Our Earth was the last to be subjected to the Fall?

[Benjamin McGuire]

@longview

This is a violation of one of those core rules of this forum:

On 11/29/2015 at 1:57 PM, Ares said:

• Do not post sacred LDS temple content or links to LDS temple content

 

[2BizE]

I believe the entire fall, Adam and Eve saga and Satan are liturgical. They are stories with symbolism, but not historical.

[ZealouslyStriving]

4 minutes ago, 2BizE said:

I believe the entire fall, Adam and Eve saga and Satan are liturgical. They are stories with symbolism, but not historical.

Query:

Do you believe Satan is an actual being?

[Mark Beesley]

48 minutes ago, 2BizE said:

I believe the entire fall, Adam and Eve saga and Satan are liturgical. They are stories with symbolism, but not historical.

Years ago there was a statement in the temple, preceding the presentation of the endowment, indicating that the presentation was figurative insofar as the man and woman are concerned. Clearly, whether the Fall is liturgical or figurative is irrelevant to the lessons (light) to be gleaned from the endowment.😇

[Mark Beesley]

11 hours ago, longview said:

There was an extensive discussion on this topic in a thread previous to this thread. I have tried to find that thread but my use of the site: command is not working for me. Maybe someone here can help find it.

I have wondered about this but my conviction is that there is an important reason for the "veil of forgetfulness" being placed over Adam and Eve's minds before they were placed into their newly created physical Terrestrial bodies. Also, God gave them two conflicting commands where one or the other had to be obeyed. But the commands were mutually exclusive by design. Both could NOT be obeyed. They had to make a choice without the undue influence by God.

As to the bolded highlight, I do not believe this conclusion is compelled by the text. Lehi says they would have had no children, not that they could not have children. We do not know the physiological make up of their pre-Fall bodies. What we are led to believe is that the Lord’s instructions were not completed when Adam and Eve’s “jumped the gun” and opted to hearken to Satan. But really, any attempt to delve too deeply into the Garden and the Fall beyond what is revealed is probably an exercise in futility, but it can be fun.😇

[teddyaware]

56 minutes ago, Mark Beesley said:

As to the bolded highlight, I do not believe this conclusion is compelled by the text. Lehi says they would have had no children, not that they could not have children. We do not know the physiological make up of their pre-Fall bodies. What we are led to believe is that the Lord’s instructions were not completed when Adam and Eve’s “jumped the gun” and opted to hearken to Satan. But really, any attempt to delve too deeply into the Garden and the Fall beyond what is revealed is probably an exercise in futility, but it can be fun.😇

The answer could be very simple: As simple as while they were yet in their pre-fallen stare of innocence the bodies of Adam and Eve were like the bodies of young children before transitioning into puberty. In connection with Adam and Eve being given the commandment to multiply prior to the fall, I find it interesting that Latter-Day Saint children are taught they are under the  commandment to have children years prior to maturing into puberty, a situation very similar to the one experienced by our first parents in the garden prior to the fall!

Edited April 9, 2025 by teddyaware

[longview]

5 hours ago, Benjamin McGuire said:

@longview

This is a violation of one of those core rules of this forum:

The proscription is on mentioning or describing ANY of the ordinances of the temple. Other parts are more like scriptures that are inspired and describe what I consider to be historical aspects of the Creation and the implementation of the Plan of Happiness. Here is a quote from the Church General Handbook:

Quote

🔹 General Handbook: Serving in The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (2020, updated regularly)

Section 27.1.2 – Sacred Nature of Temple Ordinances:
“Because of the sacred nature of temple ordinances, members should not discuss the details of these ordinances outside the temple. This restriction applies to the presentation, wording, and symbolic gestures of each ordinance.”

I will defer to the Moderators for any further guidelines or instructions. Thank you. If the "presentation" is problematic even with historical aspects, then I will stand corrected.

[longview]

43 minutes ago, teddyaware said:

The answer could be very simple: As simple as while they were yet in their pre-fallen stare of innocence the bodies of Adam and Eve were like the bodies of young children before transitioning into puberty. In connection with Adam and Eve being given the commandment to multiply prior to the fall, I find it interesting that Latter-Day Saint children are taught they are under the  commandment to have children years prior to maturing into puberty, a situation very similar to the one experienced by our first parents in the garden prior to the fall!

Adam and Eve were placed into full-sized Terrestrial bodies. They were already married under covenant. Fully adult and committed. But they were physically unable to reproduce. Only by partaking of the forbidden fruit could they be enabled to have children. Ironically, they could see all the animals reproducing. They probably had all kinds of questions on how to proceed. (There were no chance of over-population of the animals because they were Terrestrial creatures that transitioned to a different sphere after a fixed period. There were no death in the Terrestrial State.)

The difference with pre-puberty children is that they are taught and prepared for the day they (hopefully) will marry in the temple. Also, they are taught to obey the Law of Chastity in the NOW and continuously. Even young ones can fall into the mistake of inappropriately uncovering each other's nakedness or playing doctor.

[Mark Beesley]

1 hour ago, longview said:

Adam and Eve were placed into full-sized Terrestrial bodies. They were already married under covenant. Fully adult and committed. But they were physically unable to reproduce. Only by partaking of the forbidden fruit could they be enabled to have children. Ironically, they could see all the animals reproducing. They probably had all kinds of questions on how to proceed. (There were no chance of over-population of the animals because they were Terrestrial creatures that transitioned to a different sphere after a fixed period. There were no death in the Terrestrial State.)

CFR.

A Telestial body is a resurrected body of glory, as is a Terrestrial Body and a Celestial body. D&C 76:78-93. To equate Adam and Eve’s pre-Fall bodies with glorified resurrected bodies is likely a wrong turn which will lead to incorrect conclusions.

[Mark Beesley]

3 hours ago, teddyaware said:

The answer could be very simple: As simple as while they were yet in their pre-fallen stare of innocence the bodies of Adam and Eve were like the bodies of young children before transitioning into puberty. In connection with Adam and Eve being given the commandment to multiply prior to the fall, I find it interesting that Latter-Day Saint children are taught they are under the  commandment to have children years prior to maturing into puberty, a situation very similar to the one experienced by our first parents in the garden prior to the fall!

Possibly. Beyond what is revealed, it is all speculation.😇

[teddyaware]

5 hours ago, Mark Beesley said:

Possibly. Beyond what is revealed, it is all speculation.😇

Did you understand my point that prepubescent Latter-Day Saint children are taught that God has placed them under a commandment to have children, and that they are given this commandment while they are in a state in which it’s physically impossible for them to fulfill the commandment? This powerfully demonstrates that it’s possible to be given a holy commandment from God while those so commanded are in a state in which it’s impossible to obey the commandment. This increases the likelihood that Adam and Eve were also in some way “prepubescent” when they were first given the commandment to multiply because logic dictates that it’s more likely that something has happened when it can be amply demonstrated that it can easily happen.

Edited April 10, 2025 by teddyaware

[Calm]

1 hour ago, teddyaware said:

because logic dictates that it’s more likely that something has happened when it can be amply demonstrated that it can easily happen

It is still speculation.

[longview]

8 hours ago, Mark Beesley said:

CFR.

Are you aware that the Garden of Eden was in a state of paradise? In which there was NO death? Are you aware that the Earth will be "transfigured" into paradise at the beginning of the Millennium? In which there will be NO death? That an infant will be born and live to the "age of a tree" (100 years) ? Have a look at D&C 101:29 And there shall be no sorrow because there is no death. 30 In that day an infant shall not die until he is old; and his life shall be as the age of a tree; 31 And when he dies he shall not sleep, that is to say in the earth, but shall be changed in the twinkling of an eye, and shall be caught up, and his rest shall be glorious.

8 hours ago, Mark Beesley said:

A Telestial body is a resurrected body of glory, as is a Terrestrial Body and a Celestial body. D&C 76:78-93. To equate Adam and Eve’s pre-Fall bodies with glorified resurrected bodies is likely a wrong turn which will lead to incorrect conclusions.

The paradisiacal states of the Garden of Eden and the Millennium have been described by Church authorities as being in the Terrestrial state. After the Fall, the Earth entered into the Telestial state as taught in the temple Endowment. The terms Telestial, Terrestrial, and Celestial do refer to states of glory in the resurrection. But you have to take care to consider the context of the scriptures. Sometimes the terms refer to transition of states of the Earth going from Creation to Garden of Eden to fallen state to Millennial Glory to the final state: Celestial Glory ("sea of glass" burning Eternal Fire).

It would NOT be correct to say that the Earth was "resurrected" to Terrestrial glory twice. During the Garden of Eden or in Millennial Glory.

The three terms have also been symbolically applied to parts of Mosaic or Solomonic temple: 1- Outer Courts the Telestial; 2- the space between the First Veil and the Second Veil as the Terrestrial; 3- the Holy of Holies as the Celestial.

I have to ask. Are you LDS?

[Mark Beesley]

9 hours ago, longview said:

Are you aware that the Garden of Eden was in a state of paradise? In which there was NO death? Are you aware that the Earth will be "transfigured" into paradise at the beginning of the Millennium? In which there will be NO death? That an infant will be born and live to the "age of a tree" (100 years) ? Have a look at D&C 101:29 And there shall be no sorrow because there is no death. 30 In that day an infant shall not die until he is old; and his life shall be as the age of a tree; 31 And when he dies he shall not sleep, that is to say in the earth, but shall be changed in the twinkling of an eye, and shall be caught up, and his rest shall be glorious.

The paradisiacal states of the Garden of Eden and the Millennium have been described by Church authorities as being in the Terrestrial state. After the Fall, the Earth entered into the Telestial state as taught in the temple Endowment. The terms Telestial, Terrestrial, and Celestial do refer to states of glory in the resurrection. But you have to take care to consider the context of the scriptures. Sometimes the terms refer to transition of states of the Earth going from Creation to Garden of Eden to fallen state to Millennial Glory to the final state: Celestial Glory ("sea of glass" burning Eternal Fire).

It would NOT be correct to say that the Earth was "resurrected" to Terrestrial glory twice. During the Garden of Eden or in Millennial Glory.

The three terms have also been symbolically applied to parts of Mosaic or Solomonic temple: 1- Outer Courts the Telestial; 2- the space between the First Veil and the Second Veil as the Terrestrial; 3- the Holy of Holies as the Celestial.

I have to ask. Are you LDS?

Are you aware that there are fossils on earth that are a lot older than 6 Thousand years?

Beyond that simple query, I will leave it to you to judge your own actions in challenging another person’s faith with the reminder that contention comes from the devil.

Take care.😇

[Mark Beesley]

13 hours ago, teddyaware said:

Did you understand my point that prepubescent Latter-Day Saint children are taught that God has placed them under a commandment to have children, and that they are given this commandment while they are in a state in which it’s physically impossible for them to fulfill the commandment? This powerfully demonstrates that it’s possible to be given a holy commandment from God while those so commanded are in a state in which it’s impossible to obey the commandment. This increases the likelihood that Adam and Eve were also in some way “prepubescent” when they were first given the commandment to multiply because logic dictates that it’s more likely that something has happened when it can be amply demonstrated that it can easily happen.

My prepubescent children were never taught that they were under any such commandment as children. And yes, they were raised in a faithful LDS home.😇

[ZealouslyStriving]

18 minutes ago, Mark Beesley said:

Are you aware that there are fossils on earth that are a lot older than 6 Thousand years?

Beyond that simple query, I will leave it to you to judge your own actions in challenging another person’s faith with the reminder that contention comes from the devil.

Take care.😇

Asking legitimate questions that challenge assertions put forward does not necessarily contention make. It's just a way to shut down discussion.

[Benjamin McGuire]

I think that it's good to remember that young earth creationism only enters LDS theology under the influence of Seventh Day Adventist George McCready Price, and his friendship with Joseph Fielding Smith. The last formal statement from the leadership of the Church on some of these issues (1931) is that there is no formal position on the question of death before the fall, the existence of Pre-Adamites, and the age of the earth.

The idea that the earth itself was born, was baptized, will die, and be resurrected is theologically questionable (at best). The notion of the flood as a baptism was introduced more as a way to defend the notion of a global flood (in the context of that young earth creationism). It doesn't hold much water for those who accept the scientific perspective provided by geological sciences. As that 1931 statement noted:

Quote

Both parties [Joseph Fielding Smith and B.H. Roberts] make the scripture and the statements of men who have been prominent in the affairs of the Church the basis of their contention; neither has produced definite proof in support of his views…

Upon the fundamental doctrines of the Church we are all agreed. Our mission is to bear the message of the restored Gospel to the people of the world. Leave geology, biology, archaeology and anthropology, no one of which has to do with the salvation of the souls of mankind, to scientific research, while we magnify our calling in the realm of the Church.

For me, I think that the role played by the narrative of the Garden of Eden has largely been replaced by the doctrine of the pre-existence. Both the scriptural narrative and the temple narrative of the garden should be understood as primarily figurative in that regard. To try to draw out these kinds of facts is go far beyond what the texts and rites are intending to teach us. I also think that we should recognize the value that comes from the scientific knowledge coming from geology, biology, archaeology and anthropology in understand the development of our human natures and the environment in which we find ourselves. It is in these questions that involve subjects that science is particularly well suited for investigation that we should recognize that these historical narratives should be understood - not as some absolute knowledge - but rather to be understood in light of contemporary and limited knowledge.

Edited April 10, 2025 by Benjamin McGuire

[Calm]

3 hours ago, Benjamin McGuire said:

I think that it's good to remember that young earth creationism only enters LDS theology under the influence of Seventh Day Adventist George McCready Price, and his friendship with Joseph Fielding Smith. The last formal statement from the leadership of the Church on some of these issues (1931) is that there is no formal position on the question of death before the fall, the existence of Pre-Adamites, and the age of the earth.

Thank you for bringing this up.  I am looking forward to when this is common knowledge in the Church and young earth creationism is no longer understood as traditional or historical going back to the beginnings of the Church and therefore it is seen as less faithful by many to interpret teachings from a different POV.  Then people will be more like to judge it by its own merits and not simply accept it as authoritative.

Edited April 10, 2025 by Calm

[Mark Beesley]

2 hours ago, ZealouslyStriving said:

Asking legitimate questions that challenge assertions put forward does not necessarily contention make. It's just a way to shut down discussion.

Unquestionably. Our charge is to discern between “legitimate questions” and questions which Paul cautions Timothy against  entertaining. See 1 Timothy 6:3-5 and 2 Timothy 2:23.😇

[teddyaware]

2 hours ago, Mark Beesley said:

Unquestionably. Our charge is to discern between “legitimate questions” and questions which Paul cautions Timothy against  entertaining. See 1 Timothy 6:3-5 and 2 Timothy 2:23.😇

And yet you’re the one who attempted to preemptively shut down a perfectly legitimate discussion on the fall of man based on core LDS scriptures by dismissively positing an assertion that there are fossils older than 6,000 years. In other words, “let’s not discuss the oft quoted scriptural passages that powerfully bolster Longview’s point of view because modern science “proves’ there’s zero chance that the verses Longview is quoting could actually be true.” How are the participants on a Latter-Day Saint oriented discussion board supposed to discuss the foundational doctrine of the fall of man, and his redemption through Christ, when the scriptures are off bounds?

Edited April 10, 2025 by teddyaware

[InCognitus]

2 minutes ago, teddyaware said:

And yet you’re the one who attempted to preemptively shut down a perfectly legitimate discussion on the fall of man based on core LDS scriptures by dismissively positing an assertion that there are fossils older than 6,000 years. In other words, “let’s not discuss the oft quoted scriptural passages that powerfully bolster Longview’s point of view because modern science “proves’ there’s zero chance the verses Longview quotes could actually be true.” How are the participants on a Latter-Day Saint oriented discussion board supposed to discuss the foundational doctrine of the fall of man and his redemption through Christ when the scriptures are off bounds?

Don't confuse misinterpretation with "off bounds".  There's a huge difference.

[longview]

6 hours ago, Mark Beesley said:

Beyond that simple query, I will leave it to you to judge your own actions in challenging another person’s faith with the reminder that contention comes from the devil.

It appears your request for CFR was pointless and insincere?

[Mark Beesley]

26 minutes ago, longview said:

It appears your request for CFR was pointless and insincere?

Based on your response to the CFR, I agree it was pointless. As for my sincerity, I sincerely wish you had better references.😇

[Mark Beesley]

1 hour ago, teddyaware said:

And yet you’re the one who attempted to preemptively shut down a perfectly legitimate discussion on the fall of man based on core LDS scriptures by dismissively positing an assertion that there are fossils older than 6,000 years. In other words, “let’s not discuss the oft quoted scriptural passages that powerfully bolster Longview’s point of view because modern science “proves’ there’s zero chance that the verses Longview is quoting could actually be true.” How are the participants on a Latter-Day Saint oriented discussion board supposed to discuss the foundational doctrine of the fall of man, and his redemption through Christ, when the scriptures are off bounds?

They aren’t. Longview, however, failed to provide any scriptural references for the assertions made to which I made the CFR. The reference to D&C 101 does not satisfy the CFR. He also failed to provide any citation to General Authority statements to support his assertions. Please note that my CFR was to a single paragraph touching on the type of body Adam and Eve had, the physical limitations of such bodies, and the behavior of the animals.

Your use of quotation marks is entirely inappropriate without some identifying attribution. If you thought somehow that you were quoting me, I will, here and now, disavow the same.😇

Edited April 10, 2025 by Mark Beesley

[ZealouslyStriving]

32 minutes ago, Mark Beesley said:

They aren’t. Longview, however, failed to provide any scriptural references for the assertions made to which I made the CFR. The reference to D&C 101 does not satisfy the CFR. He also failed to provide any citation to General Authority statements to support his assertions. Please note that my CFR was to a single paragraph touching on the type of body Adam and Eve had, the physical limitations of such bodies, and the behavior of the animals.

Your use of quotation marks is entirely inappropriate without some identifying attribution. If you thought somehow that you were quoting me, I will, here and now, disavow the same.😇

Courtesy of my Fundamentalish tendencies:

"Now hear it, O inhabitants of the earth, Jew and Gentile, Saint and sinner! When our father Adam came into the garden of Eden, he came into it with a celestial body, and brought Eve, one of his wives, with him. " (Brigham Young, Journal of Discourses 1:52)

Edited April 10, 2025 by ZealouslyStriving