of other circumstantial evidence (fossil record, radiometric dating, dna analysis etc). In Christ's case we have nothing.

 

 

I agree that the practical consequences of an actual Adam would be greater on science than the practical consequences of a resurrection would be on medicine.

That is mainly the point I was trying to make.

 

You are right that the resurrection would have little to no immediate impact on our practice of medicine.  However, the intellectual revolution and impact on medical theory would be just as great.

I'm not sure it would have any impact on medical theory unless we could somehow scientifically tap into the power of the resurrection. We have all types of religious people who study and practice medicine. Their belief in the resurrection does not impact medical theory at all, does it? People who accept miracles believe that there is something that else out there that operates by a different set of rules. Maybe this is just a semantic difference.

 

 

In essence, your argument is that the fall is harder to accept practically speaking than the resurrection is.  I don't disagree, but that doesn't make it less likely to have occurred, it just makes it harder to accept.

Okay I think we understand one another better then.

[Gray]

 

The doctrine that the transgressions of those who aren't accountable (due to age or intellect) are automatically covered by the Atonement is currently taught in lesson manuals of the church.  

 

I found one reference in the D&C and Church History seminary manual from 2013-

 

"The Savior declares that little children and those without understanding are redeemed through His Atonement

 

Explain that in Doctrine and Covenants 29:46–50, we see that the consequences of transgressing God’s laws are different for little children and for others who are not accountable before God."

 

This is in the BOM seminary manual-

 

“We understand from our doctrine that before the age of accountability a child is ‘not capable of committing sin’. During that time, children can commit mistakes, even very serious and damaging ones that must be corrected, but their acts are not accounted as sins” (“Sins and Mistakes,”Ensign,Oct. 1996, 65).

 

Little children are saved through the Atonement of Jesus Christ."

 

Color me surprised. I don't think this teaching has ever been communicated to me. What I've been taught has always been that little children are not accountable because they're incapable of committing sin, as sin requires conscious and informed intent. 

 

Kudos!

[Gray]

This is a pitiful dodge. You can answer my questions ("How..." not "Why..") without denying the doctrines of the Pre-mortal life and the Fall and getting all pseudo-preachy about mortality. Come on!  LOL

 

How is it that mortal babies suffer and die if they are not fallen?

 

How is it that dead babies are resurrected if they were not fallen enough to die?

 

Think: "fallen" as in "fallen from the pre-mortal state of immortality spirit life in the presence of the Father" as synonymous with "mortal."

 

Pick out how 'mortal" is used here: https://www.lds.org/topics/fall-of-adam?lang=eng

 

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.