What is the official doctrine of why no children in the Garden?

[Calm]

I know we have discussed this endlessly on the board, but I am short on time and someone needs me to confirm exactly what is and isn’t official doctrine.

It seems to me over the past 25 years like the lesson manuals have kept trimming down the speculation and in this case we are now left with what Lehi said and nothing else filling in the gaps with no blood or static time or clueless about the sex act, the fruit had a physical effect on their bodies, etc. as sometimes happened in the past (I just read someone in an recent article online stating as a fact they had no blood and once they had blood, they couldn’t tolerate the atmosphere in the Garden as if the Garden was a biodome with something besides the mix of elements that is earth air during the time period humans have existed on earth).

”“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.

And [Adam and Eve] 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.”

Which implies to me the only official doctrine of the Church on why they couldn’t/wouldn’t have kids is this scripture….

I see this as the best official resource for context around the teaching:

https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/manual/gospel-topics/fall-of-adam-and-eve?lang=eng#title34

Transgression caused the change, but why?  Was the state of innocence the cause of no children or the result of no children?  From the way it is written, innocence seems to be the result of no children.

Anyone disagree on the official doctrine part?  Have more info to share?  Views on the chicken and egg issue of innocence and children?

——

Part two of my question refers to something Lehi says earlier that appears to be him saying where he got the info, not from a vision, but something he read.  Does he explain this earlier or later or speak of where his belief/teachings originated?

Quote

17 And I, Lehi, according to the things which I have read, must needs suppose that an angel of God, according to that which is written…

If he got the idea of a fallen angel from ‘supposing’ (pondering) on “that which is written” (Brass plates?), perhaps he got the rest as well?  Could this chapter’s explanations be more reason than revelation as far as Lehi’s experience?

Edited December 4, 2023 by Calm

[CV75]

50 minutes ago, Calm said:

I know we have discussed this endlessly on the board, but I am short on time and someone needs me to confirm exactly what is and isn’t official doctrine.

It seems to me over the past 25 years like the lesson manuals have kept trimming down the speculation and in this case we are now left with what Lehi said and nothing else filling in the gaps with no blood or static time or clueless about the sex act, the fruit had a physical effect on their bodies, etc. as sometimes happened in the past (I just read someone in an recent article online stating as a fact they had no blood and once they had blood, they couldn’t tolerate the atmosphere in the Garden as if the Garden was a biodome with something besides the mix of elements that is earth air during the time period humans have existed on earth).

”“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.

And [Adam and Eve] 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.”

Which implies to me the only official doctrine of the Church on why they couldn’t/wouldn’t have kids is this scripture….

I see this as the best official resource for context around the teaching:

https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/manual/gospel-topics/fall-of-adam-and-eve?lang=eng#title34

Transgression caused the change, but why?  Was the state of innocence the cause of no children or the result of no children?  From the way it is written, innocence seems to be the result of no children.

Anyone disagree on the official doctrine part?  Have more info to share?  Views on the chicken and egg issue of innocence and children?

——

Part two of my question refers to something Lehi says earlier that appears to be him saying where he got the info, not from a vision, but something he read.  Does he explain this earlier or later or speak of where his belief/teachings originated?

If he got the idea of a fallen angel from ‘supposing’ (pondering) on “that which is written” (Brass plates?), perhaps he got the rest as well?  Could this chapter’s explanations be more reason than revelation as far as Lehi’s experience?

If Adam and Eve remained in the same state, they would have remained childless, which childless state is innocent to the ways of adult parenthood, especially in a realm having only two adults. Innocence can mean lack of knowledge, awareness, comprehension, meaning, etc. ETA: 1828 Webster's includes "simplicity of heart" which of course becomes more intricate and complex with parenthood. Not that there's anything wrong with that!

I don't know where this is taught as I've just stated it; it is my reading of the scripture.

RE: the devil, Isaiah 14:12. It seems Lehi was linking this person to the serpent in the Genesis account. Both were available to him. I'm sure on scrolls and then especially on the brass plates. I'm sure this was consistent with the myths/lore/traditions he was aware of concerning angels, devils, demons, monsters, etc.

Edited December 4, 2023 by CV75

[Pyreaux]

Lehi makes it harder to interpret it in non-literal ways. My thoughts are that Genesis is an apocalypse and Temple liturgy, and Adam was a first man or rather a new temple priest. If he was from only 6000 years ago, he wasn't the only human, but as per the apocalyptic code, the animal figures that were named, the serpent, were pre-Adamites, regular humans, and the human figures like Adam, Eve and sons were divine priests. To incorporate Lehi, it's not simply "no children", but no children of the covenant, or no new born-again priests that Adam was responsible for making more of himself, thus multiply, but the temple initiation rites were a secret "knowledge" that Adam didn't have.

[teddyaware]

2 hours ago, Calm said:

I know we have discussed this endlessly on the board, but I am short on time and someone needs me to confirm exactly what is and isn’t official doctrine.

It seems to me over the past 25 years like the lesson manuals have kept trimming down the speculation and in this case we are now left with what Lehi said and nothing else filling in the gaps with no blood or static time or clueless about the sex act, the fruit had a physical effect on their bodies, etc. as sometimes happened in the past (I just read someone in an recent article online stating as a fact they had no blood and once they had blood, they couldn’t tolerate the atmosphere in the Garden as if the Garden was a biodome with something besides the mix of elements that is earth air during the time period humans have existed on earth).

”“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.

And [Adam and Eve] 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.”

Which implies to me the only official doctrine of the Church on why they couldn’t/wouldn’t have kids is this scripture….

I see this as the best official resource for context around the teaching:

https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/manual/gospel-topics/fall-of-adam-and-eve?lang=eng#title34

Transgression caused the change, but why?  Was the state of innocence the cause of no children or the result of no children?  From the way it is written, innocence seems to be the result of no children.

Anyone disagree on the official doctrine part?  Have more info to share?  Views on the chicken and egg issue of innocence and children?

——

Part two of my question refers to something Lehi says earlier that appears to be him saying where he got the info, not from a vision, but something he read.  Does he explain this earlier or later or speak of where his belief/teachings originated?

If he got the idea of a fallen angel from ‘supposing’ (pondering) on “that which is written” (Brass plates?), perhaps he got the rest as well?  Could this chapter’s explanations be more reason than revelation as far as Lehi’s experience?

Very simple. First, the pre-fall commandment to multiply is exactly like the way the prepubescent Primary children of today are taught that God has given them a commandment to have children when their bodies have matured and transitioned to a new state of function that will physically enable them to fulfill the commandment. Nevertheless, these children are taught to know that are placed under the commandment while children. Asking why Adam and Eve weren’t physically able to have children before the fall is like asking why 5 year-old boys and girls can’t have children. It’s therefore clear that a critically important action of the fall was the physical transition of Adam and Eve from a prepubescent state to post-pubescent state.

Next, the reason why the bodies of Adam and Eve weren’t physically able to have children before the fall is because it would destroy the wisdom of God by bringing children into a state of existence in which they would have no hope for joy because of the lack the capacity to do anything that was truly good due to their childlike innocence placing severe limitations on a full and meaningful exercise of their moral agency. How exactly would two parents train Edenic children to grow to be mature, righteous adults while remaining in a permanent state of childlike innocence? And how much more difficult and complicated would it be to make the decision to fall while knowing you’d be leaving your unprepared, innocent children behind? It was more than enough for our two first parents to be faced with the “Edenic Conundrum’ without further complicating the situation by adding more unneeded and unnecessary individuals to the mix.

Edited December 4, 2023 by teddyaware

[CV75]

3 hours ago, Calm said:

I know we have discussed this endlessly on the board, but I am short on time and someone needs me to confirm exactly what is and isn’t official doctrine.

It seems to me over the past 25 years like the lesson manuals have kept trimming down the speculation and in this case we are now left with what Lehi said and nothing else filling in the gaps with no blood or static time or clueless about the sex act, the fruit had a physical effect on their bodies, etc. as sometimes happened in the past (I just read someone in an recent article online stating as a fact they had no blood and once they had blood, they couldn’t tolerate the atmosphere in the Garden as if the Garden was a biodome with something besides the mix of elements that is earth air during the time period humans have existed on earth).

”“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.

And [Adam and Eve] 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.”

Which implies to me the only official doctrine of the Church on why they couldn’t/wouldn’t have kids is this scripture….

I see this as the best official resource for context around the teaching:

https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/manual/gospel-topics/fall-of-adam-and-eve?lang=eng#title34

Transgression caused the change, but why?  Was the state of innocence the cause of no children or the result of no children?  From the way it is written, innocence seems to be the result of no children.

Anyone disagree on the official doctrine part?  Have more info to share?  Views on the chicken and egg issue of innocence and children?

——

Part two of my question refers to something Lehi says earlier that appears to be him saying where he got the info, not from a vision, but something he read.  Does he explain this earlier or later or speak of where his belief/teachings originated?

If he got the idea of a fallen angel from ‘supposing’ (pondering) on “that which is written” (Brass plates?), perhaps he got the rest as well?  Could this chapter’s explanations be more reason than revelation as far as Lehi’s experience?

Elder Oaks talks about transgression as disobeying a legal prohibition and not a sin (inherently wrong). Transgression caused the change because, if they were wise/mature enough to do that, though beguiled in their justification (Eve) and rationale under extenuating circumstances (Adam) to do so, they were ready for kids. “The Great Plan of Happiness” (churchofjesuschrist.org) and Sins and Mistakes - Dallin H. Oaks - BYU Speeches

Parents make all sorts of mistakes, so they were ready to proceed!

[the narrator]

Is it still widely believed among Latter-day Saints that humans did not exist on earth until roughly 6,000 years ago--given how abundant, clear, and matter-of-fact the general understanding (and general acceptance) of human evolution is today?

[Tacenda]

28 minutes ago, the narrator said:

Is it still widely believed among Latter-day Saints that humans did not exist on earth until roughly 6,000 years ago--given how abundant, clear, and matter-of-fact the general understanding (and general acceptance) of human evolution is today?

I was hoping or thinking that mostly this whole garden and Adam and Eve, was allegory in the temple. But it goes back and forth. Maybe LDS members vary on this thought. On the board I've read faithful members mention it being allegory, thereby, keeping the scientific facts in order. But all of Christianity or those that believe the Bible to be the exact word of God, have to believe in Adam and Eve in the garden. But there is the difference in that non LDS Christians believe that Adam and Eve could produce children. Maybe that's why Eve is put as sinning, where in the LDS church Eve is the hero or she did what was expected or right. Which sure confuses everyone why it was okay to not follow God's command to not eat the fruit of the tree. Kind of makes Satan be in the right since he is the tempter and Eve follows him instead. Am I right that non LDS Christians believe that A&E could procreate in the Garden? I read or heard that they believe this but maybe it varies.

[Calm]

When I asked for more info to share, I am specifically thinking of official doctrine, not personal opinion. This question is not for me…it should be obvious by now to anyone who reads my stuff much that I love speculation (though it needs to be identified as such) and to hear people’s ideas for things, but this is for someone else who needs to know what the Church itself teaches and not even what we can glean from church teachings that isn’t stated by the church (someone helping a new convert try and figure out church teachings). 

So feel free to share your own ideas, but what I really want to hear is “nope, nothing else out there for official doctrine “ or “you missed this, here is the link” and provide a quote as well if you are feeling generous as I am feeling a bit obtuse today, nose is clogged and it’s a clog that feels it reaches all the way to the back of my skull at the moment. 
 

Thank you in advance 

[Calm]

3 hours ago, the narrator said:

Is it still widely believed among Latter-day Saints that humans did not exist on earth until roughly 6,000 years ago--given how abundant, clear, and matter-of-fact the general understanding (and general acceptance) of human evolution is today?

I hope not. 

[The Nehor]

I suspect Lehi got that part wrong and was speculating.

[Tacenda]

Calm, I found this with a google search, what do you think of this guy's opinion? And this was in the 1973 New Era, so surely someone in the church approved it. And it's the first time I've read that someone in the church thinks they actually could physically have children, but they wouldn't because of their innocence. So is this doctrine? Not sure. ETA: Hope you feel better! 

C/Ped: 

https://www.religiousforums.com/threads/adam-eve-why-no-children-in-the-garden.32121/

I found this in the September 1973 New Era:

Why did the Lord command Adam and Eve to multiply in the Garden of Eden when they could not have children before the fall? This is especially confusing when we have such scriptures as 1 Nephi 3:7, which states the Lord giveth no commandments unto the children of men, save he shall prepare a way for them that they may accomplish the thing which he commandeth them.

Daniel H. Ludlow, Q&A: Questions and Answers, New Era, Sept. 1973, 13
Answer/Daniel H. Ludlow
One important point to consider in this question is whether or not Adam and Eve could have had children while they were in the Garden of Eden. The scriptures do not say Adam and Eve could not have children; they say Adam and Eve would not have had children if they had remained in a state of innocence, not knowing good from evil.
For example, note the words of Lehi in explaining the situation of Adam and Eve before the fall: And they would have had no children; wherefore they would have remained in a state of innocence, having no joy, for they knew no misery; doing no good, for they knew no sin. (2 Ne. 2:23. Italics added.) This scripture seems to indicate that Adam and Eve were physically capable of having children in the Garden of Eden (thus they could have had children), but so long as they remained in their state of innocence, they never would have had children. Remember that Adam and Eve were so innocent in the Garden of Eden they didnt even realize they were naked!
Sometimes it helps to understand a religious question if we ask ourselves, How else could our Heavenly Father have done this? For example, how else could our Heavenly Father have brought about the necessary conditions that resulted from the fall of Adam and Eve? Following are four possibilities, and the only acceptable one is the one followed by the Lord:
1. What if the Lord had created the world in such a way that evil and sin would have been here from the beginning? In this case, God would be responsible for all sin and evil.
2. What if God had created the world in such a way that we never could commit any sin? In other words, what if he had never given us any law? It is true that in such a condition we never could have broken a law (committed sin), and thus there would have been no evil, no pain, or no disease. But if there is no possibility for sin and for the punishment and misery that accompany it, then there is no possibility for good and for the blessings and joy that follow obedience to law. None of us would want that type of world.
3. What if God had created a world where he would give us law (the opportunity of choice) but would not give us free agency (the freedom of choice)? How could there be any real growth in this situation? What development is there if we do things only because we have to do them? Also, how could a just God hold us responsible for our acts if we had no choice in the matter?
4. The other major possibility is the one the Lord followed. He created a world that was without sin or evil, and he placed Adam and Eve in the Garden of Eden in a state of innocence. He then gave law (the opportunity of choice) to Adam and Eve, and he also gave them their free agency (the freedom of choice). Then, and this is a very important point, he did not hold Adam and Eve responsible for any transgression they committed in their state of innocence.
God knew before the earth was ever created that it would be necessary for Adam and Eve to fall so they would have seed. Thus, even before the earth was created, Jesus Christ had agreed that he would pay the penalty required by the law of justice for the transgression of the law that resulted in the fall of Adam and Eve. The scriptures refer to the Savior as the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world (Rev. 13:8), and they indicate that Jesus Christ had agreed to bring about the atonement before the earth was ever created (1 Pet. 1:1920; Eph. 1:4; Moses 5:57; D&C 121:32; Mosiah 18:13; Ether 3:14).
The second part of the question states, in essence, Why didnt the Lord prepare the way for Adam and Eve to keep the commandment to multiply?
The answer to this question is that the Lord did prepare the way.
In this dispensation the Lord has revealed through Joseph Smith additional information concerning the status of Adam and Eve both before and after the fall. In fact, the Lord restored to the Prophet the words of Adam and Eve to each other after they had been driven from the Garden of Eden and had been taught by an angel that Jesus Christ would atone for their transgression unconditionally and also would atone for their own personal sins upon the condition of their repentance.
And in that day Adam blessed God and was filled, and began to prophesy concerning all the families of the earth, saying: Blessed be the name of God, for because of my transgression my eyes are opened, and in this life I shall have joy, and again in the flesh I shall see God.
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. (Moses 5:1011. Italics added.)
Gospel topic: Adam and Eve

Edited December 4, 2023 by Tacenda

[CV75]

48 minutes ago, Calm said:

When I asked for more info to share, I am specifically thinking of official doctrine, not personal opinion. This question is not for me…it should be obvious by now to anyone who reads my stuff much that I love speculation (though it needs to be identified as such) and to hear people’s ideas for things, but this is for someone else who needs to know what the Church itself teaches and not even what we can glean from church teachings that isn’t stated by the church (someone helping a new convert try and figure out church teachings). 

So feel free to share your own ideas, but what I really want to hear is “nope, nothing else out there for official doctrine “ or “you missed this, here is the link” and provide a quote as well if you are feeling generous as I am feeling a bit obtuse today, nose is clogged and it’s a clog that feels it reaches all the way to the back of my skull at the moment. 
 

Thank you in advance 

If the scripture text you provided is all there is, then Webster's 1828 Dictionary is helpful for interpretation, plus whatever the scholars can come up with for what "innocence" meant, figuratively and literally among the ancients.

[ksfisher]

8 hours ago, Calm said:

From the way it is written, innocence seems to be the result of no children.

I'd say it's the other way around - innocence results in no children.  If you don't notice that the woman standing next to you is attractive and not even wearing the proverbial fig leaf...

Real life example.  When I was 6 or so I remember running into one of my classmates in a grocery store.  While I was talking to him he took a candy bar off the shelf and stuck it in his pocket.  I had no idea that he was trying to steal it until one of the store employees put his hands on our shoulders and had a very stern talk with us.

[Calm]

4 minutes ago, ksfisher said:

I'd say it's the other way around - innocence results in no children.  If you don't notice that the woman standing next to you is attractive and not even wearing the proverbial fig leaf...

Real life example.  When I was 6 or so I remember running into one of my classmates in a grocery store.  While I was talking to him he took a candy bar off the shelf and stuck it in his pocket.  I had no idea that he was trying to steal it until one of the store employees put his hands on our shoulders and had a very stern talk with us.

I agree logically it seems that way, dissecting the writing though….

Though I don’t based my interpretations on nitpicking what is likely imperfect translations of details (since a translation can never convey all the concepts/nuances attached in a different language, even if inspired/revelation).  It is just a curious detail to me.  And English is a flexible language anyway.

Edited December 4, 2023 by Calm

[Calm]

1 hour ago, Tacenda said:

Calm, I found this with a google search, what do you think of this guy's opinion? And this was in the 1973 New Era, so surely someone in the church approved it. And it's the first time I've read that someone in the church thinks they actually could physically have children, but they wouldn't because of their innocence. So is this doctrine? Not sure. ETA: Hope you feel better! 

C/Ped: 

https://www.religiousforums.com/threads/adam-eve-why-no-children-in-the-garden.32121/

I found this in the September 1973 New Era:

Why did the Lord command Adam and Eve to multiply in the Garden of Eden when they could not have children before the fall? This is especially confusing when we have such scriptures as 1 Nephi 3:7, which states the Lord giveth no commandments unto the children of men, save he shall prepare a way for them that they may accomplish the thing which he commandeth them.

Daniel H. Ludlow, Q&A: Questions and Answers, New Era, Sept. 1973, 13
Answer/Daniel H. Ludlow
One important point to consider in this question is whether or not Adam and Eve could have had children while they were in the Garden of Eden. The scriptures do not say Adam and Eve could not have children; they say Adam and Eve would not have had children if they had remained in a state of innocence, not knowing good from evil.
For example, note the words of Lehi in explaining the situation of Adam and Eve before the fall: And they would have had no children; wherefore they would have remained in a state of innocence, having no joy, for they knew no misery; doing no good, for they knew no sin. (2 Ne. 2:23. Italics added.) This scripture seems to indicate that Adam and Eve were physically capable of having children in the Garden of Eden (thus they could have had children), but so long as they remained in their state of innocence, they never would have had children. Remember that Adam and Eve were so innocent in the Garden of Eden they didnt even realize they were naked!
Sometimes it helps to understand a religious question if we ask ourselves, How else could our Heavenly Father have done this? For example, how else could our Heavenly Father have brought about the necessary conditions that resulted from the fall of Adam and Eve? Following are four possibilities, and the only acceptable one is the one followed by the Lord:
1. What if the Lord had created the world in such a way that evil and sin would have been here from the beginning? In this case, God would be responsible for all sin and evil.
2. What if God had created the world in such a way that we never could commit any sin? In other words, what if he had never given us any law? It is true that in such a condition we never could have broken a law (committed sin), and thus there would have been no evil, no pain, or no disease. But if there is no possibility for sin and for the punishment and misery that accompany it, then there is no possibility for good and for the blessings and joy that follow obedience to law. None of us would want that type of world.
3. What if God had created a world where he would give us law (the opportunity of choice) but would not give us free agency (the freedom of choice)? How could there be any real growth in this situation? What development is there if we do things only because we have to do them? Also, how could a just God hold us responsible for our acts if we had no choice in the matter?
4. The other major possibility is the one the Lord followed. He created a world that was without sin or evil, and he placed Adam and Eve in the Garden of Eden in a state of innocence. He then gave law (the opportunity of choice) to Adam and Eve, and he also gave them their free agency (the freedom of choice). Then, and this is a very important point, he did not hold Adam and Eve responsible for any transgression they committed in their state of innocence.
God knew before the earth was ever created that it would be necessary for Adam and Eve to fall so they would have seed. Thus, even before the earth was created, Jesus Christ had agreed that he would pay the penalty required by the law of justice for the transgression of the law that resulted in the fall of Adam and Eve. The scriptures refer to the Savior as the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world (Rev. 13:8), and they indicate that Jesus Christ had agreed to bring about the atonement before the earth was ever created (1 Pet. 1:1920; Eph. 1:4; Moses 5:57; D&C 121:32; Mosiah 18:13; Ether 3:14).
The second part of the question states, in essence, Why didnt the Lord prepare the way for Adam and Eve to keep the commandment to multiply?
The answer to this question is that the Lord did prepare the way.
In this dispensation the Lord has revealed through Joseph Smith additional information concerning the status of Adam and Eve both before and after the fall. In fact, the Lord restored to the Prophet the words of Adam and Eve to each other after they had been driven from the Garden of Eden and had been taught by an angel that Jesus Christ would atone for their transgression unconditionally and also would atone for their own personal sins upon the condition of their repentance.
And in that day Adam blessed God and was filled, and began to prophesy concerning all the families of the earth, saying: Blessed be the name of God, for because of my transgression my eyes are opened, and in this life I shall have joy, and again in the flesh I shall see God.
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. (Moses 5:1011. Italics added.)
Gospel topic: Adam and Eve

Thanks, Tacenda, this is actually useful, though not recent, imo.  I wouldn’t call it current official doctrine, but it illuminates how the scripture has been interpreted by the Church in the past, which is the next step after identifying actual current doctrine as it may be the unspoken understanding behind some of the comments.

Daniel Ludlow was my go to guy when I was in college, had a couple of his commentaries even when broke and struggling (not like I couldn’t appeal to Dad, just hated doing it).  His son, Victor, was my OT professor as well.  Great teacher.

Edited December 4, 2023 by Calm

[Calm]

1 hour ago, The Nehor said:

I suspect Lehi got that part wrong and was speculating.

The entire chapter feels like a discourse based more on reason than revelation to me.  Lehi is trying to give his kids the benefit of his experience and wisdom one last time.  He might have been desperate to come up with a way to penetrate the thick skulls of his oldest sons.

So while it is revelation to us based on the fact the BoM is a revelation, does that alter how we should view his discourse if it originated as reason and interpretation based on Lehi’s learning? (Which would have included, but unlikely be limited to the brass plates)

Edited December 4, 2023 by Calm

[filovirus]

FAIR has a whole page on this. I read through it. It doesn't have a lot of citations leading back to official church doctrine. Have a look: https://www.fairlatterdaysaints.org/answers/Mormonism_and_science/Death_before_the_Fall

[Calm]

2 hours ago, filovirus said:

FAIR has a whole page on this. I read through it. It doesn't have a lot of citations leading back to official church doctrine. Have a look: https://www.fairlatterdaysaints.org/answers/Mormonism_and_science/Death_before_the_Fall

FAIR member here, but thanks for publicizing it…  

[CV75]

17 hours ago, Calm said:

The entire chapter feels like a discourse based more on reason than revelation to me.  Lehi is trying to give his kids the benefit of his experience and wisdom one last time.  He might have been desperate to come up with a way to penetrate the thick skulls of his oldest sons.

So while it is revelation to us based on the fact the BoM is a revelation, does that alter how we should view his discourse if it originated as reason and interpretation based on Lehi’s learning? (Which would have included, but unlikely be limited to the brass plates)

The Oxford English Dic tionary allows that "suppose" (especially the further back you go) is also used to convey agreement with or submission to a rule, formal arrangement (as in doctrine) or something to be taken for granted.

There's an article touching on this: https://journal.interpreterfoundation.org/why-the-oxford-english-dictionary-and-not-websters-1828/

Edited December 5, 2023 by CV75

[mfbukowski]

On 12/4/2023 at 5:28 AM, Calm said:

I know we have discussed this endlessly on the board, but I am short on time and someone needs me to confirm exactly what is and isn’t official doctrine.

It seems to me over the past 25 years like the lesson manuals have kept trimming down the speculation and in this case we are now left with what Lehi said and nothing else filling in the gaps with no blood or static time or clueless about the sex act, the fruit had a physical effect on their bodies, etc. as sometimes happened in the past (I just read someone in an recent article online stating as a fact they had no blood and once they had blood, they couldn’t tolerate the atmosphere in the Garden as if the Garden was a biodome with something besides the mix of elements that is earth air during the time period humans have existed on earth).

”“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.

And [Adam and Eve] 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.”

Which implies to me the only official doctrine of the Church on why they couldn’t/wouldn’t have kids is this scripture….

I see this as the best official resource for context around the teaching:

https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/manual/gospel-topics/fall-of-adam-and-eve?lang=eng#title34

Transgression caused the change, but why?  Was the state of innocence the cause of no children or the result of no children?  From the way it is written, innocence seems to be the result of no children.

Anyone disagree on the official doctrine part?  Have more info to share?  Views on the chicken and egg issue of innocence and children?

——

Part two of my question refers to something Lehi says earlier that appears to be him saying where he got the info, not from a vision, but something he read.  Does he explain this earlier or later or speak of where his belief/teachings originated?

If he got the idea of a fallen angel from ‘supposing’ (pondering) on “that which is written” (Brass plates?), perhaps he got the rest as well?  Could this chapter’s explanations be more reason than revelation as far as Lehi’s experience?

I have found, as did Galileo, that mixing a scientific explanation with a religious parable leads to more confusion than light.

Before the endowment changes in 1990, in the preface to the presentation of the endowment, the narrator said, as I recall, that the account of of the relationship between the "man and woman is strictly figurative".

Perhaps some who remember that may confirm it?

I think that is the reason for, and the beginning of, the trend against literalism.

Edited December 5, 2023 by mfbukowski

[Tacenda]

1 hour ago, mfbukowski said:

I have found, as did Galileo, that mixing a scientific explanation with a religious parable leads to more confusion than light.

Before the endowment changes in 1990, in the preface to the presentation of the endowment, the narrator said, as I recall, that the account of of the relationship between the "man and woman is strictly figurative".

Perhaps some who remember that may confirm it?

I think that is the reason for, and the beginning of, the trend against literalism.

Whoo hoo, thought I was going crazy! Thanks, unless figurative doesn't mean allegorical.

[webbles]

2 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

Before the endowment changes in 1990, in the preface to the presentation of the endowment, the narrator said, as I recall, that the account of of the relationship between the "man and woman is strictly figurative".

Perhaps some who remember that may confirm it?

I believe it was talking about the creation of the man and woman and said that it was figurative.

[mfbukowski]

1 hour ago, webbles said:

I believe it was talking about the creation of the man and woman and said that it was figurative.

Could be- I just seem to remember the phrase "strictly figurative insofar as the man and the woman are concerned"

What exact doctrine it was describing is a bit foggy for me.

[JLHPROF]

8 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

Before the endowment changes in 1990, in the preface to the presentation of the endowment, the narrator said, as I recall, that the account of of the relationship between the "man and woman is strictly figurative".

Perhaps some who remember that may confirm it?

It stated the creation (organization) of man and woman is strictly figurative.  Not their relationship.

Which actually furthers the idea of Brigham Young that there has only ever been one way people are created.  The same way as us.

Adam, Eve, Christ - nobody was ever conceived in any other way.

[2BizE]

I was under the impression that the church was beginning to move from thinking of Adam and Eve and the Garden as real historical people/events and considering them to be just symbolic allegories/myths.  I believe the temple endowment session now makes a remark about historical vs symbolism.