Belief In Literal Adam/eve Required To Comprehend Atonement

[CV75]

If you're starting from the assumption that the first humans were immortal, then of course you'd need an explanation for the fallen state of human beings. But there is no evidence that humans were ever immortal, so no need to explain why we're not now since we never were. 

Let's pick up with the questions in #164 and 177. Can you answer them?

[Ahab]

You say you get all that and then I see that it once again flew right over your head. No we have not always been mortal, and your saying that doesn't make it come true. The fall is the event that made our primary parents on this planet become mortal, primary referring to the first of us on this planet who became mortal. Before that event they weren't mortal.

The problem is that is it's verifiably false. Human beings as a species have always been mortal.

See. There you go again. Just asserting as fact that people have always been mortal after I've repeatedly told you that No, on the contrary, we (our kind, people) have not always been mortal. You just refuse to believe it.

Which is why you don't comprehend what the atonement really is.

You don't need the Eden narrative to explain our current state, though.

You do when you don't realize we have not always been mortal.

- are you saying we'll be innocent, not knowing good from evil?

No I was talking about how our bodies will be like the bodies of Adam and Eve were before they fell/became mortal, which is the same kind of body Jesus has now because of his resurrection.

It's an explanation for our current condition, but it doesn't stand up to scientific scrutiny.

I can see that a belief in our fall is a matter of faith for us now since we can't physically see the moment in the past when we fell but it's still true that we can't comprehend the atonement without comprehending the fact that we fell.

Without comprehending what Adam and Eve were like, physically, before they fell we can't comprehend what we will be like when we are restored to their physical prefall condition.

Edited September 24, 2015 by Ahab

[Gray]

See. There you go again. Just asserting as fact that people have always been mortal after I've repeatedly told you that No, on the contrary, we (our kind, people) have not always been mortal. You just refuse to believe it.

 

You can say that all you like, but all the evidence says otherwise. Repeating it over and over again won't make it true.

Which is why you don't comprehend what the atonement really is.

 

I don't believe you need to take literally the Hebrew creation myth in order to comprehend the atonement. 

You do when you don't realize we have not always been mortal.

 

Where is your evidence?

No I was talking about how our bodies will be like the bodies of Adam and Eve were before they fell/became mortal, which is the same kind of body Jesus has now because of his resurrection.

 

But if we're not going to be restored exactly as we supposedly were, then that sort of ruins your point, doesn't it?

I can see that a belief in our fall is a matter of faith for us now since we can't physically see the moment in the past when we fell but it's still true that we can't comprehend the atonement without comprehending the fact that we fell.

 

Faith in that which is objectively false is folly. Positive spirituality doesn't need those kind of blinders. See my signature quote from Joseph Smith.

Without comprehending what Adam and Eve were like, physically, before they fell we can't comprehend what we will be like when we are restored to their physical prefall condition.

 

But as we've already determined, no one thinks we're going to be made like Adam and Eve. In fact, the idea is to be like God. 

[Gray]

Let's pick up with the questions in #164 and 177. Can you answer them?

 

 

I believe I answered both. Your questions in 164 rely on the "begging the question" fallacy. You assume to be true what is in contention - that we were once immortal and so had to "fall" to be what we are today. There is just no evidence to support that idea.

 

In 177, you ask:

 

 

OK show me how a state or condition can exist and change without a formulating event preceding it, and then try to tell me what is being confused.

 

 

 

Again, begging the question. There was no prior immortal state for any physical being on earth. Life has been mortal since the day it emerged. The prior state was non-life. 

[Ahab]

See. There you go again. Just asserting as fact that people have always been mortal after I've repeatedly told you that No, on the contrary, we (our kind, people) have not always been mortal. You just refuse to believe it.

You can say that all you like, but all the evidence says otherwise. Repeating it over and over again won't make it true.

Your idea of "all of the evidence" is actually only the evidence we have from after the fall, some of which is from before the fall but not comprehended correctly by people who incorrectly assume we have always been mortal.

Which is why you don't comprehend what the atonement really is.

I don't believe you need to take literally the Hebrew creation myth in order to comprehend the atonement.

You do when you don't realize we have not always been mortal.

Where is your evidence?

Your own words which show you don't correctly comprehend what the atonement really is.

Question: What will our bodies be like after we are resurrected?

Correct answer: Like the bodies of Adam and Eve before they fell, with no further physical separation/death possible, just like our Lord's body after his resurrection.

But if we're not going to be restored exactly as we supposedly were, then that sort of ruins your point, doesn't it?

My point is that we will be as they were, only with death/mortality/physical separation of our physical bodies from our eternal spirits no longer being possible. We will stay stuck that way this next time.

But as we've already determined, no one thinks we're going to be made like Adam and Eve.

Speak only for yourself and whoever agrees with you.

In fact, the idea is to be like God.

We already are that. I'm talking about having immortal bodies as Adam and Eve once did before they fell to become mortal, and then died, and are now restored to their prefall condition like Jesus was after his resurrection.

[The Nehor]

Question: What will our bodies be like after we are resurrected?

Correct answer: Like the bodies of Adam and Eve before they fell, with no further physical separation/death possible, just like our Lord's body after his resurrection.

This is wrong unless you think we are going back to being sterile sexual innocents, lacking the powers of the Gods, and not being glorified with the glories of exaltation.

The gospel does not lead back to Eden.

[Gray]

Your idea of "all of the evidence" is actually only the evidence we have from after the fall, some of which is from before the fall but not comprehended correctly by people who incorrectly assume we have always been mortal.

 

What good does it do to appeal to evidence that doesn't exist? I can't respond to non-existent evidence.

Your own words which show you don't correctly comprehend what the atonement really is.

Question: What will our bodies be like after we are resurrected?

Correct answer: Like the bodies of Adam and Eve before they fell, with no further physical separation/death possible, just like our Lord's body after his resurrection.

 

That's not really LDS doctrine, though. Adam and Eve would have stayed in the garden forever, childless. And they didn't know good from evil. That's not the kind of afterlife that is taught in church.

My point is that we will be as they were, only with death/mortality/physical separation of our physical bodies from our eternal spirits no longer being possible. We will stay stuck that way this next time.

Speak only for yourself and whoever agrees with you.

We already are that. I'm talking about having immortal bodies as Adam and Eve once did before they fell to become mortal, and then died, and are now restored to their prefall condition like Jesus was after his resurrection.

 

Again, this seems to be your private interpretation. That's fine, but why tell me I "don't understand the doctrine" if you're going to go outside of the doctrine to explain yourself?

[Ahab]

This is wrong unless you think we are going back to being sterile sexual innocents, lacking the powers of the Gods, and not being glorified with the glories of exaltation.

The only reason they couldn't have children before they fell/became mortal was because they didn't know how. They didn't know what to do with their equipment. They didn't think "Hey that would be a good thing to do!" They didn't have ANY knowledge of good or evil, at least not anything they could remember. They didn't even know the difference between God (our Father) and Satan (our very bad and evil brother).

But physically they were fine. They were immortal with perfectly good bodies. They just didn't know or remember much. What they had known before Eden was being withheld from their memory by...whoever or whatever it was.

The gospel does not lead back to Eden.

We were immortal and we are going to be going back to being immortal. And our immortality in the flesh will last forever and ever this next time.

[jkwilliams]

The only reason they couldn't have children before they fell/became mortal was because they didn't know how. They didn't know what to do with their equipment. They didn't think "Hey that would be a good thing to do!" They didn't have ANY knowledge of good or evil, at least not anything they could remember. They didn't even know the difference between God (our Father) and Satan (our very bad and evil brother).

But physically they were fine. They were immortal with perfectly good bodies. They just didn't know or remember much. What they had known before Eden was being withheld from their memory by...whoever or whatever it was.

We were immortal and we are going to be going back to being immortal. And our immortality in the flesh will last forever and ever this next time.

 

All of this is pure speculation with no basis in the doctrines of the church.

[Ahab]

All of this is pure speculation with no basis in the doctrines of the church.

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

I'm done throwing pearls now.

Have fun, you guys.

[jkwilliams]

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

I'm done throwing pearls now.

Have fun, you guys.

 

In other words, you can't back up your speculations. Fair enough.

[ERayR]

In other words, you can't back up your speculations. Fair enough.

 

I take him at his word and he has seen the futility of "casting pearls". 

[jkwilliams]

I take him at his word and he has seen the futility of "casting pearls". 

 

If what he said was church doctrine, he could show it easily. He didn't, and I don't think it's because I'm swine and can't handle the doctrine.

[Ahab]

If what he said was church doctrine, he could show it easily. He didn't, and I don't think it's because I'm swine and can't handle the doctrine.

This is actually very basic doctrine of the Church and it is very easy to find. Just because I'm not going to throw any more pearls on this issue for now in this thread doesn't mean you can't find them yourself if you want to find them. You really don't need me for that. And what you will do with them is your business.

[CV75]

I believe I answered both. Your questions in 164 rely on the "begging the question" fallacy. You assume to be true what is in contention - that we were once immortal and so had to "fall" to be what we are today. There is just no evidence to support that idea.

 

In 177, you ask:

Again, begging the question. There was no prior immortal state for any physical being on earth. Life has been mortal since the day it emerged. The prior state was non-life. 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

Very straightforward questions which you dodged.

 

Then from #177, your reply was:

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

 

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

 

Very straightforward request.

[jkwilliams]

This is actually very basic doctrine of the Church and it is very easy to find. Just because I'm not going to throw any more pearls on this issue for now in this thread doesn't mean you can't find them yourself if you want to find them. You really don't need me for that. And what you will do with them is your business.

 

CFR. If it is church doctrine that the only reason that Adam and Eve couldn't have children is that they didn't know how, it should be pretty easy to find a reference.

Edited September 24, 2015 by jkwilliams

[JLHPROF]

This is wrong unless you think we are going back to being sterile sexual innocents, lacking the powers of the Gods, and not being glorified with the glories of exaltation.

The gospel does not lead back to Eden.

 

Nope.  That is not an accurate description of Adam and Eve prior to the fall.  (And the gospel absolutely leads to an Eden, just not the original).

 

The only reason they couldn't have children before they fell/became mortal was because they didn't know how. They didn't know what to do with their equipment. They didn't think "Hey that would be a good thing to do!" They didn't have ANY knowledge of good or evil, at least not anything they could remember. They didn't even know the difference between God (our Father) and Satan (our very bad and evil brother).

 

Well now that's not accurate either. 

 

CFR. If it is church doctrine that the only reason that Adam and Eve couldn't have children is that they didn't know how, it should be pretty easy to find a reference.

 

One person is saying that Adam and Eve in the garden were sterile sexual innocents.

The other is saying that Adam and Eve in the garden weren't sterile but just didn't know how to have sex.

 

Neither is remotely established in doctrine, and both go contrary to the teachings of the temple.

 

And we are still acting as if the fall was a mistake instead of the plan.  The scriptures, the temple, and common sense both make very clear that the fall was God's plan from the beginning and there was never another path to follow.

[Ahab]

Nope. That is not an accurate description of Adam and Eve prior to the fall. (And the gospel absolutely leads to an Eden, just not the original).

Well now that's not accurate either.

One person is saying that Adam and Eve in the garden were sterile sexual innocents.

The other is saying that Adam and Eve in the garden weren't sterile but just didn't know how to have sex.

Neither is remotely established in doctrine, and both go contrary to the teachings of the temple.

And we are still acting as if the fall was a mistake instead of the plan. The scriptures, the temple, and common sense both make very clear that the fall was God's plan from the beginning and there was never another path to follow.

Just once I'd like to see somebody else on this board show me that they comprehend this issue as accurately and as well as I do

Somebody else besides me and other than God.

Is that really too much to ask for around here?

Sheesh.

Oh well, we each have our own opinions and I for one am thankful for the understanding God has given to me regardless of how many people disagree with me and God.

[jkwilliams]

Just once I'd like to see somebody else on this board show me that they comprehend this issue as accurately and as well as I do

Somebody else besides me and other than God.

Is that really too much to ask for around here?

Sheesh.

Oh well, we each have our own opinions and I for one am thankful for the understanding God has given to me regardless of how many people disagree with me and God.

I will simply repeat my CFR.

[CV75]

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.

Here's another way to look at the issue:

 

The fire company puts out a house fire after the structure experienced a confluence of proximate heat, oxygen and its combustible materials. But there had to be an actual ignition event. The fire company is the Savior performing the Atonement, the burning house fallen man, and the actual ignition he Fall. There is no such thing as a conceptual or allegorical ignition creating the fire.

 

The lifeguard (Savior) rescues (answers the call) a drowning (fallen) man after he experienced a confluence of his face with water. The had to be an actual inspiration of water (fall) to create his drowning condition.

[HappyJackWagon]

This is actually very basic doctrine of the Church and it is very easy to find. Just because I'm not going to throw any more pearls on this issue for now in this thread doesn't mean you can't find them yourself if you want to find them. You really don't need me for that. And what you will do with them is your business.

Good grief, Ahab.

 

Someone doesn't agree with you so you call them swine who are unworthy of you offering supporting evidence of your position. Interesting. You just flushed any credibility you had down the toilet with that little tantrum.

[HappyJackWagon]

Here's another way to look at the issue:

 

The fire company puts out a house fire after the structure experienced a confluence of proximate heat, oxygen and its combustible materials. But there had to be an actual ignition event. The fire company is the Savior performing the Atonement, the burning house fallen man, and the actual ignition he Fall. There is no such thing as a conceptual or allegorical ignition creating the fire.

 

The lifeguard (Savior) rescues (answers the call) a drowning (fallen) man after he experienced a confluence of his face with water. The had to be an actual inspiration of water (fall) to create his drowning condition.

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

 

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

[Ahab]

I will simply repeat my CFR.

As I said, you can find these pearls for yourself without my help, but since you seem like maybe you want to comprehend and just can't try considering the idea that what they gained that gave them the ability to create children was the knowledge of good and evil rather than the physical equipment to do it.

 

Please answer the CFR or move on.  - Ares

[jkwilliams]

As I said, you can find these pearls for yourself without my help, but since you seem like maybe you want to comprehend and just can't try considering the idea that what they gained that gave them the ability to create children was the knowledge of good and evil rather than the physical equipment to do it.

 

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

[mnn727]

Not a requirement at all - at least for me.