The fall of Adam and the atonement of Christ are linked together—inseparably, everlastingly, never to be parted.

[JustAnAustralian]

50 minutes ago, california boy said:

So where did the skins of animals in the Garden of Eden come from do you think?

Dead animals.

50 minutes ago, california boy said:

Or are you saying that they received the skins after they left the Garden of Eden?

Genesis and Moses have the skin-coats being given just prior to their eviction. So after the fall.

53 minutes ago, california boy said:

And did the Garden of Eden just disappear?

No. Or at least not according to the Genesis account, in which God "placed at the east of the garden of Eden Cherubims".

 

55 minutes ago, california boy said:

Do members believe there were other humans all around the Garden of Eden dying along with animals?

That would vary from member to member.

 

55 minutes ago, california boy said:

There was just a magical little area where no death was occurring?

The only interactions we see in the scriptural Garden narratives involve God, Satan, Adam, and Eve. Nothing is mentioned about what is happening elsewhere. Though don't forget, God told Adam that he could eat any of the fruit apart from the tree of knowledge of good and evil. Fruit (as with most other things) dies when you eat it. So the text allows for pre-fall death (at least in the case of plants).

[Hamba Tuhan]

5 hours ago, Kevin Christensen said:

In Godel, Escher and Bach, Hofstadter reminds us that "proofs are demonstrations within fixed systems of propositions" ...

This is something I tried desperately to teach my English students when I taught for the Anglican Church. Because they had all completed a full unit of Euclidian geometry in an earlier year, I tried using similar terms: all theorems rest upon postulates. I had some success with that, but it is a real struggle to help people grasp that everything 'known' is only true within an artificial, fixed system of inherently unprovable assumptions.

Quote

Unless, the real priority is to have a problem that one can use to prick the vulnerable bubble of faith and thus be rid of something that one does not want to be burdened with.

This.

In the end, it always comes back to desire.

Edited August 17, 2021 by Hamba Tuhan

[california boy]

4 hours ago, JustAnAustralian said:

Dead animals.

Genesis and Moses have the skin-coats being given just prior to their eviction. So after the fall.

No. Or at least not according to the Genesis account, in which God "placed at the east of the garden of Eden Cherubims".

 

That would vary from member to member.

 

The only interactions we see in the scriptural Garden narratives involve God, Satan, Adam, and Eve. Nothing is mentioned about what is happening elsewhere. Though don't forget, God told Adam that he could eat any of the fruit apart from the tree of knowledge of good and evil. Fruit (as with most other things) dies when you eat it. So the text allows for pre-fall death (at least in the case of plants).

Thanks for your thoughts

[teddyaware]

18 hours ago, Fair Dinkum said:

The church still teaches HERE that the Fall first introduced:

01. Sin

02. Physical Death

03.Spiritual Death

and 

04. The ability to procreate

Into the world.  However the claim that physical death or procreation was first introduced into the world through the fall of man is demonstrably false and can be imperially proven.  There has NEVER been a time on the earth when life has existed and death has not existed nor when live could not reproduced.  So death was NOT introduced on earth through a fall nor was procreation.  These are provably false doctrines. Death has always existed since the very first cell divided or the very first multi cell organism first ceased to exist and procreation since that very first cell divided.  The Fall did not first introduce death nor procreation into the world.

And as Bruce R McConkie so eloquently taught "The fall is the foundation upon which the atonement rests...If there was no fall, there was no need for a Savior"  The whole house of cards come tumbling down.

As a side note I ask the question, Can Christ be omnipotent if He believed and taught the existence of both Adam and Eve and the story of Noah?  Both of these stories are myths.  Why would an all knowing God teach falsehoods and claim them to be real when in fact they were myths?

LDS doctrine is also built on the foundation of an actual Fall.  Without the fall LDS scripture falls apart as well and seem silly.

 

Good for you! You’ve just proven to yourself existence is some kind of weird, highly improbable cosmic accident, and that life is ephemeral, futile and ultimately meaningless. Now go and do whatever you please because there is no punishment for so-called ungodly behavior. You are now free from all restraint and the master of this great secret! Enjoy yourself!

[Fair Dinkum]

19 hours ago, bOObOO said:

Actually, I can demonstrate proof that our spirits are immortal/eternal, by the fact that nobody can prove our spirits will someday cease to exist, or that there was a time when they did not exist.  We can see that spirits separate from the body they occupy, which is what we refer to as death, but even then our spirit continues to live, just as our spirits did before joining its other body.

Yes you can demonstrate proof of death of the physical body, something all life eventually will undergo, but I fail to see your proof for the existence of a spirit that separates from that physical body or that life continues after death.  Where exactly is your proof?  An after life is a matter of faith but it is not based on any physical evidence.  And don't say that Christ's resurrection is that proof...that too is a matter of faith not tangible evidence.

19 hours ago, bOObOO said:

 

So it is a provable claim to say our spirits have always existed,

Ah...saying it is so is not evidence

19 hours ago, bOObOO said:

 

because there is nobody who can prove to the contrary.  And to prove when a spirit has joined with an immortal/eternal other body all we need to see is that it never separates from it, because if it ever does, or did, then that other body was obviously not an immortal/eternal body.

This is just an expression of faith

[Fair Dinkum]

15 hours ago, smac97 said:

From the link you provided:

"In the Garden of Eden."  Not "the world."

"{T}hey {Adam and Eve} experienced spiritual death. They {Adam and Eve} also became mortal —subject to physical death."

I think you mean "empirically" proven, right?

yes sorry, 

15 hours ago, smac97 said:

Also, please cite, chapter and verse, this "claim that physical death or procreation was first introduced into the world through the fall of man."

23 And they would have had no children; wherefore they would have remained in a state of innocence, having no joy, for they knew no misery; doing no good, for they knew no sin. 2 Nephi 2:23

15 hours ago, smac97 said:

I think you are tilting at windmills here.  

An actual "FALL" is critical to the claims of the church.  If it did not occur, then its all for naught

15 hours ago, smac97 said:

I also think you would have a hard time empirically proving what you are saying here.  

I am curious as to your thoughts about the resurrection of Jesus Christ.  Has that been empirically disproven?  If so, how?

I question the reality of an actual resurrection.

 

[Fair Dinkum]

4 hours ago, teddyaware said:

Good for you! You’ve just proven to yourself existence is some kind of weird, highly improbable cosmic accident, and that life is ephemeral, futile and ultimately meaningless. Now go and do whatever you please because there is no punishment for so-called ungodly behavior. You are now free from all restraint and the master of this great secret! Enjoy yourself!

Why would you assume that I would now choose to "...go and do whatever [I] please because there is no punishment for so-called ungodly behavior?"  This seems to be a common trope of believers, that those who lose belief will dive into so called ungodly behaviors?  A little projection perhaps?

[smac97]

1 hour ago, Fair Dinkum said:

Quote

Also, please cite, chapter and verse, this "claim that physical death or procreation was first introduced into the world through the fall of man."

23 And they would have had no children; wherefore they would have remained in a state of innocence, having no joy, for they knew no misery; doing no good, for they knew no sin. 2 Nephi 2:23

"They" = Adam and Eve, right?

You were referencing "physical death or procreation was first introduced into the world..."

Do you see a possibility of a difference between A) the condition of Adam and Even in the Garden, and B) everything and everywhere else in "the world?"

1 hour ago, Fair Dinkum said:

An actual "FALL" is critical to the claims of the church.  If it did not occur, then its all for naught

Yes.  "If."

1 hour ago, Fair Dinkum said:

I question the reality of an actual resurrection.

That's a reasonable question to have.

Thanks,

-Smac

[bOObOO]

2 hours ago, Fair Dinkum said:

Yes you can demonstrate proof of death of the physical body, something all life eventually will undergo, but I fail to see your proof for the existence of a spirit that separates from that physical body or that life continues after death.  Where exactly is your proof?  An after life is a matter of faith but it is not based on any physical evidence.  And don't say that Christ's resurrection is that proof...that too is a matter of faith not tangible evidence.

You will have proof that your spirit will live on after you die, when your spirit has separated from your other body.  I could show you that proof right now if our Father would allow me  or someone else to kill you, but he hasn't allowed that, and likely will not. 

And I think you seeing your own spirit after you die is probably the only proof you will accept.  If you saw someone else's spirit you might think that was an alien being, or someone dressed in a costume, or hokus pokus.  You could imagine a lot of what ifs.

Once you see you for yourself after you die though you will then have scientific evidence which you will see for yourself.  

[Teancum]

On 8/16/2021 at 11:57 AM, CV75 said:

A finer point, this lesson does not refer to ability (never mentions the word) vis-à-vis procreation, but to opportunities, states, and conditions:

• “it gave us the opportunity to be born on the earth”
• “all things which were created must have remained in the same state in which they were after they were created”
• “[Adam and Eve] would have had no children”
• “Adam fell that men might be”
• “we never should have had seed”

I think Adam and Eve were always able to procreate, but were prevented under the terms of the laws of Eden. You seem to be ignoring the impact of spiritual laws on physical laws (and vice-versa, i.e. their interplay) in your analysis.

I’m not seeing how you see Jesus’ omnipotence and presumed lack of sophistication as problematic.

It seems to me that you fail to address any the problem Fair brought up. Procreation and death existed before Adam and Eve (assuming there were such persons which is not likely).  The myth of the fall of man is just that. A myth.  There is no way all humans descended from two people who may have lived 6000 to 10000 years ago.  Not a chance. If there is no fall there is no need for redemption. The natural world is supreme and has existed for billions of years. The natural man is not an enemy to God.  Rather the natural man is man. If there is a God he created us as natural creatures.  

 

Further you propose a premise above that I bolded.  On what do you base the idea that Adam and Eve could always pro create but were forbidden under the laws of Eden?  What it the interplay of physical/naturel laws and spiritual laws and what evidenced do you have for this position?

[ksfisher]

10 minutes ago, Teancum said:

If there is a God he created us as natural creatures.  

You're right, he did create us as natural creatures.  However, He has given us commandments designed to help us to become more (see the parable of the talents).  He has also provided us with a Savior to redeem us from sin and death.

[bOObOO]

48 minutes ago, ksfisher said:

You're right, he did create us as natural creatures.  However, He has given us commandments designed to help us to become more (see the parable of the talents).  He has also provided us with a Savior to redeem us from sin and death.

Whatever we become, we will still be natural creatures.  There is no such thing as super natural, only more or less intelligent natural creatures.  Mother Nature has a husband too.

[california boy]

1 hour ago, Teancum said:

It seems to me that you fail to address any the problem Fair brought up. Procreation and death existed before Adam and Eve (assuming there were such persons which is not likely).  The myth of the fall of man is just that. A myth.  There is no way all humans descended from two people who may have lived 6000 to 10000 years ago.  Not a chance. If there is no fall there is no need for redemption. The natural world is supreme and has existed for billions of years. The natural man is not an enemy to God.  Rather the natural man is man. If there is a God he created us as natural creatures.  

 

Further you propose a premise above that I bolded.  On what do you base the idea that Adam and Eve could always pro create but were forbidden under the laws of Eden?  What it the interplay of physical/naturel laws and spiritual laws and what evidenced do you have for this position?

This latest twist that the Garden of Eden with Adam and Eve in some kind of bubble isn't making much sense to me.  It is estimated that there were between 5 to 10 million humans living throughout the world in 6,000 BC.  So how did what was going on in this bubble called Eden affect those millions of other humans?  It seemed like life was going on just fine for centuries prior to the fall of Adam. How would the world's population have even known this was going on and why would they care?

[CV75]

1 hour ago, Teancum said:

It seems to me that you fail to address any the problem Fair brought up. Procreation and death existed before Adam and Eve (assuming there were such persons which is not likely).  The myth of the fall of man is just that. A myth.  There is no way all humans descended from two people who may have lived 6000 to 10000 years ago.  Not a chance. If there is no fall there is no need for redemption. The natural world is supreme and has existed for billions of years. The natural man is not an enemy to God.  Rather the natural man is man. If there is a God he created us as natural creatures.  

 

Further you propose a premise above that I bolded.  On what do you base the idea that Adam and Eve could always pro create but were forbidden under the laws of Eden?  What it the interplay of physical/naturel laws and spiritual laws and what evidenced do you have for this position?

You haven't explained why I failed, only asserted your seeming bias that only the physical sciences count when assessing the holistic benefits of myths, which is extremely narrow-minded considering what we are given to understand from the sciences of anthropology, sociology, psychology, etc.

If you take Adam and Eve to be purely mythical, the adult man and woman were endowed with every human potential and capacity, including the capacity to procreate, but unable to fully express or fulfil them in their Edenic environment. A scientific correlation might be that you and your wife may be able to procreate, but that "something in the water" - some physical law in operation in your current abode -- prevents you from doing so.

If you consider the principles and generalizations we operate under the knowledge gained by soft sciences as "spiritual" and by the hard sciences as "physical/natural", you might get an inkling of what I am talking about.

[bOObOO]

1 hour ago, Teancum said:

It seems to me that you fail to address any the problem Fair brought up. Procreation and death existed before Adam and Eve (assuming there were such persons which is not likely).  The myth of the fall of man is just that. A myth.  There is no way all humans descended from two people who may have lived 6000 to 10000 years ago.  Not a chance. If there is no fall there is no need for redemption. The natural world is supreme and has existed for billions of years. The natural man is not an enemy to God.  Rather the natural man is man. If there is a God he created us as natural creatures.  

 

Further you propose a premise above that I bolded.  On what do you base the idea that Adam and Eve could always pro create but were forbidden under the laws of Eden?  What it the interplay of physical/naturel laws and spiritual laws and what evidenced do you have for this position?

The issue is simpler than you seem to realize.  Our belief is that all people on this planet descended from 2 people, a man and a woman.  Science demands that both a man and a woman are required to reproduce children, and the man and woman in this case are who we refer to as Adam and Eve.  Even if there were other men and women living at the time when our species began to reproduce on this planet, the first man and woman to reproduce are who we refer to as Adam and Eve and the first child that resulted from their reproduction was a boy who we refer to as Abel.  And then they reproduced another child, and then another one, and another, and another, etc, and later when some of their children grew old enough they also began to reproduce themselves as a man and woman together are wont to do.

Get a handle on that now and then you can ask some questions if you want to.

[OGHoosier]

2 hours ago, Teancum said:

There is no way all humans descended from two people who may have lived 6000 to 10000 years ago.

It depends in what sense you use the word "descended." If you mean that all of mankind emerged from those two ancestors and no others, then I believe you would be correct. However, if by "all humans descended from" you merely mean that all humans are descendants of a particular person, or that particular person is in every person's ancestral tree, then it's actually very likely that one or more individuals in the most recent few thousand years are the progenitors of every human being on earth. See this article in Letters to Nature and this study from Yale. It is certainly plausible (and in fact probable) that the most recent common ancestor of all humanity lived within the past few thousand years.

[JLHPROF]

3 hours ago, Teancum said:

The myth of the fall of man is just that. A myth.  There is no way all humans descended from two people who may have lived 6000 to 10000 years ago. 

Why?
Because today's science says that's how it is and nothing different could ever have been the case?

[Teancum]

On 8/16/2021 at 2:22 PM, CV75 said:

Only God can demonstrate the truth of it to you, through spiritual means. It is provable only on spiritual, and not scientific, terms. I think the reconciliation is to use scientific tools for scientific knowledge, and spiritual tools for spiritual knowledge. Sometimes they may lead to the same conclusion, or supplement each other, but it is more effectual to use the right tool for the right job.

Why is it right to only use spiritual tools for spiritual knowledge whatever that really means.  It seems to me the great cop out of religion  through the ages. Since so much of what religion claims is not testable and lacks evidence there has to be faith and the mysterious way of finding some truth about something.  But as has been demonstrated over and over again is that this is not reliable and results in differing and conflicting answers more often than not.   And here we have people arguing for spiritual confirmation of something that can be proven to be verifiably false by evidence.  So no, "spiritual tools" don't work on the topic of this thread.

[bOObOO]

40 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

Why?
Because today's science says that's how it is and nothing different could ever have been the case?

The math alone is enough to make someone's mouth open wide to say Wow!  Especially with most of us coming from Noah's family line who survived on the ark.  That means most of us billions or maybe even trillions came during the last 5,000 years.

 

 

eta: figuring about 1,000 years between Adam becoming mortal and the flood in Noah's day

Edited August 17, 2021 by bOObOO

[Teancum]

On 8/16/2021 at 4:02 PM, JLHPROF said:

No, to all of this.

Evidence please?

[JLHPROF]

6 minutes ago, Teancum said:

Evidence please?

What evidence of something 6000 years ago would you accept?
It's not like there's direct observation from that time.  Just theory based on data analysis.

 

[The Nehor]

11 hours ago, teddyaware said:

Good for you! You’ve just proven to yourself existence is some kind of weird, highly improbable cosmic accident, and that life is ephemeral, futile and ultimately meaningless. Now go and do whatever you please because there is no punishment for so-called ungodly behavior. You are now free from all restraint and the master of this great secret! Enjoy yourself!

About time! So where are we all meeting for the orgy?

[JLHPROF]

Just now, The Nehor said:

About time! So where are we all meeting for the orgy?

I'll bring the guac!

[Teancum]

22 hours ago, smac97 said:

Quite so.  We none of us can prove or disprove these things.  

Yes we can prove that humans have not descended from two people 8000 or so years ago. We can prove that death and precreation have existed from billions of years before and alleged fall.  We can prove that species have evolved including humans.  You can try to perpetuate your myth by boxing it in to some small garden of Eden and that somehow the laws of nature were suspended for a time but that is not what scriptures teach nor LDS leaders.

 

And no the resurrection  of Christ has not been proven empirically.  

[The Nehor]

Just now, JLHPROF said:

I'll bring the guac!

Someone needs to bring chips then unless you have other plans in which case I like where you are going with this.