The universal depravity of the human family

[telnetd]

On 3/25/2023 at 2:21 PM, Benjamin McGuire said:

the way that the Book of Mormon reinterprets the account in Genesis doesn't have to be in complete alignment with the way that LDS members interpret the Genesis narrative

How do you believe the Book of Mormon reinterprets the account in Genesis as it pertains to a literal or
figurative sense?

[Benjamin McGuire]

23 hours ago, telnetd said:

How do you believe the Book of Mormon reinterprets the account in Genesis as it pertains to a literal or figurative sense?

I am not sure that your question makes sense (as far the literal or figurative issue). The Book of Mormon tends to see it as both - it reads it as literal, and interprets it figuratively.

I only suggested that the Book of Mormon interprets the Genesis narrative. One of the things that the Book of Mormon does with the Genesis narrative that has influenced LDS theology is that it extends the idea that Adam and Eve didn't have children in the Garden of Eden to the idea that Adam and Eve couldn't have children in the Garden of Eden. The Book of Mormon suggests that the fall was necessary - that without the fall, God couldn't achieve God's purposes in the 'end of man'. The Book of Mormon takes the fact that Adam and Eve didn't literally die in the day that they ate the fruit and explains why God gave man a mortal lifespan. Lehi connects Satan in the Garden of Eden with Lucifer in Isaiah. And so on. All of this comes into play in terms of the Book of Mormon's theology of the fall and salvation.

In a similar way, Mormonism interprets and builds on the Book of Mormon's theology.

I think that the reason why I brought this up is that we aren't going to get to the heart of LDS views on the Garden of Eden or its place in LDS theology simply by appealing to the Book of Mormon. The Book of Mormon is important. It provides a theological basis for what the LDS Church teaches - but it functions as a starting point, not as an ending point. To get back to the OP - you wrote this:

Quote

 

I found a statement in a church manual which says the human family is not depraved.

...

When I read Mosiah 16:3 however, it describes a universal depravity.

 

Apart from any disagreements with you on specific points of interpretation, I think that there is a larger issue here. Mormonism doesn't (at least not yet) have its own formal systematic theology. So we don't have a formal discussion of doctrinal development within the LDS faith. You shouldn't confuse the fact that there isn't this formal discussion though with the idea that everything is doctrine or theology in the same sense, or that theology within Mormonism is flat (instead of progressive).

Mormonism's current view of the Garden of Eden and the fall of Adam cannot be understood strictly by an appeal to the Book of Mormon. It can only be understood in the context of other LDS teachings about the pre-existence of all mankind, the war in heaven, the dual nature of the atonement, and so on. So when you discuss a teaching of Mormonism and then immediately refer back only to the Book of Mormon, there are going to be inconsistencies - especially if there is no recognition of the ways in which Mormons understand those passages of scripture in light of later teachings and traditions.

[telnetd]

On 3/28/2023 at 12:17 PM, Benjamin McGuire said:

The Book of Mormon takes the fact that Adam and Eve didn't literally die in the day that they ate the fruit and explains why God gave man a mortal lifespan

They did die a spiritual death when they ate - they were separated from God's presence.

 

On 3/28/2023 at 12:17 PM, Benjamin McGuire said:

I think that the reason why I brought this up is that we aren't going to get to the heart of LDS views on the Garden of Eden or its place in LDS theology simply by appealing to the Book of Mormon.

If you look at the Book of Mormon, Pearl of Great Price, and the Doctrine and Covenants, what do
you believe is the historical/literal event which caused the literal Fall?

[Benjamin McGuire]

21 minutes ago, telnetd said:

They did die a spiritual death when they ate - they were separated from God's presence.

Just to be clear, the idea of separation from God's presence equals spiritual death, and that spiritual death is what is referred to in the Genesis account is all much later interpretation. None of these ideas are present in the Genesis account without interpretive overlays. Without interpretation, a literal reading of the Genesis account would suggest that Adam should have died in the day that he ate the fruit. And we should anticipate this, not by some later interpretation of a thousand years, but in the context of a day that we get discussed in the creation narrative - the day separated from the night, and God walking through the Garden of Eden in "the cool of the day". The interpretive readings occur because a literal reading of the text isn't really supportable.

23 minutes ago, telnetd said:

If you look at the Book of Mormon, Pearl of Great Price, and the Doctrine and Covenants, what do you believe is the historical/literal event which caused the literal Fall?

There are clarifications I need from you before I could answer your question. For example, what exactly do you mean by a "literal Fall"? How do you define the fall?

The best that I can offer at the moment is that within LDS theology, the fall (that is, the system of mankind being born into a mortal existence with some degree of agency) begins with the War in Heaven - which is an ahistorical event. I use the term ahistorical here in more than one way. To the extent that it refers to something that really happened, it happened outside of any historical context we could try to create for it (making it ahistorical), and, every description that we have of events in the pre-existence cannot be an accurate accountings of what happened in any historical or literal sense - because none of us have either a memory of such an event or even a way of conceptualizing it - which also makes it ahistorical.

Having said that, some of the same ideas apply to the Adam and Eve narrative. For us to discuss a Garden of Eden at it is presented in Genesis (a context in which there was not yet any death or decay, an indefinite period of time prior to the beginning of death, and so on) we can only put those events into an ahistorical context - especially since I don't accept the ideas encapsulated in young earth creationism.

[telnetd]

On 3/30/2023 at 1:26 PM, Benjamin McGuire said:

There are clarifications I need from you before I could answer your question. For example, what exactly do you mean by a "literal Fall"? How do you define the fall?

By "fall", I mean the historical event on Earth of the separation of Adam and Eve from the presence of God 
that was caused by their disobedience in the Garden.

You mentioned the war in heaven; which you believe was a historical event. 

But what do you believe was the historical event described by Alma 42:9 (Therefore, as the soul could never
die, and the fall had brought upon all mankind a spiritual death as well as a temporal, that is, they were cut
off from the presence of the Lord, it was expedient that mankind should be reclaimed from this spiritual
death")?

[Benjamin McGuire]

24 minutes ago, telnetd said:

By "fall", I mean the historical event on Earth of the separation of Adam and Eve from the presence of God that was caused by their disobedience in the Garden.

I don't believe that this is a historical even on Earth - I don't believe that there is a historical period without death prior to the beginning of the human family on earth.

28 minutes ago, telnetd said:

You mentioned the war in heaven; which you believe was a historical event. 

No, I said that it was an ahistorical event. I even explained what I meant by this.

30 minutes ago, telnetd said:

But what do you believe was the historical event described by Alma 42:9 (Therefore, as the soul could never die, and the fall had brought upon all mankind a spiritual death as well as a temporal, that is, they were cut off from the presence of the Lord, it was expedient that mankind should be reclaimed from this spiritual death")?

I don't believe that this describes a historical event (I am not sure why this is so difficult to understand). My belief is independent of whatever Alma might have believed about it - Alma doesn't have the context that I have - and he simply accepts the Garden of Eden narrative as historical. That doesn't make me obligated to do so. As I pointed out last week:

On 3/28/2023 at 12:17 PM, Benjamin McGuire said:

Mormonism's current view of the Garden of Eden and the fall of Adam cannot be understood strictly by an appeal to the Book of Mormon. It can only be understood in the context of other LDS teachings about the pre-existence of all mankind, the war in heaven, the dual nature of the atonement, and so on. So when you discuss a teaching of Mormonism and then immediately refer back only to the Book of Mormon, there are going to be inconsistencies - especially if there is no recognition of the ways in which Mormons understand those passages of scripture in light of later teachings and traditions.

[telnetd]

On 4/6/2023 at 9:51 AM, Benjamin McGuire said:

My belief is independent of whatever Alma might have believed about it - Alma doesn't have the context that I have - and he simply accepts the Garden of Eden narrative as historical.

Besides Alma, you have Nephi, Helaman, and Moses too.  It seems you don't believe them either.

2 Nephi 2

19 And after Adam and Eve had partaken of the forbidden fruit they were driven out of the garden of
Eden, to till the earth. And now, behold, if Adam had not transgressed he would not have fallen, but he
would have remained in the garden of Eden. And all things which were created must have remained in
the same state in which they were after they were created; and they must have remained forever, and
had no end.

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.

Helaman 14

16 Yea, behold, this death bringeth to pass the resurrection, and redeemeth all mankind from the first
death—that spiritual death; for all mankind, by the fall of Adam being cut off from the presence of the
Lord, are considered as dead, both as to things temporal and to things spiritual.

Moses 5

And Eve, his wife, heard all these things and was glad, saying: Were it not for our transgression we never
should have had seed, and never should have known good and evil, and the joy of our redemption, and
the eternal life which God giveth unto all the obedient.
 

 

Edited April 12, 2023 by Nemesis
Edited out temple content

[Benjamin McGuire]

2 hours ago, telnetd said:

Besides Alma, you have Nephi, Helaman, and Moses too.  It seems you don't believe them either.

I don't disbelieve them. I am simply putting them into a different context - a different level of knowledge - than I exist in. I think that the comparison you are trying to draw is badly flawed. There are a lot of things that we know that people living centuries and even millennia ago didn't know. It is wrong for us to try and push their knowledge into our context or to push our knowledge into their context - as if history is some sort of flat space in which everything is the same. Mormonism claims to provide new information that goes beyond what was previously revealed. It is easy enough to suggest that what Nephi knew, and what Healman knew, and what Moses knew - what they knew was appropriate and true for them within their context. But that doesn't mean that what they knew was an absolutely true understanding any more than I would claim that my understanding is absolutely true and accurate. Mormonism teaches that knowledge is progressive. So if we see a progression in knowledge, it shouldn't throw us for a loop.

We don't teach mathematics by limiting ourselves to texts that are centuries old. Why should we limit ourselves here to what we might label ancient scripture rather than including all that has been taught since the Book of Mormon or the Book of Moses were published? Mormonism has a history of rejecting an overly literal interpretation for the Garden of Eden narratives. If you only want to engage the Book of Mormon, then we can discuss it from the perspective of a Book of Mormon theology. Or a Book of Moses theology. But it won't be the current Mormon theology - and it won't be something that I have to believe accurately reflects Mormon theology. It isn't that I don't believe Nephi, Helaman, or Moses - I just believe that they were working with a very limited and incomplete understanding. I believe that my understanding comes from a point that has progressed beyond what they knew. But I also have the belief that my understanding is limited and incomplete also.

2 hours ago, telnetd said:

I curious though.  Do you wear the garments that resemble the fig leaf aprons that Adam and Eve made for themselves to cover their nakedness in the historical garden of Eden after they disobeyed God's command?

I no interest in discussing LDS temple related things here in this forum. I will point out that I don't feel any need or obligation to understand the Garden of Eden in a literal (as opposed to symbolic) sense because of the LDS temple liturgy.

Edited April 11, 2023 by Benjamin McGuire

[mfbukowski]

16 hours ago, telnetd said:

Do you wear the garments that resemble the fig leaf aprons that Adam and Eve made

Dang we get to wear green shorts now???

Where do we get THOSE??

[CV75]

On 4/11/2023 at 1:37 PM, Benjamin McGuire said:

I don't disbelieve them. I am simply putting them into a different context - a different level of knowledge - than I exist in. I think that the comparison you are trying to draw is badly flawed. There are a lot of things that we know that people living centuries and even millennia ago didn't know. It is wrong for us to try and push their knowledge into our context or to push our knowledge into their context - as if history is some sort of flat space in which everything is the same. Mormonism claims to provide new information that goes beyond what was previously revealed. It is easy enough to suggest that what Nephi knew, and what Healman knew, and what Moses knew - what they knew was appropriate and true for them within their context. But that doesn't mean that what they knew was an absolutely true understanding any more than I would claim that my understanding is absolutely true and accurate. Mormonism teaches that knowledge is progressive. So if we see a progression in knowledge, it shouldn't throw us for a loop.

We don't teach mathematics by limiting ourselves to texts that are centuries old. Why should we limit ourselves here to what we might label ancient scripture rather than including all that has been taught since the Book of Mormon or the Book of Moses were published? Mormonism has a history of rejecting an overly literal interpretation for the Garden of Eden narratives. If you only want to engage the Book of Mormon, then we can discuss it from the perspective of a Book of Mormon theology. Or a Book of Moses theology. But it won't be the current Mormon theology - and it won't be something that I have to believe accurately reflects Mormon theology. It isn't that I don't believe Nephi, Helaman, or Moses - I just believe that they were working with a very limited and incomplete understanding. I believe that my understanding comes from a point that has progressed beyond what they knew. But I also have the belief that my understanding is limited and incomplete also.

I no interest in discussing LDS temple related things here in this forum. I will point out that I don't feel any need or obligation to understand the Garden of Eden in a literal (as opposed to symbolic) sense because of the LDS temple liturgy.

Regarding Abinadi's level of knowledge: since he represents that the ignorant and little children have a part in the first resurrection, or eternal life, isn’t he showing that he understands them to not be lost after all – at least within the timeframe he is speaking to, “since the world began”? Especially since his underlying premise is that God’s redemption was prepared concurrently or prior to that, from the foundation of the world.  As a means to illustrate the concept, he is saying that with no redemption, all mankind would be lost, but since there is one, they are not.

[telnetd]

On 4/11/2023 at 1:37 PM, Benjamin McGuire said:

I don't disbelieve them. I am simply putting them into a different context - a different level of knowledge - than I exist in... Mormonism claims to provide new information that goes beyond what was previously revealed.

Would you provide official LDS Church teachings that reveals this different level of knowledge that you exist in.

[telnetd]

On 4/11/2023 at 1:37 PM, Benjamin McGuire said:

I no interest in discussing LDS temple related things here in this forum. I will point out that I don't feel any need or obligation to understand the Garden of Eden in a literal (as opposed to symbolic) sense because of the LDS temple liturgy.

How do you explain these in a symbolic way?

Moses 4:

13 And the eyes of them both were opened, and they knew that they had been naked. And they
sewed fig leaves together and made themselves aprons.

27 Unto Adam, and also unto his wife, did I, the Lord God, make coats of skins, and clothed them.

[Benjamin McGuire]

1 hour ago, telnetd said:

Would you provide official LDS Church teachings that reveals this different level of knowledge that you exist in.

This idea isn't unique to Mormonism. But Mormonism tends to be unique within Christianity with its expansive view of continuing revelation, which leads to a greater notion of this progressive revelation as explained in doctrinal discussions like this one.

1 hour ago, telnetd said:

How do you explain these in a symbolic way?

There is plenty of discussion at LDS.org about the symbolic meaning of the coat of skins. Not so much for the fig leaves. But it is easy enough to understand as an effort to conceal their (Adam and Eve) own unworthiness. Was this what you were looking for?

[telnetd]

On 4/13/2023 at 2:50 PM, Benjamin McGuire said:

There is plenty of discussion at LDS.org about the symbolic meaning of the coat of skins. Not so much for the fig leaves. But it is easy enough to understand as an effort to conceal their (Adam and Eve) own unworthiness. Was this what you were looking for?

I found it mentioned here: https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/liahona/2022/06/digital-only-young-adults/the-temple-garment-a-sacred-reminder-of-the-lord-jesus-christ?lang=eng.  They are referred to as physical garments.  I would say that the fig leaves represent man's effort
apart from God. 

The article states:

Each of these serves as a reminder pointing us to God. In a similar way, the temple garment serves as a tangible
reminder of our covenant relationship with God the Father, made possible through His Son, Jesus Christ. The
garment is a covering for the most sacred of God’s creations: His children.

But the garment representing the fig leaves is not the one God sanctioned.  It is a reminder of Adam and Eve's
attempt to cover their shame, not some covenant they made with Him.

Why do you feel Adam and Eve were unworthy?

Edited April 15, 2023 by telnetd

[The Nehor]

On 4/12/2023 at 4:33 AM, mfbukowski said:

Dang we get to wear green shorts now???

Where do we get THOSE??

They are on the way.

 

[mfbukowski]

2 hours ago, The Nehor said:

They are on the way.

 

Where the blankety did you find THAT? 🤪

[The Nehor]

7 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

Where the blankety did you find THAT? 🤪

I remembered watching it as a teenager and it seemed to fit so hunted for the clip.

[mfbukowski]

10 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

I remembered watching it as a teenager and it seemed to fit so hunted for the clip.

Impressive.......in a... bent... sort of way! I think similarly but lack your skills!!  🤔😜👍

Edited April 16, 2023 by mfbukowski

[The Nehor]

28 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

Impressive.......in a... bent... sort of way! I think similarly but lack your skills!!  🤔😜👍

If my memory worked that way about everything I would probably be set for life. I can remember an 11 digit code for a game I haven’t played since I was in Middle School (0073735963, yep, still remember it) and will probably be reciting that code into senility but can’t remember much more critical information that played a much bigger impact in my life. Stupid ADHD brain.

[Benjamin McGuire]

On 4/15/2023 at 9:42 AM, telnetd said:

Why do you feel Adam and Eve were unworthy?

I never said that they were. I am relatively indifferent to the idea.

Mormonism has a bit of a split mind on this particular issue. Consider, for example, this statement by Dallin H. Oaks:

Quote

“[The] contrast between a sin and a transgression reminds us of the careful wording in the second article of faith: ‘We believe that men will be punished for their own sins, and not for Adam’s transgression’ (italics added). It also echoes a familiar distinction in the law. Some acts, like murder, are crimes because they are inherently wrong. Other acts, like operating without a license, are crimes only because they are legally prohibited. Under these distinctions, the act that produced the Fall was not a sin—inherently wrong—but a transgression—wrong because it was formally prohibited. These words are not always used to denote something different, but this distinction seems meaningful in the circumstances of the Fall” (in Conference Report, Oct. 1993, 98; or Ensign, Nov. 1993, 73).

And compare that to this entry in the LDS Bible Dictionary:

Quote

The first effect of Adam’s sin was that he was afraid (Gen. 3:10).

Or to this comment by Brigham Young:

Quote

“Some may regret that our first parents sinned. This is nonsense. If we had been there, and they had not sinned, we would have sinned. I will not blame Adam or Eve. Why? Because it was necessary that sin should enter into the world; no man could ever understand the principle of exaltation without its opposite; no one could ever receive an exaltation without being acquainted with its opposite. How did Adam and Eve sin? Did they come out in direct opposition to God and to his government? No. But they transgressed a command of the Lord, and through that transgression sin came into the world. The Lord knew they would do this, and he had designed that they should” (Discourses of Brigham Young, sel. John A. Widtsoe [Salt Lake City: Deseret Book Co., 1941], p. 103).

There are lots of examples on both sides of this sin versus transgression issue. Different people interpret it in different ways depending on how it fits into the their theological perspective on the Garden of Eden. I am simply indifferent to it. From my perspective, the descriptions are figurative - and for me, the important issue here isn't so much that Adam and Eve are responding to a new condition created by their actions - rather, that new condition couldn't occur in the presence of God. Adam and Eve had to leave the Garden of Eden (had to leave the presence of God) to be able to know Good and Evil - to be able to exercise real agency. And part of the Garden of Eden narrative that explores this is the fact that God wasn't present when Adam and Eve ate the fruit of the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil.

But, unworthy? It isn't a description that I would use - it makes no sense to me in the context of the events being described.

Why do you think that God allowed the devil into the Garden of Eden?

[telnetd]

14 hours ago, Benjamin McGuire said:

But, unworthy? It isn't a description that I would use - it makes no sense to me in the context of the events being described.

Why do you think that God allowed the devil into the Garden of Eden?

Back on April 13, you said "There is plenty of discussion at LDS.org about the symbolic meaning of the coat of skins. Not so much
for the fig leaves. But it is easy enough to understand as an effort to conceal their (Adam and Eve) own unworthiness.

What did you mean by calling them unworthy and what act made them unworthy?

Since you view the Garden of Eden narrative in a figurative sense, I don't know how to answer that.
 

14 hours ago, Benjamin McGuire said:

There are lots of examples on both sides of this sin versus transgression issue. Different people interpret it in different ways depending on how it fits into the their theological perspective on the Garden of Eden

What act do you believe caused Adam and Eve to become mortal in the Garden of Eden?
 

[Benjamin McGuire]

35 minutes ago, telnetd said:

What did you mean by calling them unworthy and what act made them unworthy?

That was my way of pointing to the fact that in the Garden of Eden narrative, they saw their own "nakedness" and were ashamed. What I meant to indicate is that in the narrative, they have these feelings of shame and inadequacy and perhaps unworthiness. The way that I understand this is simply that they could not both know good and evil (and knowing in this context isn't simply an academic knowledge) and stand in God's presence while doing so. There is no specific act. It is simply a matter of condition - they are "naked" (which also isn't an act in and of itself, but a condition).

39 minutes ago, telnetd said:

Since you view the Garden of Eden narrative in a figurative sense, I don't know how to answer that.

But, how do you view the Garden of Eden narrative? Do you think it is literal? Do you think it is figurative? Do you not believe it at all?

40 minutes ago, telnetd said:

What act do you believe caused Adam and Eve to become mortal in the Garden of Eden?

I don't believe that Adam and Eve became mortal in the Garden of Eden - because I don't believe that a Garden of Eden ever existed as described in these narratives. But, if I were to try and answer the question in the sense that you ask it, one act that leads to the mortality of Adam and Eve was the decision (choice) made by Adam and Eve to become mortal that was made in the pre-existence, before or in connection with the LDS notion of the war in heaven. This choice is equivalent to the choice of eating the fruit of the tree of knowledge of good and evil in the Garden of Eden narratives.

[telnetd]

On 4/19/2023 at 12:10 PM, Benjamin McGuire said:

But, how do you view the Garden of Eden narrative? Do you think it is literal? Do you think it is figurative? Do you not believe it at all?

I view the creation of the world, Adam being placed in the Garden, and Eve being formed from man as literal.  I am
not LDS, but all the garden reference to events in the Book of Mormon confuse the reader if they never occurred.
For example, 2 Nephi 2:16 makes no sense if the garden's trees are figurative. 
 

On 4/19/2023 at 12:10 PM, Benjamin McGuire said:

I don't believe that Adam and Eve became mortal in the Garden of Eden - because I don't believe that a Garden of Eden ever existed as described in these narratives. But, if I were to try and answer the question in the sense that you ask it, one act that leads to the mortality of Adam and Eve was the decision (choice) made by Adam and Eve to become mortal that was made in the pre-existence

What choice do you believe caused Adam and Eve to become mortal?  And when exactly do you believe
they became mortal?

[Benjamin McGuire]

22 hours ago, telnetd said:

I am not LDS, but all the garden reference to events in the Book of Mormon confuse the reader if they never occurred. For example, 2 Nephi 2:16 makes no sense if the garden's trees are figurative. 

No more so than other events described in scripture which never occurred. It is a problem created by reading scriptural texts in a certain way. But the existence of certain assumptions about scripture that people bring when they read also helps explain why it is so difficult for some people to accept scriptural accounts as figurative or metaphorical.

To explain what I mean, just a little bit, we can look at 2 Nephi 2:16. The reading makes absolute sense if Lehi believes that the garden's trees are literal (even if he is wrong). So I can accept that Lehi believes it is literal, I can also accept that Lehi is wrong about that literal reading, and I can believe that it is figurative. This doesn't surprise me at all, since Nephi's account supposedly was written 2500 years ago. Nephi would have written in a time period between Homer and Herodotus. I don't know if you have read Homer's Iliad, or Herodotus's histories, but I guarantee you that things that they claim as being true history you would find to be based on myth. The Old Testament lots of alleged historical data that is simply wrong, and explanations that involve mythical stories - like, for example, the story of Noah and the flood. You may even view this narrative (of a world-wide deluge) as literal - but there isn't any reason to do so other than a set of beliefs about the nature of scripture and the Bible. There is no question that in the New Testament, writers believed in a literal, world-wide flood (just as Lehi believes in a literal garden of Eden in the Book of Mormon). But it's also true that this is generally rejected as some sort of real occurrence in the history of the earth. This is because not only did we not have a world wide flood, but we have archaeological evidence which directly contradicts such a thing (like the continuous human habitation during the time periods when the flood should have occurred excluding the possibility of such a world wide catastrophic event). If I don't share that set of beliefs about how to read scripture, then I am going to read the text quite differently than you do. In the same way, I have a very hard time understanding why anyone would accept the idea of a literal Garden of Eden. Such a view requires some sort of denial about the history of the natural world including the history of the earth (among other things) as we understand it. Unless I feel a theological need (not a literary need, or a scientific need, but a theological need) to treat a literal reading of scripture as the only real truth, then there isn't any real reason for me to adopt this sort of literal reading as fact - and there isn't any need for me to accept later interpretations of scripture that adopt these literal readings as fact either.

23 hours ago, telnetd said:

What choice do you believe caused Adam and Eve to become mortal?  And when exactly do you believe they became mortal?

Probably (at least in terms of an LDS scriptural source), the best text is from Abraham 3:22-28. In the pre-existence, a proposal was made to test the 'intelligences' that lived with God - to give them mortal bodies and to test them. This leads to the failed insurrection by Lucifer. But it is this choice (to be tested in a mortality) that determines that Adam and Eve (and the rest of humanity) would become mortal. And they become mortal when they are born with a mortal body. When did that happen exactly? Who knows.

How do you reconcile the Garden of Eden (when nothing dies) with an earth that was formed more than four billion years ago, and which has seen death for hundreds of millions of years? What do you make of the evidence that homo-sapiens have been walking around on planet earth for 300,000 years? And if these weren't humans, then what were they?

While Mormonism is unique among Christian sects in its view of a pre-existence and the war in heaven, and so on, the problem of scriptural literalism isn't unique to Mormonism.

[telnetd]

On 4/22/2023 at 2:44 PM, Benjamin McGuire said:

To explain what I mean, just a little bit, we can look at 2 Nephi 2:16. The reading makes absolute sense if Lehi believes that the garden's trees are literal (even if he is wrong). So I can accept that Lehi believes it is literal, I can also accept that Lehi is wrong about that literal reading, and I can believe that it is figurative.

How do you explain the following verses in a figurative sense:

And Eve, his wife, heard all these things and was glad, saying: Were it not for our transgression we never should have
had seed, and never should have known good and evil, and the joy of our redemption, and the eternal life which God
giveth unto all the obedient.

And I, the Lord God, caused a deep sleep to fall upon Adam; and he slept, and I took one of his ribs and closed up the
flesh in the stead thereof; And the rib which I, the Lord God, had taken from man, made I a woman, and brought her
unto the man. And Adam said: This I know now is bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh; she shall be called Woman,
because she was taken out of man.
 

On 4/22/2023 at 2:44 PM, Benjamin McGuire said:

How do you reconcile the Garden of Eden (when nothing dies) with an earth that was formed more than four billion years ago, and which has seen death for hundreds of millions of years? What do you make of the evidence that homo-sapiens have been walking around on planet earth for 300,000 years? And if these weren't humans, then what were they?

I don't believe the earth as we know it is that old. And I don't believe in the infamous chart showing man's evolution
from apes, from one stage to another, getting more upright as we go from left to right.