The universal depravity of the human family

[telnetd]

22 hours ago, Benjamin McGuire said:

But most people do. Why? Because we have reasonable evidence for populations that existed in the same place before, during, and after the alleged universal flood. That is, we can find evidence for far more people than 8 (and their subsequent descendants) being alive when they couldn't have been according to your reading of the biblical text.

So this brings up the next question here - how much scientific knowledge are you prepared to claim must be wrong as part of your preference for reading the biblical text in a literal way?

Is there any way for you to have your belief falsified or contradicted in a meaningful way?

You have too much faith in science instead of a simple reading of the Bible.  I doubt you are a Latter-day Saint.

[telnetd]

21 hours ago, Benjamin McGuire said:

*shrug*

Why don't we start with this one. 1987 Ensign:

If you want to discuss dinosaurs or light from distant stars, you should open up a new
thread.  We are talking about the Fall here.

So I try my question again.  Do you believe or reject this LDS church teaching, from the
1994 Ensign?

In the morn of creation, Adam, Eve, and all forms of life existed in a paradisiacal 
condition. All things were physical. They were spiritual in the sense that they were 
not mortal, not subject to death. 

After taking physical bodies, Adam and Eve brought mortality into being through 
partaking of the fruit of the tree of knowledge of good and evil. With the fall of 
our first parents came blood and posterity and probation and death, as well as the 
need for redemption through a Savior, a “last Adam.”

[Benjamin McGuire]

22 minutes ago, telnetd said:

For #1, it depends on the text. 

It can't simply depend on the text. Texts are always interpreted - and there are rules that we apply when we interpret texts that generally result in our having consistent interpretations. I want to know what your rules are. Your simply saying that it depends on the text means that your rules for separating figurative and literal readings are purely arbitrary. And, frankly, I don't believe that they are - I believe that you have a consistent approach to the text and I am trying to get you to articulate it.

24 minutes ago, telnetd said:

For #2, I am not knowledgeable enough to speculate on what the universe was like before God created earth.

And yet you are speculating:

On 4/26/2023 at 3:38 PM, telnetd said:

I don't believe the earth as we know it is that old.

What is the basis for your speculation? And in this context, are you suggesting that it is appropriate to believe that all of the science that we have that details the age of the universe, the age of the earth, and so on is simply wrong - even though, as you suggest, you are "not knowledgeable enough to speculate"?

43 minutes ago, telnetd said:

You have too much faith in science instead of a simple reading of the Bible.  I doubt you are a Latter-day Saint.

Oh, I am very much a Latter-day Saint. And I have certainly read the Bible (while I don't know biblical Greek, I did learn biblical Hebrew back in my early years). None of these things are actually an issue - unless you start from certain preconceptions that aren't themselves biblical. I can read the Bible and come to a wildly different interpretation than you come to - but the question of which interpretation is valid isn't a question that the Bible itself can answer. And in this sense, there isn't a "simple reading of the Bible." I am trying to come to some understanding of the assumptions that you bring to the text when you read it.  But it is hard to get there if you want to keep insisting that you aren't doing this at all.

44 minutes ago, telnetd said:

If you want to discuss dinosaurs or light from distant stars, you should open up a new thread.  We are talking about the Fall here.

No. These things are all a part of the question of the fall. You are the one who is asserting a specific context for the fall - when it happened, how it happened, what changed when it happened. All of these other things are evidence against your claims. And so they belong to this discussion.

46 minutes ago, telnetd said:

So I try my question again.  Do you believe or reject this LDS church teaching, from the 1994 Ensign?

I don't have to do either. This isn't a formal teaching of the LDS Church. It isn't written by an LDS General Authority. It certainly isn't a statement of LDS doctrine. One statement that discusses this sort of thing is this one, published by the LDS Church:

Quote

There are many subjects about which the scriptures are not clear and about which the Church has made no official pronouncements. In such matters, one can find differences of opinion among Church members and leaders. Until the truth of these matters is made known by revelation, there is room for different levels of understanding and interpretation of unsettled issues.

This is why LDS members can find competing theories and ideas without feeling constrained to adopt one side or the other.

How about you? What is your religious tradition, and what authorities do you accept apart from the scriptures that you recognize?

[Calm]

3 hours ago, telnetd said:

doubt you are a Latter-day Saint.

You are wrong then.  He is.

While FAIR has had nonmembers speak at their conferences, we don’t have people speak who claim to be Saints who aren’t in reality.

https://www.fairlatterdaysaints.org/authors/mcguire-ben

Edited May 4, 2023 by Calm

[telnetd]

On 5/4/2023 at 12:32 PM, Benjamin McGuire said:

What is the basis for your speculation? And in this context, are you suggesting that it is appropriate to believe that all of the science that we have that details the age of the universe, the age of the earth, and so on is simply wrong - even though, as you suggest, you are "not knowledgeable enough to speculate"?

There are several sources for a young earth. https://answersingenesis.org/evidence-for-creation/10-best-evidences-young-earth/
is one of them.
 

On 5/4/2023 at 12:32 PM, Benjamin McGuire said:

These things are all a part of the question of the fall. You are the one who is asserting a specific context for the fall - when it happened, how it happened, what changed when it happened. All of these other things are evidence against your claims. And so they belong to this discussion.

I think you mentioned before that you believe Adam and Eve were already mortal when they were
created.

What is your understanding of "Adam fell that men might be?"
 

On 5/4/2023 at 12:32 PM, Benjamin McGuire said:

How about you? What is your religious tradition, and what authorities do you accept apart from the scriptures that you recognize?

I accept any Christian-based teaching that can be proven from the scripture. I used to be Roman
Catholic and then left because of the Marian doctrines and the church's teaching on purgatory.

[Benjamin McGuire]

1 hour ago, telnetd said:

There are several sources for a young earth. https://answersingenesis.org/evidence-for-creation/10-best-evidences-young-earth/ is one of them.

I'm sorry that you think so, but it isn't.

I'll give an example. The first point that this website makes is that the way that sediments build up in the ocean is inconsistent with an old earth. I am old enough now, that when I was in grade school, the idea of continental drift was being taught. It has since been replaced with plate tectonics. Much of this has occurred in my lifetime because our technology has improved to the point that we understand how the surface of the earth moves over time. The earliest ideas (that were responsible for much of the idea in continental drift) revolved around fossil life (as do some of the articles linked at the website you provide).  Plate tectonics is largely based on magnetic fields. Magnetic fields in the earth change over time, and we can map those changes in the ocean floor - showing how the crustal plates of the earth are both spreading apart in places and moving together in places, but also about where those parts of the sea floor were relative to the poles. To create this sort of map of the sea floor, assuming a young earth creation - would require the earth to have experienced thousands of magnetic pole reversals in a few thousand years - as well as cataclysmic continental shifts - and not over a short period of time, but as consistent movements over the entire history of the earth. These studies tend to focus only on the data that can make a young earth plausible - and they ignore the data that makes it impossible.

The third link in particular is fascinating. It mentions:

Quote

Why are these ranges still here today if they are so old? After all, rates of erosion are fast in mountainous regions, with erosion rates as high as 1,000 mm per thousand years in the Himalayas.

It does seem to recognize part of the problem that this claim is faced with. After all, the Himalays are continuing their upward climb (the plate underneath India is moving under the plate under China at a speed of about 2 inches per year). In trying to correct for this, the article claims that

Quote

Geologists often maintain that mountains still exist because uplift is constantly renewing them from below. However, even though mountains are still rising, the process of uplift and erosion could not continue long without eradicating ancient sedimentary layers contained in the mountains.

In contrast to their claims, where I live in Michigan, we have some fascinating features that are exactly what they describe. The geological term for this is called an unconformity (yes, its a highly original term). Hundreds of millions of years ago, most of Michigan was a shallow inland sea, in a subtropical climate. The shallow inland sea left a lot of sediment at the bottom, which over time turned into shale. The shale layer in my neck of the woods is hundreds of feet thick (which makes drilling for wells a problem in certain places - since you have to drill beneath the shale layer). At any rate, in places, the glaciers from the last ice age carved all of the sediment accumulation off of these shale formations, exposing a bedrock that is hundreds of millions of years old. I can walk down to Lake Michigan in certain places and see this exposed bedrock along side the sediment that has built up over the past 30,000 years or so. This means that the processes of erosion has cleared out 300 million years or so of sediment deposit in places just as predicted - leaving exposed even older sediment.

I note that I probably wouldn't know much about this at all if I didn't have a son who graduated from Michigan Tech with a degree in geophysics and encouraged me to take college courses on geology in my old age (which I did).

But that brings up something else which is specific to the region where I live: glacial rebound. Glacial ice reaches a maximum thickness at about 4 kilometers deep (after this, the weight tends to force the ice into a more liquid state of sorts, and it spreads at the same rate that it accumulates). The weight though, of 4 kilometers of ice is sufficient to depress the earth's crust underneath it. And when glaciers melt and retreat, they disappear faster than the earth can decompress. The Great Lakes area had huge glaciers - and the last of these glaciers disappeared thousands of years ago. But, the decompression hasn't ended. Parts of Michigan are continuing to rise (getting higher above sea level) - due to this rebound. And this change occurs at predictable rates (that vary depending on the time frame of the most recent glacier and the depth of the ice that was there). The challenge for young earth creationism is that this process takes tens of thousands of years to complete (after the ice has gone). The southern most parts of the last glacial period have returned to their normal state and have stopped moving, but the northern parts of Michigan have not. These do provide the same sort of millions and billions of years time frame that we see in the bedrock formation here, but they do provide relatively accurate understandings of what was happening to the surface of the earth here over the last 45,000 years.

None of this changes the underlying problem - that your link points out:

Quote

In one sense, God’s testimony is all we need; but God Himself tells us to give reasons for what we believe (1 Peter 3:15). So it is also important to conduct scientific research (that is part of taking dominion of the earth, as Adam was told to do in Genesis 1:28).

The issue is that the process at that website starts with a specific interpretation of scripture. And then it tries to force everything to conform to that interpretation. The question that you and I are dealing with is why that interpretation should be preferred to begin with. And your link doesn't offer us an answer to that question. Why shouldn't we take the scientific evidence - which becomes more and more difficult to put aside (and perhaps this is part of the reason why certain types of religious belief is in decline) and use that evidence to reframe the way that we interpret the scriptural text?

1 hour ago, telnetd said:

I think you mentioned before that you believe Adam and Eve were already mortal when they were created.

What is your understanding of "Adam fell that men might be?"

No, I never said that Adam and Eve were already mortal when they were created. LDS thought expresses the idea that Adam and Eve were created (or 'organized') in a pre-existence Mormonism does not believe that humans are created when they are conceived (or at some point after conception). What I said was: "they become mortal when they are born with a mortal body."

Do you believe that 2 Nephi 2:25 is scripture? If not, then why does it matter what my understanding is? This is, I think, a very different sort of theological debate. Christianity is very much divided over some of the issues that are linked to this. Unlike much of the rest of Christianity, the LDS Church teaches that there is a finite and pre-determined number of spirits who will be born into mortality (into physical bodies) here on earth. Creation of these spirits doesn't come at conception. And consequently, within Mormonism, Adam doesn't fall and take all of subsequent humanity with him. Instead, we all fall (in that we become mortal) and go through a probationary state, and then return to God's presence from whence we came.

As I have repeated now more than once - Lehi, in 2 Nephi 2, is expanding the idea of creation from the account in Genesis. But, we don't believe that Lehi's account was complete, or finished, or somehow a full understanding of what happened. And so I understand 2 Nephi 2 as a step in the development of the LDS understanding of salvation and the purposes of mortality. I also expect that the current LDS understanding is, itself, incomplete and that we may receive additional light and knowledge on that topic in the future.

In that light, if we view Adam as the father of the human family, and he is the first of God's children to have his spirit put into a mortal body, then his 'fall' starts the process by which the rest of humanity is born into mortality. And Adam's fall is seen in that light as necessary, and a part of God's plan.

1 hour ago, telnetd said:

I accept any Christian-based teaching that can be proven from the scripture. I used to be Roman Catholic and then left because of the Marian doctrines and the church's teaching on purgatory.

And see, here again we still have this problem of interpretation. You don't really mean "that can be proven from the scripture" - you mean "that can be proven from the scripture using a model of interpretation that I believe is true."

And perhaps this is the root of the difficulty here. You want me to conform to your personal understanding of appropriate interpretation - and it seems pretty clear that I don't.

As a believing LDS member, I tend to have an entirely different approach to scripture - as offered by the Book of Mormon:

1 Nephi 15:7-8

Quote

And they said: Behold, we cannot understand the words which our father hath spoken concerning the natural branches of the olive tree, and also concerning the Gentiles. And I said unto them: Have ye inquired of the Lord?

1 Nephi 19:23

Quote

But that I might more fully persuade them to believe in the Lord their Redeemer I did read unto them that which was written by the prophet Isaiah; for I did liken all scriptures unto us, that it might be for our profit and learning.

And I suppose that this is the real value in the belief that there is continuing revelation. The revelation that is most important to us, in this view, is the one that God gives us personally.

Edited May 8, 2023 by Benjamin McGuire

[telnetd]

On 5/8/2023 at 12:48 PM, Benjamin McGuire said:

the LDS Church teaches that there is a finite and pre-determined number of spirits who will be born into mortality (into physical bodies) here on earth

Which teaching says it is a finite and pre-determined number?
 

On 5/8/2023 at 12:48 PM, Benjamin McGuire said:

In that light, if we view Adam as the father of the human family, and he is the first of God's children to have his spirit put into a mortal body, then his 'fall' starts the process by which the rest of humanity is born into mortality.

How do you believe Adam's "fall" started?

Here is another one of the doctrines taught by the church.

https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/manual/doctrines-of-the-gospel-student-manual/8-the-fall?lang=eng

“Adam had a spiritual body until mortality came upon him through the violation of the 
law under which he was living, but he also had a physical body of flesh and bones".

What law do you believe was violated which caused mortality to come upon Adam?

Edited May 12, 2023 by telnetd

[Benjamin McGuire]

1 hour ago, telnetd said:

Which teaching says it is a finite and pre-determined number?

We start with this:

Quote

The written standards of scripture show that all people who come to this earth and are born in mortality, had a pre-existent, spiritual personality, as the sons and daughters of the Eternal Father. … Jesus Christ was the first-born. A spirit born of God is an immortal being. When the body dies, the spirit does not die. In the resurrected state the body will be immortal as well as the spirit.

We add this:

Quote

The time for the Second Coming of Christ is as fixed and certain as was the hour of his birth. It will not vary as much as a single second from the divine decree. He will come at the appointed time. The Millennium will not be ushered in prematurely because men turn to righteousness, nor will it be delayed because iniquity abounds.

And finally, it is worth mentioning this (Abraham 3:22-23):

Quote

Now the Lord had shown unto me, Abraham, the intelligences that were organized before the world was; and among all these there were many of the noble and great ones; And God saw these souls that they were good, and he stood in the midst of them, and he said: These I will make my rulers; for he stood among those that were spirits, and he saw that they were good; and he said unto me: Abraham, thou art one of them; thou wast chosen before thou wast born.

So, we have the teaching that all of the spirits that would be born into mortal bodies were created as spirits before creation began, and that there is a fixed beginning and a fixed ending to the period when these spirits are being born. And this leads to the conclusion that there are a fixed number of people who will be born on this earth, and that number was set before creation began.

1 hour ago, telnetd said:

How do you believe Adam's "fall" started?

Here is another one of the doctrines taught by the church.

https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/manual/doctrines-of-the-gospel-student-manual/8-the-fall?lang=eng

“Adam had a spiritual body until mortality came upon him through the violation of the 
law under which he was living, but he also had a physical body of flesh and bones".

What law do you believe was violated which caused mortality to come upon Adam?

Adam chose to become mortal. The Book of Abraham declares that this choice occurred in the pre-existence (and the choice was involved with the idea of the war in heaven). This decision to become mortal is reflected figuratively in Adam's decision to eat the fruit of the tree of knowledge of good and evil. However, within LDS belief, this decision was made by every member of the human family:

Quote

Agency was one of the principal issues to arise in the premortal Council in Heaven. It was one of the main causes of the conflict between the followers of Christ and the followers of Satan.

As far as the violation of the law goes, this is a Joseph Fielding Smith thing. And, to be honest, I have no idea what he meant by it - other than he connects this directly to the eating of the fruit (he tended to read the text of Genesis 1-3 literally).  He also made it clear that in his view, transgression should not be understood as a sin, and by it he seems to mean only that Adam and Eve made a conscious decision to transition to mortality. This was important to Joseph Fielding Smith, who spent much of his life theologically engaging young earth creationism and debating other leaders of the LDS Faith over the question of the age of the earth. His arguments are not convincing to me. In the same publication that your citation comes from, Joseph Fielding Smith also notes this:

Quote

My words, and the teachings of any other member of the Church, high or low, if they do not square with the revelations, we need not accept them. Let us have this matter clear. We have accepted the four standard works as the measuring yardsticks, or balances, by which we measure every man’s doctrine

Mormons routinely refer to non-scriptural texts for convenience - I do it here, because it is easier for me to provide links and statements that provide what I want to convey without my needing to express it in my own language. My own personal views are often much more nuanced than the sources that I use (or that you quote). But this doesn't mean that texts like this are authoritative in the sense that members of the LDS Church are required to hold these beliefs. They are not recognized by the LDS Church as official sources of doctrine. So when you keep asking me to comment on them, for all intents and purposes, there isn't any sort of need for me to reconcile my own approach to match these sources. And I certainly don't mind having a different view from Joseph Fielding Smith. Other LDS Church leaders also had very different views. And I find it something of a challenge that you are simply cherry picking the quotes (google is your friend, right?) that provide a single point of view out of an entire spectrum of beliefs held and taught by various members and leaders of the LDS Church.

I do not need to bring them into harmony, or to try and unify the entire breadth of Mormon thought. I find that there is strength in the diversity of perspectives.

[telnetd]

On 5/12/2023 at 7:49 PM, Benjamin McGuire said:

And I find it something of a challenge that you are simply cherry picking the quotes (google is your friend, right?) that provide a single point of view out of an entire spectrum of beliefs held and taught by various members and leaders of the LDS Church.

I do not need to bring them into harmony, or to try and unify the entire breadth of Mormon thought. I find that there is strength in the diversity of perspectives.

I don't use Google  🙂   There is enough in LDS teachings (past and present) which reveals the diversity of
perspectives.

The church uses the term "figuratively" in the Garden of Eden narrative but then depicts literal trees in its
teachings.

https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/manual/old-testament-student-manual-genesis-2-samuel/genesis-3-the-fall?lang=eng
https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/manual/the-pearl-of-great-price-student-manual-2018/the-book-of-moses/moses-4-20-32?lang=eng

You mentioned earlier that Adam chose mortality in the pre-existence.  However, the church teaches in its
POGP student manual that “It was Eve who first transgressed the limits of Eden in order to initiate the conditions
of mortality".

In this same manual, a literal tree is also depicted.

[Benjamin McGuire]

3 minutes ago, telnetd said:

In this same manual, a literal tree is also depicted.

And?

The Church in places teaches that the tree is figurative. There is a scriptural passage which makes this argument in 1 Nephi 11. There is a separate issue (I noted this in another thread) in that there is a tree in this text. And there isn't any reason to think that Nephi didn't see a tree. But what the text suggests is that the tree has a symbolic meaning. And it is this meaning that is important, not its representation as a tree.

The way that LDS read this stuff is, to a large extent, merely a matter of personal preference. And it is obvious from the contributors on this forum that there are plenty of believing LDS who take a very different approach from mine.

My issue with your presentation remains. Why is it that you are focused exclusively on what you see as literal interpretations as opposed to the spectrum of belief? Why should it matter to me if, in some places, the LDS Church material discusses the text as literal, when there is no authoritative or doctrinal requirement that would require one reading over another?

My earlier question to you really remains unanswered. What are the rules of interpretation that you use when reading the text of the Bible that determine when the text should be understood literally, and when it should be understood figuratively?

[InCognitus]

On 5/15/2023 at 9:37 AM, telnetd said:

The church uses the term "figuratively" in the Garden of Eden narrative but then depicts literal trees in its
teachings.

https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/manual/old-testament-student-manual-genesis-2-samuel/genesis-3-the-fall?lang=eng
https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/manual/the-pearl-of-great-price-student-manual-2018/the-book-of-moses/moses-4-20-32?lang=eng

You mean, like these depictions too?

Do you also think the church teaches that the iron rod is a literal iron rod, and the great and spacious building is a literal building?  (If you say "yes", then you really need to read 1 Nephi 8, and 11-14 again). 

[telnetd]

12 hours ago, InCognitus said:

Do you also think the church teaches that the iron rod is a literal iron rod, and the great and spacious building is a literal building?  (If you say "yes", then you really need to read 1 Nephi 8, and 11-14 again).

According to the introductory notes of 1 Nephi 8, "Lehi sees a vision of the tree of life".  In the vision,
they are literal.  Adam and Eve were in a literal garden with literal trees.  The account is not figurative.

[telnetd]

On 5/15/2023 at 11:56 AM, Benjamin McGuire said:

My earlier question to you really remains unanswered. What are the rules of interpretation that you use when reading the text of the Bible that determine when the text should be understood literally, and when it should be understood figuratively?

I think if the passage can be explained in a literal way, then we should go with a literal explanation.

You mentioned earlier that Adam chose mortality in the pre-existence.

What do you think of the church's teaching in the POGP student manual?   “It was Eve who first
transgressed the limits of Eden in order to initiate the conditions of mortality".

[Hamilton Porter]

On 4/26/2023 at 3:38 PM, telnetd said:

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.

Yikes.

[mfbukowski]

1 hour ago, telnetd said:

In the vision,
they are literal. 

I suggest you look up these words in a dictionary.

This is an unusual usage for these words.

[mfbukowski]

1 hour ago, Hamilton Porter said:

Yikes.

Some go from right to left, perhaps as in Hebrew. 😳

[Benjamin McGuire]

2 hours ago, telnetd said:

According to the introductory notes of 1 Nephi 8, "Lehi sees a vision of the tree of life".  In the vision, they are literal.  Adam and Eve were in a literal garden with literal trees.  The account is not figurative.

The account of the vision is literal. That is, Nephi sees a tree. The problem is that nothing in the vision is considered to be literal - at least in the sense that you interpret things as literal. For example, about the tree of life - the text reads (1 Nephi 11:21-21):

Quote

Knowest thou the meaning of the tree which thy father saw? And I answered him, saying: Yea, it is the love of God, which sheddeth itself abroad in the hearts of the children of men; wherefore, it is the most desirable above all things.

So we recognize that Lehi and Nephi both see a tree. But, the tree has a symbolic meaning - a figurative meaning. And this means that the vision that Lehi and Nephi both see transforms their understanding of the Genesis Eden narrative into something that isn't literal at all. The text here doesn't just allow a non-literal meaning of the things that Lehi and Nephi see, it demands it. Here is verse 25:

Quote

And it came to pass that I beheld that the rod of iron, which my father had seen, was the word of God, which led to the fountain of living waters, or to the tree of life; which waters are a representation of the love of God; and I also beheld that the tree of life was a representation of the love of God.

There is no question that Lehi and Nephi see a literal tree in the vision. And a literal rod of iron. And a literal fountain. And yet, all of these things are figurative - the are representations of something else. And the literal reading of the text in these verses requires us to re-understand the things that are seen in the vision as having figurative meanings.

There is one verse in Genesis 1 that LDS theologians have treated with hyperliteralism where nearly every other Christian denomination does not. Genesis 1:27 -

Quote

So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.

Do you believe that this should be read literally or figuratively?

In a response to my question you write:

2 hours ago, telnetd said:

I think if the passage can be explained in a literal way, then we should go with a literal explanation.

But this doesn't help all that much. What do you mean by "if the passage can be explained in a literal way"? The problem that I have here is that any figurative text CAN be understood in a literal way. The entire Biblical text can be read literally - we don't have to read any parable in an interpretive or figurative way. We don't have to read visions in a figurative way. We can read them absolutely literally. But I don't believe for a moment that you actually do this. So that leaves the question open. And, certainly, this isn't how you read all texts, is it?

2 hours ago, telnetd said:

What do you think of the church's teaching in the POGP student manual?   “It was Eve who first transgressed the limits of Eden in order to initiate the conditions of mortality".

I would categorize it as a primary (or kindergarten) explanation. And I would say that it isn't a definitive interpretation of the text (in terms of establishing a literal reading over a figurative reading). My answer on this isn't going to change, no matter how many examples you produce. Is this so hard to understand? In reality, this isn't an LDS specific issue. I feel that when you keep bringing up these same links, over and over again, your goal is to try and paint me as being unorthodox - you want to paint the Church as having an Orthodox teaching that is strictly literal. But this issue isn't a specifically LDS issue - our response is different because, as I keep noting, we have the creation of man in the pre-existence before the creation of man in the Genesis narratives. Within Christianity, and going back to its earliest periods, we have the same discussions about the figurative or literal interpretation. It shouldn't surprise us to find it there because it exists within Judaism even before the beginning of Christianity. To make my point though, here are two texts. Consider this from Origen (the early church father), from his work On First Principle (Des Principiis), 4.3.1:

Quote

And who is so foolish as to suppose that God, after the manner of a human farmer, planted a paradise in Eden towards the east, and placed in it a visible and perceptible tree of life, so that one tasting of the fruit by bodily teeth would obtain life, and again that one could partake of good and evil by chewing what was received from the tree there? And if God is said to walk in the paradise the afternoon, and Adam to hide himself behind the tree, I do not think that anyone doubts that these figuratively indicate, through apparent narratives ... And anyone who has read carefully will find in the Gospels many other instances similar to this, from which he will note that in those narratives, which appear to be recorded according to the letter, there are inserted and interwoven things which are not accepted as history but which may hold a spiritual meaning.

My own view as presented here is perhaps not so different from Catholicism. The catechism, paragraph 390, tells us:

Quote

The account of the fall in Genesis 3 uses figurative language, but affirms a primeval event, a deed that took place at the beginning of the history of man. Revelation gives us the certainty of faith that the whole of human history is marked by the original fault freely committed by our first parents.

We have different views perhaps on when that 'beginning' took place. And we may have different views on the the impact of the fall on humanity as a whole, but, they also see the Genesis narrative as figurative.

Here is the problem that you face in this discussion. You mention that

On 5/8/2023 at 11:23 AM, telnetd said:

I accept any Christian-based teaching that can be proven from the scripture.

And yet, the idea that we should read the text literally whenever possible can not be proven from the scripture. The idea that it should be read as literally as possible is not an ancient belief associated with Judaism or Christianity. It was not a belief that was particularly prominent or discussed in the past. It is an entirely modern construct that developed as a way for various groups and individuals to try and confront modernism and scientific knowledge that those groups and individuals believed threatened their closely held religious interpretations.

[mfbukowski]

3 hours ago, Benjamin McGuire said:

The account of the vision is literal. That is, Nephi sees a tree. The problem is that nothing in the vision is considered to be literal - at least in the sense that you interpret things as literal. For example, about the tree of life - the text reads (1 Nephi 11:21-21):

So we recognize that Lehi and Nephi both see a tree. But, the tree has a symbolic meaning - a figurative meaning. And this means that the vision that Lehi and Nephi both see transforms their understanding of the Genesis Eden narrative into something that isn't literal at all. The text here doesn't just allow a non-literal meaning of the things that Lehi and Nephi see, it demands it. Here is verse 25:

There is no question that Lehi and Nephi see a literal tree in the vision. And a literal rod of iron. And a literal fountain. And yet, all of these things are figurative - the are representations of something else. And the literal reading of the text in these verses requires us to re-understand the things that are seen in the vision as having figurative meanings.

There is one verse in Genesis 1 that LDS theologians have treated with hyperliteralism where nearly every other Christian denomination does not. Genesis 1:27 -

Do you believe that this should be read literally or figuratively?

In a response to my question you write:

But this doesn't help all that much. What do you mean by "if the passage can be explained in a literal way"? The problem that I have here is that any figurative text CAN be understood in a literal way. The entire Biblical text can be read literally - we don't have to read any parable in an interpretive or figurative way. We don't have to read visions in a figurative way. We can read them absolutely literally. But I don't believe for a moment that you actually do this. So that leaves the question open. And, certainly, this isn't how you read all texts, is it?

I would categorize it as a primary (or kindergarten) explanation. And I would say that it isn't a definitive interpretation of the text (in terms of establishing a literal reading over a figurative reading). My answer on this isn't going to change, no matter how many examples you produce. Is this so hard to understand? In reality, this isn't an LDS specific issue. I feel that when you keep bringing up these same links, over and over again, your goal is to try and paint me as being unorthodox - you want to paint the Church as having an Orthodox teaching that is strictly literal. But this issue isn't a specifically LDS issue - our response is different because, as I keep noting, we have the creation of man in the pre-existence before the creation of man in the Genesis narratives. Within Christianity, and going back to its earliest periods, we have the same discussions about the figurative or literal interpretation. It shouldn't surprise us to find it there because it exists within Judaism even before the beginning of Christianity. To make my point though, here are two texts. Consider this from Origen (the early church father), from his work On First Principle (Des Principiis), 4.3.1:

My own view as presented here is perhaps not so different from Catholicism. The catechism, paragraph 390, tells us:

We have different views perhaps on when that 'beginning' took place. And we may have different views on the the impact of the fall on humanity as a whole, but, they also see the Genesis narrative as figurative.

Here is the problem that you face in this discussion. You mention that

And yet, the idea that we should read the text literally whenever possible can not be proven from the scripture. The idea that it should be read as literally as possible is not an ancient belief associated with Judaism or Christianity. It was not a belief that was particularly prominent or discussed in the past. It is an entirely modern construct that developed as a way for various groups and individuals to try and confront modernism and scientific knowledge that those groups and individuals believed threatened their closely held religious interpretations.

Wow, you sure explained that better and more professionally than I did!  Thanks!  

[mfbukowski]

3 hours ago, Benjamin McGuire said:

And yet, the idea that we should read the text literally whenever possible can not be proven from the scripture.

👍

[InCognitus]

For Genesis 1:27, we should take everything as literally as Michelangelo depicted it on the Sistine Chapel ceiling, right?   

God created man in his literal image and likeness, and God is shown with a literal physical body, with the literal veil parted and the literal pre-mortal souls shown behind God, and the (presumably) literal pre-mortal Eve under his arm queued up next to be sent down to earth to be with Adam:

I think Michelangelo must have literally been a Mormon.

[telnetd]

On 5/17/2023 at 12:51 PM, Benjamin McGuire said:

I would categorize it as a primary (or kindergarten) explanation. ...  our response is different because, as I keep noting, we have the creation of man in the pre-existence before the creation of man in the Genesis narratives.

When I examine this church teacher's manual, it does seem to indicate that the Fall took
place in the creation of Adam and Eve in the Genesis narratives.

The Fall of Adam and Eve brought many consequences, including mortality, work, 
and the opportunity to have and raise children (see Moses 4:22–26, 29; see also 
John 16:21; Ephesians 5:22–24; see also 1 Timothy 2:14–15; D&C 75:28; 83:2).

After the Fall, God made coats of animal skins to clothe Adam and Eve’s nakedness. 
He also sent angels and a flaming sword to guard the way to the tree of life (see 
Moses 4:27, 31), thus preventing Adam and Eve from partaking of the fruit of the 
tree and living forever in their sins (see Alma 12:21–26; 42:2–4).

Am I correct to say you believe the Fall occurred in the creation of man in the
pre-existence?  If so, how did it (the Fall) occur?  I think you mentioned Adam was
already mortal when he was created on Earth, but I don't know if you meant in his
paradisiacal state or afterwards. 

[Benjamin McGuire]

4 hours ago, telnetd said:

Am I correct to say you believe the Fall occurred in the creation of man in the pre-existence?  If so, how did it (the Fall) occur?  I think you mentioned Adam was already mortal when he was created on Earth, but I don't know if you meant in his paradisiacal state or afterwards. 

I think we are talking past each other. Correct me if I am wrong ... you believe that The Fall describes the moment in which Adam and Eve becoming mortal, and that this moment occurs when Adam and Eve eat the forbidden fruit?

I believe that the decision to become mortal occurs in the pre-existence (which would be a paradisaical state), and that the moment in which Adam and Eve become mortal is the moment in which their spirits are placed into a mortal body. This decision to become mortal is symbolically represented in the Eden narrative by the decision to eat the fruit. The decision comes in the context of what we refer to as the 'war in heaven'. The expulsion from the Garden of Eden (from paradise) is roughly equivalent to the LDS version of leaving the pre-existence to experience mortality in a physical body through birth. In other words, in the LDS view, every person who is born experiences The Fall independently - they all are booted from a paradisaical state in the presence of God (in the pre-existence) into mortality. The Fall doesn't occur in the creation of man in the pre-existence - it is not connected to the creation of man in the pre-existence.

I do not believe that there is a physical paradise on earth where Adam and Eve are created as immortal beings, who then eat a fruit and become mortal.

You ask how the fall occurs - and my response is that the fall isn't a singular event. Rather it is a reference to the change in condition experienced by all of humanity as they leave the presence of God and enter into mortality. This view is part of the reason why LDS teach so explicitly that the fall not only does not count to Adam and Eve as sin, but that it does not place humanity in a state defined by original sin. And this is why it is sometimes referred to as a fall forward.

[Steve J]

7 hours ago, Benjamin McGuire said:

I think we are talking past each other. Correct me if I am wrong ... you believe that The Fall describes the moment in which Adam and Eve becoming mortal, and that this moment occurs when Adam and Eve eat the forbidden fruit?

I believe that the decision to become mortal occurs in the pre-existence (which would be a paradisaical state), and that the moment in which Adam and Eve become mortal is the moment in which their spirits are placed into a mortal body. This decision to become mortal is symbolically represented in the Eden narrative by the decision to eat the fruit. The decision comes in the context of what we refer to as the 'war in heaven'. The expulsion from the Garden of Eden (from paradise) is roughly equivalent to the LDS version of leaving the pre-existence to experience mortality in a physical body through birth. In other words, in the LDS view, every person who is born experiences The Fall independently - they all are booted from a paradisaical state in the presence of God (in the pre-existence) into mortality. The Fall doesn't occur in the creation of man in the pre-existence - it is not connected to the creation of man in the pre-existence.

I do not believe that there is a physical paradise on earth where Adam and Eve are created as immortal beings, who then eat a fruit and become mortal.

You ask how the fall occurs - and my response is that the fall isn't a singular event. Rather it is a reference to the change in condition experienced by all of humanity as they leave the presence of God and enter into mortality. This view is part of the reason why LDS teach so explicitly that the fall not only does not count to Adam and Eve as sin, but that it does not place humanity in a state defined by original sin. And this is why it is sometimes referred to as a fall forward.

What do you make of Adam-ondi-Ahman etc..?

[Benjamin McGuire]

11 hours ago, Steve J said:

What do you make of Adam-ondi-Ahman etc..?

Not very much. And, I think, that most Mormons are in that same space.

The early restorationist Mormonism is in many ways very different from the Mormonism of today. We no longer have all sorts of attempts to determine the time and place of the second coming - and speeding up that event (a strong tenet of both the restorationist movement and early Mormonism) isn't viewed as a possibility any more. The interest in trying to physically connect scripture to places and things isn't surprising in a movement which began with these kinds of claims (like the Gold Plates), but, religion (and Mormonism) is more about doctrine and theology and personal experience than it is about artifacts. So, whether it is accurate in some ways or not, it is irrelevant to me and my belief.

[Steve J]

6 hours ago, Benjamin McGuire said:

Not very much. And, I think, that most Mormons are in that same space.

The early restorationist Mormonism is in many ways very different from the Mormonism of today. We no longer have all sorts of attempts to determine the time and place of the second coming - and speeding up that event (a strong tenet of both the restorationist movement and early Mormonism) isn't viewed as a possibility any more. The interest in trying to physically connect scripture to places and things isn't surprising in a movement which began with these kinds of claims (like the Gold Plates), but, religion (and Mormonism) is more about doctrine and theology and personal experience than it is about artifacts. So, whether it is accurate in some ways or not, it is irrelevant to me and my belief.

I agree with those sentiments. I do think we as Mormons don’t really grapple with how our religion has changed, and the differences in religious culture between early restorationist Mormonism and Mormonism today. How we decide what is kept and what isn’t. I’m currently reading Sam Brown’s book about early Mormonism and the culture of death. It really does a good job of explaining how JS and early Mormons really focus on “connect(ing) scripture to places and things.”