How mortality was introduced to Earth

[theplains]

Pearl of Great Price Student Manual

In the physical creation, man became a “living soul” (see Moses 2:26–27; see also D&C 88:15). 
This means his spirit body gained a physical body of flesh and bones. President Joseph Fielding 
Smith explained that the bodies of Adam and Eve were at first “quickened [made alive] by spirit 
and not by blood. … After the fall, which came by a transgression of the law under which Adam 
was living, the forbidden fruit had the power to create blood and change his nature and mortality
took the place of immortality, and all things, partaking of the change, became mortal” (Doctrines 
of Salvation, 1:77). Thus, in the Fall, Adam and Eve became the first beings upon the earth who 
were mortal flesh, or subject to death.

And I, the Lord God, formed man from the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils 
the breath of life; and man became a living soul, the first flesh upon the earth, the first 
man also; nevertheless, all things were before created; but spiritually were they created 
and made according to my word (Moses 3:7)

June 1982 Ensign

Fallen man is mortal; he has mortal flesh; he is “the first flesh upon the earth.” And the 
effects of his fall pass upon all created things. They fall in that they too become mortal. 
Death enters the world; mortality reigns; procreation commences; and the Lord’s great and 
eternal purposes roll onward.

Based on these teachings, it seems that Adam being called "the first flesh" is him being the
first created being with mortal flesh.

But wasn't it Eve who should be considered "the first flesh", who first ate from the forbidden
tree and became mortal, with blood in her veins, feeling fear and realizing she was naked? Or
is "Adam" in this sense "both Adam and Eve" who simultaneously fall only after Adam (the
man) partakes and they only realize their shame/nakedness only after Adam (the man) eats? 

Another teaching from the same POGP teaching manual says it was Eve who initiated mortality.

It was Eve who first transgressed the limits of Eden in order to initiate the conditions of mortality.

Edited April 27, 2023 by theplains
grammar

[CV75]

52 minutes ago, theplains said:

Pearl of Great Price Student Manual

In the physical creation, man became a “living soul” (see Moses 2:26–27; see also D&C 88:15). 
This means his spirit body gained a physical body of flesh and bones. President Joseph Fielding 
Smith explained that the bodies of Adam and Eve were at first “quickened [made alive] by spirit 
and not by blood. … After the fall, which came by a transgression of the law under which Adam 
was living, the forbidden fruit had the power to create blood and change his nature and mortality
took the place of immortality, and all things, partaking of the change, became mortal” (Doctrines 
of Salvation, 1:77). Thus, in the Fall, Adam and Eve became the first beings upon the earth who 
were mortal flesh, or subject to death.

And I, the Lord God, formed man from the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils 
the breath of life; and man became a living soul, the first flesh upon the earth, the first 
man also; nevertheless, all things were before created; but spiritually were they created 
and made according to my word (Moses 3:7)

June 1982 Ensign

Fallen man is mortal; he has mortal flesh; he is “the first flesh upon the earth.” And the 
effects of his fall pass upon all created things. They fall in that they too become mortal. 
Death enters the world; mortality reigns; procreation commences; and the Lord’s great and 
eternal purposes roll onward.

Based on these teachings, it seems that Adam being called "the first flesh" is him being the
first created being with mortal flesh.

But wasn't it Eve who should be considered "the first flesh", who first ate from the forbidden
tree and became mortal, with blood in her veins, feeling fear and realizing she was naked? Or
is "Adam" in this sense "both Adam and Eve" who simultaneously fall only after Adam (the
man) partakes and they only realize their shame/nakedness only after Adam (the man) eats? 

Another teaching from the same POGP teaching manual says it was Eve who initiated mortality.

It was Eve who first transgressed the limits of Eden in order to initiate the conditions of mortality.

From what you’ve assembled in your OP, Eve first transgressed the limits of Eden in order to initiate the conditions of mortality, then Adam and Eve became the first beings upon the earth who were mortal flesh, or subject to death, then death enters the world; mortality reigns; procreation commences; and the Lord’s great and eternal purposes roll onward. So, everybody gets a piece of the action!

The term "first flesh" in Moses 3:7 came about before the Fall. By virtue of her oneness with Adam (bone/flesh, Moses 3: 23), Eve was "first flesh" too. My take on the 1982 Ensign article is that Adam and Eve, as "first flesh" pre-Fall, and having stewardship and dominion over the pre-Fall creation, the effects of their fall pass upon all created things. I agree that "Adam" can include "Eve" and even their descendants, depending how the name/title/noun used, but in any case, figuratively.

[the narrator]

I've been out of the game for a while. Is "no death [on earth] before the Fall" still a thing? Or has that largely been abandoned due to the overwhelming and abundant evidence of life [and death!] on earth for 3+ billion years?

[teddyaware]

8 hours ago, theplains said:

Pearl of Great Price Student Manual

In the physical creation, man became a “living soul” (see Moses 2:26–27; see also D&C 88:15). 
This means his spirit body gained a physical body of flesh and bones. President Joseph Fielding 
Smith explained that the bodies of Adam and Eve were at first “quickened [made alive] by spirit 
and not by blood. … After the fall, which came by a transgression of the law under which Adam 
was living, the forbidden fruit had the power to create blood and change his nature and mortality
took the place of immortality, and all things, partaking of the change, became mortal” (Doctrines 
of Salvation, 1:77). Thus, in the Fall, Adam and Eve became the first beings upon the earth who 
were mortal flesh, or subject to death.

And I, the Lord God, formed man from the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils 
the breath of life; and man became a living soul, the first flesh upon the earth, the first 
man also; nevertheless, all things were before created; but spiritually were they created 
and made according to my word (Moses 3:7)

June 1982 Ensign

Fallen man is mortal; he has mortal flesh; he is “the first flesh upon the earth.” And the 
effects of his fall pass upon all created things. They fall in that they too become mortal. 
Death enters the world; mortality reigns; procreation commences; and the Lord’s great and 
eternal purposes roll onward.

Based on these teachings, it seems that Adam being called "the first flesh" is him being the
first created being with mortal flesh.

But wasn't it Eve who should be considered "the first flesh", who first ate from the forbidden
tree and became mortal, with blood in her veins, feeling fear and realizing she was naked? Or
is "Adam" in this sense "both Adam and Eve" who simultaneously fall only after Adam (the
man) partakes and they only realize their shame/nakedness only after Adam (the man) eats? 

Another teaching from the same POGP teaching manual says it was Eve who initiated mortality.

It was Eve who first transgressed the limits of Eden in order to initiate the conditions of mortality.

The quote from Joseph Fielding Smith is doctrinally correct, while the explanation you found in the 1982 Ensign is doctrinally incorrect. The incorrect Ensign statement is a common mistake made by some Latter-Day Saints who interpret the expression “first flesh upon the earth” out of its proper context, without giving due weight to the critically important and illuminating verses that immediately precede and follow Moses 3:7.

In order to properly understand the expression “first flesh upon the earth,” it’s imperative to realize that Eve hadn’t even been created when that declaration was made! Remember, at this point in time Adam was still a “lone man” in the garden of Eden. So when it says Adam was the first flesh, Moses is speaking of Adam as a spirit clothed with a ‘spiritual body’ of flesh and bone animated by Spirit; he was not yet a fallen mortal man with a body of mortal flesh and bone animated by blood. And don’t be confused by the latter part of verse 7 which is speaking the  premortal creation of men and all living things as spirits before receiving mortal bodies. Adam’s creation as an unembodied spirit child of God and his creation as a spirit child of God clothed with flesh, bone and life giving Spirit are two different events.

7 And I, the Lord God, formed man from the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul, the first flesh upon the earth, the first man also; nevertheless, all things were before created; but spiritually were they created and made according to my word. (Moses 3:7)

Please note that Adam is first called a living soul at the time the Spirit of life was first breathed into his body of flesh and bone, before Eve was created. The author of the Ensign article jumped to a wrong conclusion, not appreciating the fact that Adam was declared to be a living soul prior to the fall. 

 

 

Edited April 27, 2023 by teddyaware

[mfbukowski]

On 4/27/2023 at 9:17 AM, the narrator said:

I've been out of the game for a while. Is "no death [on earth] before the Fall" still a thing? Or has that largely been abandoned due to the overwhelming and abundant evidence of life [and death!] on earth for 3+ billion years?

Not for me, since all humans know is .... what they are capable of knowing and experiencing.

Mankind could not fathom "death" before they experienced it- therefore the HUMAN EXPERIENCE of what we call "death"- the loss, the grief, the pain- could not exist until there were humans to feel and experience human death.

Mixing religious principles on the basis of scientific thinking usually doesn't work well.    But of course it is "all figurative insofar and the man and woman are concerned" anyway. 

 

 

[The Nehor]

To people in a Terrestrial sphere death probably seems horrible. In a Telestial one it seems shameful and wrong but it is also a relief.

[mfbukowski]

22 hours ago, The Nehor said:

To people in a Terrestrial sphere death probably seems horrible. In a Telestial one it seems shameful and wrong but it is also a relief.

I don't remember.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eternal_return#:~:text=Eternal return (or eternal recurrence,and over again%2C for eternity.

Nietzsche :

"What if some day or night a demon were to steal after you into your loneliest loneliness, and say to you, "This life as you now live it and have lived it, you will have to live once more and innumerable times more; and there will be nothing new in it, but every pain and every joy and every thought and sigh and everything unutterably small or great in your life will have to return to you, all in the same succession and sequence" ... Would you not throw yourself down and gnash your teeth and curse the demon who spoke thus? Or have you once experienced a tremendous moment when you would have answered him: "You are a god and never have I heard anything more divine."^[23]

^{Big Bang.}

^{one eternal round.}

^{worlds without end.}

^{similar things done on other worlds}

 

"If you could hie to Kolob

In the twinkling of an eye,

And then continue onward

With that same speed to fly,

Do you think that you could ever,

Through all eternity,

Find out the generation

Where Gods began to be?"

 

^{Starting to see how philosophy merges with this amazing church ?}

Edited April 30, 2023 by mfbukowski

[theplains]

On 4/27/2023 at 2:23 PM, teddyaware said:

So when it says Adam was the first flesh, Moses is speaking of Adam as a spirit clothed with a ‘spiritual body’ of flesh and bone animated by Spirit;

In what sense was the first animal created on earth before Adam not considered the "first flesh"?

[theplains]

On 4/27/2023 at 12:08 PM, CV75 said:

The term "first flesh" in Moses 3:7 came about before the Fall. By virtue of her oneness with Adam (bone/flesh, Moses 3: 23), Eve was "first flesh" too. My take on the 1982 Ensign article is that Adam and Eve, as "first flesh" pre-Fall, and having stewardship and dominion over the pre-Fall creation, the effects of their fall pass upon all created things. I agree that "Adam" can include "Eve" and even their descendants, depending how the name/title/noun used, but in any case, figuratively.

It makes sense to me now if one equates "first flesh" with "first mortal flesh".

[CV75]

17 minutes ago, theplains said:

It makes sense to me now if one equates "first flesh" with "first mortal flesh".

And there is still room to equate it with Adam and Eve being the first of God's children to live in paradisaical Eden.

[CV75]

On 4/27/2023 at 12:17 PM, the narrator said:

I've been out of the game for a while. Is "no death [on earth] before the Fall" still a thing? Or has that largely been abandoned due to the overwhelming and abundant evidence of life [and death!] on earth for 3+ billion years?

It depends on the point to be made. It is still a useful way of conveying spiritual principles. We are responsible for ourselves and our earthly stewardships even though we are woefully lacking in capacity and expertise and bound to fall, fail and eventually ruin, destroy and/or lose everything we touch, necessitating the aid of a Redeemer. Just as Adam and Eve.

[teddyaware]

3 hours ago, theplains said:

In what sense was the first animal created on earth before Adam not considered the "first flesh"?

That’s the point I deliberately left unsaid, anticipating you’d recognize the conundrum. This is what makes Moses 3 so controversial and why so many fail to realize that Moses 3 turns organic evolution on its head. You see, what Moses 3 is saying is that Adam was indeed the first flesh upon the earth, and that his body of flesh bone and spirit (not mortal blood) was created before any of the animals of flesh bone and spirit were created! And Moses 3 also makes it perfectly clear that the creation account in Genesis 1 is speaking specifically of the creation of plants, animals, and mankind as premortal spirit beings without bodies of flesh bone and spirit.

As you can see, this idea of a man being in the flesh on earth, before any of the animals were created in the flesh, truly does turn the theory of organic evolution on its head. I find the idea tantalizing because if it does turn out to be literally true there are going to be many surprises when God finally reveals exactly how earth life was created. The following verses from Moses 3 make it clear that Genesis 1 and Moses 2 are speaking of the spiritual creation of plants, animals and mankind in heaven.

3 And I, God, blessed the seventh day, and sanctified it; because that in it I had rested from all my work which I, God, had created and made.

4 And now, behold, I say unto you, that these are the generations of the heaven and of the earth, when they were created, in the day that I, the Lord God, made the heaven and the earth,

5 And every plant of the field before it was in the earth, and every herb of the field before it grew. For I, the Lord God, created all things, of which I have spoken spiritually, before they were naturally upon the face of the earth. For I, the Lord God, had not caused it to rain upon the face of the earth. And I, the Lord God, had created all the children of men; AND NOT YET A MAN TO TILL THE GROUND; FOR IN HEAVEN I CREATED THEM; and there was not yet flesh upon the earth, neither in the water, neither in the air;

6 But I, the Lord God, spake, and there went up a mist from the earth, and watered the whole face of the ground.

7 And I, the Lord God, formed man from the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul, the first flesh upon the earth, the first man also; nevertheless, all things were before created; but spiritually were they created and made according to my word. (Moses 3)

Edited May 2, 2023 by teddyaware

[the narrator]

14 minutes ago, teddyaware said:

That’s the point I deliberately left unsaid, anticipating you’d recognize the conundrum. This is what makes Moses 3 so controversial and why so many fail to realize that Moses 3 turns organic evolution on its head. You see, what Moses 3 is saying is that Adam was indeed the first flesh upon the earth, and that his body of flesh bone and spirit (not mortal blood) was created before any of the animals of flesh bone and spirit were created! And Moses 3 also makes it perfectly clear that the creation account in Genesis 1 is speaking specifically of the creation of plants, animals, and mankind as premortal spirit beings without bodies of flesh bone and spirit.

Are you a young earth creationist?

[Dario_M]

On 4/29/2023 at 9:03 AM, The Nehor said:

To people in a Terrestrial sphere death probably seems horrible. In a Telestial one it seems shameful and wrong but it is also a relief.

Yes but Telestial is worse then Terrestrail. And Celestrial is the best place to be.

I think you have mixed terrestrail and Telestail up together. 

[teddyaware]

On 5/2/2023 at 1:27 PM, the narrator said:

Are you a young earth creationist?

My mind is open on these matters. But I have a strong intuitive sense that just as it’s been with the latest unexpected and baffling discoveries made by the James Webb Space Telescope, discoveries that are upending what was supposed to be ‘long settled science,’ I believe it’s also very likely that much about the ‘so-called” settled science’ of organic evolution is also going to be turned on it’s head. In Doctrine and Covenants 101, the Lord promises the saints that one day he himself is going to fully reveal the true account of “how the earth was made,” and he says that within his revelation concerning the creation there are going to be “things which no man knew,” which obviously means that today’s scientist don’t know as much as they think they know.

Getting back to Moses 2 and 3: I believe the Book of Moses is the word of God, and a careful, methodical reading of Moses 2 and 3 powerfully testifies that that Adam’s pre-fall body of flesh, bone and spirit was created before any of the other animal were created. Like it or not, that’s what it says. The meaning of the creation narrative found in Moses 2 and 3 is plain as day, and only a tortured twisting of the plain meaning of words can say otherwise. This leads me to believe that there are going to be a number of tremendous surprises when the full and true account of the creation is revealed by the Lord, and many of those “things which no man knew” are going to throw the scientists for a very humbling and humiliating loop.

I don’t pretend to personally know what any of  these “things which no man knew” are, but suffice it to say that I fully expect the Lord is going to mightily upset the applecart. That’s the very reasonable reason why I’m keeping an open mind, as I’m  fully expecting that my preconceived notions on the subject are also going to be shattered.

Edited May 3, 2023 by teddyaware

[the narrator]

6 hours ago, teddyaware said:

I believe it’s also very likely that much about the ‘so-called” settled science’ of organic evolution is also going to be turned on it’s head.

What part would be turned on it's head? Would it be turned enough to go along the the Genesis 2 account of God creating humans out of clay? Enough to declare that life and death did not exist on this planet before 6 millennia ago?

Sure, there may be disagreements on the small details--particularly when it comes to the origin of the very first simple forms of life--but there is no scientific theory more substantiated and increasingly substantiated than natural selection, including that of humans. (IMHO, genetics and natural selection do a far better job of explaining back hair, toe nails, and the physiological similarities of humans to other life forms, especially other mammals, than God deciding to mold a pair of humans out of clay.)

[mfbukowski]

On 5/2/2023 at 10:12 AM, teddyaware said:

That’s the point I deliberately left unsaid, anticipating you’d recognize the conundrum. This is what makes Moses 3 so controversial and why so many fail to realize that Moses 3 turns organic evolution on its head. You see, what Moses 3 is saying is that Adam was indeed the first flesh upon the earth, and that his body of flesh bone and spirit (not mortal blood) was created before any of the animals of flesh bone and spirit were created! And Moses 3 also makes it perfectly clear that the creation account in Genesis 1 is speaking specifically of the creation of plants, animals, and mankind as premortal spirit beings without bodies of flesh bone and spirit.

As you can see, this idea of a man being in the flesh on earth, before any of the animals were created in the flesh, truly does turn the theory of organic evolution on its head. I find the idea tantalizing because if it does turn out to be literally true there are going to be many surprises when God finally reveals exactly how earth life was created. The following verses from Moses 3 make it clear that Genesis 1 and Moses 2 are speaking of the spiritual creation of plants, animals and mankind in heaven.

First I should mention that I believe the whole story is figurative. 

But I think that I can show in virtually every scripture that there are at least two meanings possible, one that can be taken literally AND at least one way to take it figuratively.

I am just looking for a clarification please. 

I am trying to see how this theory could work.  From the above quote, you say THIS:

You see, what Moses 3 is saying is that Adam was indeed the first flesh upon the earth, and that his body of flesh bone and spirit (not mortal blood) was created before any of the animals of flesh bone and spirit were created!

OK, but you insert that he had no moral blood.  If he has no mortal blood, in what sense was his his LIVING body able to be on earth BEFORE being a truly "living body" without blood?

I would suggest that saying that that "Adam was the first flesh on earth" could be seen as misleading if his FLESH would be unable to live without blood- one might postulate consistently I think that it was some in some mysterious way that has been mentioned before that "spiritmatter" took the place of blood, and perhaps will do so as well after we are resurrected.

I hardly think that this position throws "evolution on its head" since there have never been - according to evolution- ANY creatures that have lived without blood, or some equivalent substance, and certainly NOT a "spiritual substance'

So to take a literal position, I think one would have to abandon the idea that IF Adam WAS the "first flesh upon the earth" one would have to reasonably show that in this case "FLESH" means another kind of flesh than how the word " flesh" functions in evolutionary theory, perhaps that he was the first "human" on earth- but that brings up a lot of other unanswerable questions all together.

So it appears to me that your paradigm cannot be sustained  literally because it equivocates "evolution flesh" with "spirit flesh"- which in effect makes "spirit flesh Adam" immortal, and from the beginning then, un-evolved.   Adam in this body - without blood- was INCAPABLE of dying, and certainly not comparable to animals or people WITH blood.

So I see no way in which this paradigm can be sustainable, even assuming that scriptures ought to be read as if they are always fully literal.  From a literal POV, eating the flesh CHANGED Adam and Eve so they COULD DIE- presumably by changing the spiritual state they were in to a mortal one.  

BUT one CAN I believe BOTH that Adam could have been on the earth before other creatures since of course we believe that Adam/Michael were on the "Construction Team" of immortal beings who were "on the earth" before the fall as immortal creatures.  That cannot be proven or disproven of course which IS within President Kimball's criteria for ABSOLUTE TRUTH.

Of course though, that makes evolution also ABSOLUTE TRUTH for President Kimball- it also cannot be disproven.

So as I see it there is no conflict between either position- they are just two different perspectives suggesting soluttions for an unsolvable puzzle.  Both are the paradigms of men until one decides that God has given him the answer and he lives by that testimony.

"Salvation" does not depend on EITHER interpretation.

[mfbukowski]

5 hours ago, the narrator said:

What part would be turned on it's head? Would it be turned enough to go along the the Genesis 2 account of God creating humans out of clay? Enough to declare that life and death did not exist on this planet before 6 millennia ago?

Since we are the only creatures on earth to have the word and concept of "death" and the loss of loved ones- I would suggest that the sentence is true.

There was not even a concept of "death existing"- two concepts of humans- "death" and "existence"- the concept of "death existing" could not have "existed" before humans invented the concept.   

Works for me.   But for me it's just a semantic thing.  Carnivores did not eat before Adam and Eve fell?  God designed their bodies presumably to eat meat.  And if every day was a thousand years- that's a little bit of time to not eat.... 

Why would God do that?   What good is the concept in the Gospel?  What does it teach us?

Seriously!

[mfbukowski]

On 4/27/2023 at 8:04 AM, theplains said:

Pearl of Great Price Student Manual

In the physical creation, man became a “living soul” (see Moses 2:26–27; see also D&C 88:15). 
This means his spirit body gained a physical body of flesh and bones. President Joseph Fielding 
Smith explained that the bodies of Adam and Eve were at first “quickened [made alive] by spirit 
and not by blood. … After the fall, which came by a transgression of the law under which Adam 
was living, the forbidden fruit had the power to create blood and change his nature and mortality
took the place of immortality, and all things, partaking of the change, became mortal” (Doctrines 
of Salvation, 1:77). Thus, in the Fall, Adam and Eve became the first beings upon the earth who 
were mortal flesh, or subject to death.

And I, the Lord God, formed man from the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils 
the breath of life; and man became a living soul, the first flesh upon the earth, the first 
man also; nevertheless, all things were before created; but spiritually were they created 
and made according to my word (Moses 3:7)

June 1982 Ensign

Fallen man is mortal; he has mortal flesh; he is “the first flesh upon the earth.” And the 
effects of his fall pass upon all created things. They fall in that they too become mortal. 
Death enters the world; mortality reigns; procreation commences; and the Lord’s great and 
eternal purposes roll onward.

Based on these teachings, it seems that Adam being called "the first flesh" is him being the
first created being with mortal flesh.

But wasn't it Eve who should be considered "the first flesh", who first ate from the forbidden
tree and became mortal, with blood in her veins, feeling fear and realizing she was naked? Or
is "Adam" in this sense "both Adam and Eve" who simultaneously fall only after Adam (the
man) partakes and they only realize their shame/nakedness only after Adam (the man) eats? 

Another teaching from the same POGP teaching manual says it was Eve who initiated mortality.

It was Eve who first transgressed the limits of Eden in order to initiate the conditions of mortality.

That interpretation was written by Elder McConkie, an incredibly brilliant and spiritual individual who now is perceived as having a more literal view than most apostles today.

Our apostles and prophets are not seen as infallible.  And yes, the interpretation of the gospel does in fact change- it is SUPPOSED to progress as God sends further revelation and we learn more and more.

[Benjamin McGuire]

On 5/2/2023 at 1:12 PM, teddyaware said:

and that his body of flesh bone and spirit (not mortal blood)

This distinction is completely artificial. It comes out of misreading the King James translation of the Bible. Neither the Hebrew or the Greek text distinguishes in these places between flesh with blood, and flesh without blood. It simply refers to the body material as a whole. One of the easy ways to see this is the same wording being used (intentionally I might add) in Gensis 6 when we get the justification for the flood:

Quote

vss 11-13: The earth also was corrupt before God, and the earth was filled with violence. And God looked upon the earth, and, behold, it was corrupt; for all flesh had corrupted his way upon the earth. And God said unto Noah, The end of all flesh is come before me; for the earth is filled with violence through them; and, behold, I will destroy them with the earth.

Here, this artificial distinction makes the text meaningless.  I note in passing that this language persists in the Book of Moses version (Moses 8 ).

It is also worth noting ( @mfbukowski ) that a large part of this idea of the blood being distinct from the flesh comes out of the incorrect interpretations associated with the curse of Ham and the priesthood ban. As an example of the impact of this belief, it translated, in practical terms, into the segregated blood banks (white and black blood), which persisted in Utah until after the priesthood ban was lifted in 1978, so that white men in the Church wouldn't have their blood corrupted by having even a single drop of blood of Ham in their bodies. This aspect of the interpretation has been repudiated for decades now. The other has persisted.

[teddyaware]

1 hour ago, Benjamin McGuire said:

This distinction is completely artificial. It comes out of misreading the King James translation of the Bible. Neither the Hebrew or the Greek text distinguishes in these places between flesh with blood, and flesh without blood. It simply refers to the body material as a whole. One of the easy ways to see this is the same wording being used (intentionally I might add) in Gensis 6 when we get the justification for the flood:

Here, this artificial distinction makes the text meaningless.  I note in passing that this language persists in the Book of Moses version (Moses 8 ).

It is also worth noting ( @mfbukowski ) that a large part of this idea of the blood being distinct from the flesh comes out of the incorrect interpretations associated with the curse of Ham and the priesthood ban. As an example of the impact of this belief, it translated, in practical terms, into the segregated blood banks (white and black blood), which persisted in Utah until after the priesthood ban was lifted in 1978, so that white men in the Church wouldn't have their blood corrupted by having even a single drop of blood of Ham in their bodies. This aspect of the interpretation has been repudiated for decades now. The other has persisted.

Why do you discount the further light and knowledge on this subject that the leaders of the church have been teaching from the beginning? I could cite literally hundreds of quotations from church leaders and church publications that teach Adam’s body had no blood before the fall. Do you also deny the church doctrine that Adam would have remained alive forever if he had not partaken of the forbidden fruit?

22 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. (2 Nephi 2)

You’ve got to know you’re swimming against a mighty current on these things. It took less than 30 seconds to find the following two quotes that affirm the church doctrine that Adam’s body had no blood before the fall.

“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.

“… Now what is a spiritual body? It is one that is quickened by spirit and not by blood. …

“… When Adam was in the Garden of Eden, he was not subject to death. There was no blood in his body and he could have remained there forever. This is true of all the other creations” (Joseph Fielding Smith, Doctrines of Salvation, 1:76–77)?

and…

”That brings us to the Atonement. Paul said, “As in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive.” The Atonement of Jesus Christ became the immortal creation. He volunteered to answer the ends of a law previously transgressed. And by the shedding of His blood, His and our physical bodies could become perfected. They could again function without blood, just as Adam’s and Eve’s did in their paradisiacal form. Paul taught that “flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God; … this mortal must put on immortality.” (Russell M Nelson, October 1996 General Conference)

And I must add that if the Bible passages you allude to fail to make clear whether or not Adam’s body did or did not have blood prior to the fall, why would you jump to the conclusion that his body did have blood before the fall, in opposition to the teachings of the church, when the passages don’t answer that specific question?  

 

Edited May 4, 2023 by teddyaware

[Benjamin McGuire]

4 hours ago, teddyaware said:

Why do you discount the further light and knowledge on this subject that the leaders of the church have been teaching from the beginning? I could cite literally hundreds of quotations from church leaders and church publications that teach Adam’s body had no blood before the fall. Do you also deny the church doctrine that Adam would have remained alive forever if he had not partaken of the forbidden fruit?

Would you say that Brigham Young's claim that the Priesthood ban was revealed because it comes out of the Old Testament was further light and knowledge? Part of the reason why these ideas became mainstream in the LDS Church wasn't because of revelation - it was because of correlation. Joseph Fielding Smith became President of the Church (even if only for 18 months) and that gave his past statements (most of them) greater weight in the eyes of the Church. The problem is that the Church was never as willing as Joseph Fielding Smith himself was to recognize that light and knowledge come from a wide range of sources. At the press conference where it was announced that he was the new President of the Church, he was asked about the claim he had made some years earlier that "it is doubtful that man will ever be permitted to make any instrument or ship to travel through space and visit the moon or any distant planet." His response: "Well, I was wrong, wasn't I." The fact remains that we can trace the beginnings of these ideas, and their developments - and nowhere in there is revelation that would constitute your "further light and knowledge." And if this view is connected to the teachings about blacks and the priesthood, we should be especially leery of using them as doctrinal justification.

What do you make of all of the statements to the contrary. As I posted on another thread recently, from the Ensign:

Quote

The different roles science and religion play is illustrated in a study of the dinosaurs. From the fossil record we learn that the dinosaurs were the dominant animals on earth between 225 and 67 million years ago. Some were carnivorous, others herbivorous. Some were small, while others were gigantic, weighing up to eighty tons and growing to lengths of more than ninety feet.

The existence of these animals is indisputable, for their remains have been found in rocks all over the earth. What eternal purpose they played in the creation and early history of the earth is unknown. The scriptures do not address the question, and it is not the realm of science to explore the issue of why they were here. We can only conclude, as Elder Talmage did, that “the whole series of chalk deposits and many of our deep-sea limestones contain the skeletal remains of animals. These lived and died, age after age, while the earth was yet unfit for human habitation.” (“The Earth and Man.”)

...

The relationship between scripture and what is currently understood in science is ever changing. Science continually learns more about the history of life on earth, and we have every reason to believe that much more will be learned as research continues.

We can discuss those past leaders with a different educational background - those that were scientists - who had no problem with the idea of an old earth, on which, for hundreds of millions of years, animals were born, lived, and died, prior to the beginning of mankind.

So there we have it. Joseph Fielding Smith was a huge fan of George MacReady Price - and his attacks on the science of geology. Price's views weren't particularly popuar until the 1960s when scientific creationism really became a thing. In the correspondence between James Talmage and his geologist son Sterling (who at the time was a professor of Geology in New Mexico), the younger Talmage pointed out that Price's book, The New Geology (which Joseph Fielding Smith had quoted extensively from in meetings of the Q12) had nothing of value in it. He wrote:

Quote

All of Price's arguments, in principle at least, were advanced and refuted from fifty to a hundred years ago. They are not "New." His ideas certainly are not "Geology." With these two corrections, the title remains the best part of the book.

Talmage presented his response to Joseph Fielding Smith in a later meeting of the Q12. Had Talmage gone on to become the President of the Church, our discussion on this topic would be very different. Joseph Fielding Smith waited to publish his material on issues that Talmage disagreed with until after Talmage's death.

While it is true that you can find all sorts of statements (just as I can find statements) - the reality is that they don't have a broad range of sources -

4 hours ago, teddyaware said:

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.

Joseph Fielding Smith, Doctrines of Salvation, 1:76–77.

4 hours ago, teddyaware said:

Now what is a spiritual body? It is one that is quickened by spirit and not by blood.

Joseph Fielding Smith, Doctrines of Salvation, 1:77.

4 hours ago, teddyaware said:

When Adam was in the Garden of Eden, he was not subject to death. There was no blood in his body and he could have remained there forever. This is true of all the other creations”

Joseph Fielding Smith, Doctrines of Salvation, 1:76–77

It is all the same source. Flesh and Blood - is a euphamism in the Greek New Testament (and in various rabbinical texts) for mortality. This is related, and I don't have any issues with it. Just the idea that blood was somehow the magic ingredient that made Adam mortal. This is, of course, part of the problem of trying to force a literal reading on to a text that probably shouldn't be. The idea is just strange. Surely, Adam and Eve must have been able to eat, in their physical bodies in the Garden of Eden, right? Was it merely aesthetic? Did they have no need to eat - after all, their bodies didn't require food - and yet, Genesis and Moses tell us that the fruit was "good for food"? Why did they need food? And what do we make of their DNA? The strangeness in all of this is that the other doctrine that we have about the resurrection is something of a contrast. Alma tells us (40:23):

Quote

The soul shall be restored to the body, and the body to the soul; yea, and every limb and joint shall be restored to its body; yea, even a hair of the head shall not be lost; but all things shall be restored to their proper and perfect frame.

All things. Except, now, you suggest, maybe not the blood. What else doesn't get restored in your opinion? And will we have these bodies with all these parts that are useless and meaningless? That exist maybe just to look pretty (especially on the inside)? The blood is designed to circulate oxygen to our bodies, carry back carbon-dioxide. It plays numerous other roles - all of which are, I grant you, necessary for mortal existence. But all of these other systems - what purpose will they serve in that immortal context? And will we have them in their non-functioning state, simply as evidence of our past mortality? Something we picked up along the way from our journey's beginning as intelligence or spirit and ending with a body that will never function as it was intended to do? It is a strange idea ... one that focuses on a sort of meaningless detail.

And finally - would Adam have become mortal without eating the fruit? I think it's likely. The fruit is a metaphor (just as Eve being created from Adam's rib). But that decision to enter mortality - that is represented by the fruit in the Garden of Eden - it happened much earlier - long before the earth was created, in the pre-existence, when Adam (like all of us) voted in the council in heaven to become mortal, even at the risk of his own eternal progression, against a plan presented by Lucifer. That is the moment in which Adam's mortality was assured. Adam's mortality did not hinge on some temptation from the devil in the Garden of Eden - that he could have refused. That story isn't a literal history. And this idea that there was no death before the fall in the earth, it is nonsense - useful perhaps when we did not have the light and knowledge that we have now.

Perhaps the most important idea behind all of this is that this idea is itself a dead-end. That an immortal body is just like ours, but without blood, doesn't really help us understand the meaning of life or of creation or our purpose here. It is simply a way to make a bunch of literalistic scriptural interpretations fit together with bad doctrines of the past.

Do I discount the further light and knowledge? Not as much as you do, I think. You are stuck looking at a single idea and extending it so that it answers everything - that little bit becomes all the light and knowledge that you need. You stop looking for more - you deny all of the other light and knowledge that exists and is important to our understanding. And this is okay - but don't think for a minute that my discounting this idea is somehow a rejection of prophetic light and knowledge. It is simply a coming to terms with scripture, with prophets, and with personal revelation, and just as importantly with our improving knowledge about ourselves and the universe in which we live.

Edited May 4, 2023 by Benjamin McGuire

[mfbukowski]

4 hours ago, Benjamin McGuire said:

As an example of the impact of this belief, it translated, in practical terms, into the segregated blood banks (white and black blood), which persisted in Utah until after the priesthood ban was lifted in 1978, so that white men in the Church wouldn't have their blood corrupted by having even a single drop of blood of Ham in their bodies

Omigosh.  I had no idea.

I wonder how many died of both races because of that. As always, I am sure it was Black folks, since there are so few in Utah. Horrible.

Edited May 4, 2023 by mfbukowski

[theplains]

On 5/3/2023 at 11:34 PM, mfbukowski said:

Our apostles and prophets are not seen as infallible.

I agree.  Fallible leaders can lead people astray with false teachings.

[InCognitus]

26 minutes ago, theplains said:

I agree.  Fallible leaders can lead people astray with false teachings.

Of course that's not what he was saying.

Do you see the prophets and apostles in the Bible as infallible?  Could they also lead people astray?   Could the apostle Paul be responsible for leading people astray by implying that the second coming would happen in his life time?  Do you think that the leaders that God calls know all things perfectly?

Edited May 5, 2023 by InCognitus