The People before Adam

[Hemidakota]

If you believe the Garden of Eden was not here physically then I would think you would also say that all the animals that Adam named and tended where not here physically either. Then I would wonder if you believe there is life here that was not part of the "original creation." Or do you think all life of every kind was cleared when Adam arrived?

I think what you are saying might be a little play on words because sometimes when we say that something is physical we are saying that it is mortal and when we say it is spiritual, that means it is made immortal. So when you say "I think that the Garden was not here, physically." are you saying that it was not located on the planet? or are you saying it wasn't mortal or made to die?

There were physical animals with Adam...there is no other unless you have seen something that I am not aware of.

[Hemidakota]

Could Adam stand as the starting point for the religious ideas of an already existing people?

Simply put - no.

[Seminarysnoozer]

There were physical animals with Adam...there is no other unless you have seen something that I am not aware of.

I don't know what HiJolly was saying that is why I asked the question that way. Is HiJolly saying that all the animals that came with Adam represent all animal life on the planet right now or not? And if yes, does HiJolly believe that there was life here on earth already when Adam arrived. If that is the belief, then what happened to all the pre-Adam-arrival animals, did they get wiped out?

[JohnnyRudick]

I don't know what HiJolly was saying that is why I asked the question that way. Is HiJolly saying that all the animals that came with Adam represent all animal life on the planet right now or not? And if yes, does HiJolly believe that there was life here on earth already when Adam arrived. If that is the belief, then what happened to all the pre-Adam-arrival animals, did they get wiped out?

The first creation;

Genesis 1:1 In the beginning God created the heaven and the

earth.

Yes, the Scripture tells us that the earth was covered with water and darkness.

Genesis 1:2 And the earth was without form, and void; and

darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God

moved upon the face of the waters.

Then God reseeded the earth in a paradisaical glory which went through a corruption at the fall of Adam and Eve our parents.

Genesis 1:3 And God said, Let there be light: and there was

light.

Edited May 22, 2010 by JohnnyRudick
Afterthought;-)

[Hemidakota]

I don't know what HiJolly was saying that is why I asked the question that way. Is HiJolly saying that all the animals that came with Adam represent all animal life on the planet right now or not? And if yes, does HiJolly believe that there was life here on earth already when Adam arrived. If that is the belief, then what happened to all the pre-Adam-arrival animals, did they get wiped out?

What pre-adam animals? All the animals that are upon this earth, in its original design and form, are still here among us. Before Noah deluge, people of Cain were heavily involved in animal husbandry. I could only imagine what was being done.

Anything before this, was the result of a world that failed.

[Snow]

What pre-adam animals? All the animals that are upon this earth, in its original design and form, are still here among us. Before Noah deluge, people of Cain were heavily involved in animal husbandry. I could only imagine what was being done.

Anything before this, was the result of a world that failed.

Of course it goes without saying that your evidence is exactly ZERO.

[Seminarysnoozer]

What pre-adam animals? All the animals that are upon this earth, in its original design and form, are still here among us. Before Noah deluge, people of Cain were heavily involved in animal husbandry. I could only imagine what was being done.

Anything before this, was the result of a world that failed.

What do you mean by failed? What was the goal of that world?

[john doe]

It should probably be pointed out here that most of the information being put forth on this thread being passed off as fact is more on the lines of speculation, and the church has no official position on the beliefs being pushed. Most of what is being talked about is not doctrinal or found in the canon of the church. Some people claim to have received personal revelation on the matter, or think they have certain insights, but the outside observer needs to know that the church does not endorse many of those positions.

[Snow]

It should probably be pointed out here that most of the information being put forth on this thread being passed off as fact is more on the lines of speculation, and the church has no official position on the beliefs being pushed. Most of what is being talked about is not doctrinal or found in the canon of the church. Some people claim to have received personal revelation on the matter, or think they have certain insights, but the outside observer needs to know that the church does not endorse many of those positions.

ummm, maybe.

In 1972 The First Presidency published portions of Joseph Fielding Smith's writing, namely the book Selections from Answers to Gospel Questions was made available as the Melchizedek Priesthood Course of Study for the period September 1972 to August 1973. It said:

"The animals were all created and placed on the earth preceding the coming of Adam and Eve. In fact the whole earth and the creatures on it were prepared for Adam and Eve before Adam's fall.… The earth and all upon it were not subject to death until Adam fell.… It was through the fall of Adam that death came into the world." (pp. 53-54, 111; emphasis added.)

There are other examples but a big one is the LDS Bible Dictionary published with the LDS edition of the Bible in 1979. On the topic of death before the fall, it says:

"There was no death on this earth for any forms of life before the fall of Adam. Indeed, death entered the world as a direct result of the fall." (s.v. death, p. 655)

"Before the fall, … there was no sin, no death, and no children among any of the earthly creations. With the eating of the 'forbidden fruit,' Adam and Eve became mortal, sin entered, … and death became a part of life. Adam became the 'first flesh' upon the earth, meaning that he and Eve were the first to become mortal. After Adam fell, the whole creation fell and became mortal. Adam's fall brought both physical and spiritual death into the world upon all mankind." (s.v. Fall of Adam, p. 670.)

"All things" were created "in a non-mortal condition" and became "mortal through the fall of Adam." (s.v. flesh, p. 676.)

Of course that is factually and demonstrably wrong but that it what it says.

[HiJolly]

I don't know what HiJolly was saying that is why I asked the question that way. Is HiJolly saying that all the animals that came with Adam represent all animal life on the planet right now or not? And if yes, does HiJolly believe that there was life here on earth already when Adam arrived. If that is the belief, then what happened to all the pre-Adam-arrival animals, did they get wiped out?

Well, I'm a heretic and that's all there is to it.

All things pertaining to this earth existence were created in spirit first. The planet itself was created in spirit first. As were the animals, and Adam & Eve.

Physically, the Suns and planets came first, then plant life upon the life-viable planets, then animal life, then Man.

While the billions of years passed in which life came forth, Man waited in the spirit realms for life on the physical earth to reach the point of viability for Man. This 'viability' was more than just physical. All things had to be ready.

When Adam "fell", he moved from the spirit world (Eden) to the physical world, where his body already existed, ready for him to "arrive". In the physical world, biological life and death were fully in operation for at least hundreds of millions of years, if not a few billion. In Eden, there was no death and no birth. It is not possible in that state of existence.

All other details that we see in the Temple or scripture or conference talks is figurative mythology to help us 'get' the story.

HiJolly

Heretic

[john doe]

ummm, maybe.

In 1972 The First Presidency published portions of Joseph Fielding Smith's writing, namely the book Selections from Answers to Gospel Questions was made available as the Melchizedek Priesthood Course of Study for the period September 1972 to August 1973. It said:

"The animals were all created and placed on the earth preceding the coming of Adam and Eve. In fact the whole earth and the creatures on it were prepared for Adam and Eve before Adam's fall.… The earth and all upon it were not subject to death until Adam fell.… It was through the fall of Adam that death came into the world." (pp. 53-54, 111; emphasis added.)

There are other examples but a big one is the LDS Bible Dictionary published with the LDS edition of the Bible in 1979. On the topic of death before the fall, it says:

"There was no death on this earth for any forms of life before the fall of Adam. Indeed, death entered the world as a direct result of the fall." (s.v. death, p. 655)

"Before the fall, … there was no sin, no death, and no children among any of the earthly creations. With the eating of the 'forbidden fruit,' Adam and Eve became mortal, sin entered, … and death became a part of life. Adam became the 'first flesh' upon the earth, meaning that he and Eve were the first to become mortal. After Adam fell, the whole creation fell and became mortal. Adam's fall brought both physical and spiritual death into the world upon all mankind." (s.v. Fall of Adam, p. 670.)

"All things" were created "in a non-mortal condition" and became "mortal through the fall of Adam." (s.v. flesh, p. 676.)

Of course that is factually and demonstrably wrong but that it what it says.

The Bible Dictionary is not canon.

[Snow]

The Bible Dictionary is not canon.

Nor are many Official Statements from The First Presidency that specify what the Church holds as doctrinal, however, when the First Presidency publishes something, you have to believe that they know what is in it. You also have to believe that they approve of what's in it. If the First Presidency knows it and approves, you would have to think that they believe it and believe that it represents the Church's belief.

Am I wrong?

[JohnnyRudick]

Nor are many Official Statements from The First Presidency that specify what the Church holds as doctrinal, however, when the First Presidency publishes something, you have to believe that they know what is in it. You also have to believe that they approve of what's in it. If the First Presidency knows it and approves, you would have to think that they believe it and believe that it represents the Church's belief.

Am I wrong?

And even if it even makes it into the D&C or P of GP it still may be ignored by certain corners of the congregation as pure fantasy.

[Snow]

And even if it even makes it into the D&C or P of GP it still may be ignored by certain corners of the congregation as pure fantasy.

What does that mean?

If you have something to say, for heavens sake , have the courage to say it.

[john doe]

Nor are many Official Statements from The First Presidency that specify what the Church holds as doctrinal, however, when the First Presidency publishes something, you have to believe that they know what is in it. You also have to believe that they approve of what's in it. If the First Presidency knows it and approves, you would have to think that they believe it and believe that it represents the Church's belief.

Am I wrong?

The way I look at it is that until it is canonized as scripture, even official documents sent out by the church are to be viewed as helpful to our understanding of the doctrine, and not to be taken as doctrine in and of itself. And as we all know, even canonized scripture can be interpreted in various ways, in which official statements attempt to help us understand them. And to be honest, sometimes those official statements may not be 100% accurate. I also believe that many times even canonized scripture on how the earth and its beginnings came to be may not be taken as entirely literal.

The LDS Church is not infallible. Our understanding of things is not either. Sometimes we are left to our own devices to work out our own salvation and realize that all things will eventually be revealed, and the small things like whether Adam was really the first human placed on the earth or whether the story of the creation is to be taken allegorically, the important thing is our relationship to God, and how we live the gospel to the best of our ability.

I don't understand it all, and I think even you might admit that you don't have all the answers either. We're all working it out, and trying to lift each other up while coming to the best understanding we can with the evidence given to us, both by God and our physical surroundings. God is the source of all truth, all we can do now is interpret what we see and what we receive as revelation, and hope our conclusions match what really happened.

[Snow]

The way I look at it is that until it is canonized as scripture, even official documents sent out by the church are to be viewed as helpful to our understanding of the doctrine, and not to be taken as doctrine in and of itself. And as we all know, even canonized scripture can be interpreted in various ways, in which official statements attempt to help us understand them. And to be honest, sometimes those official statements may not be 100% accurate. I also believe that many times even canonized scripture on how the earth and its beginnings came to be may not be taken as entirely literal.

The LDS Church is not infallible. Our understanding of things is not either. Sometimes we are left to our own devices to work out our own salvation and realize that all things will eventually be revealed, and the small things like whether Adam was really the first human placed on the earth or whether the story of the creation is to be taken allegorically, the important thing is our relationship to God, and how we live the gospel to the best of our ability.

I don't understand it all, and I think even you might admit that you don't have all the answers either. We're all working it out, and trying to lift each other up while coming to the best understanding we can with the evidence given to us, both by God and our physical surroundings. God is the source of all truth, all we can do now is interpret what we see and what we receive as revelation, and hope our conclusions match what really happened.

I can't argue with that.

But, being canonized, doesn't necessarily makes something doctrinal either -if by doctrinal we mean "true." There are things in the scriptures that clearly are not true and there are things that are, at least, not literally true. Brigham Young certainly accepted the Bible as canon but clearly did not believe that is was all literally true and correct.

While I don't like criticizing leaders... well let me put it this way. I wish that Elder McConkie had not been the one to write the Bible Dictionary, and I be please if and when the Church publishes a new, scholarly, Bible commentary.

Edited May 23, 2010 by Snow

[john doe]

I think I can agree with that, Snow. As for McConkie and his main authorship of the Bible Dictionary, I think I understand the reasons for it, and I think his flaws are fairly well known and pointed out by to those who research his work. I think he would be the first to admit that he may not have been completely accurate in all that he did, but that he did the best he could with the most reliable and proven sources at the time. On a related note, I heard the news today that Mormon Doctrine will not be printed again. It has apparently outlived its usefulness.

[Snow]

I think I can agree with that, Snow. As for McConkie and his main authorship of the Bible Dictionary, I think I understand the reasons for it, and I think his flaws are fairly well known and pointed out by to those who research his work. I think he would be the first to admit that he may not have been completely accurate in all that he did, but that he did the best he could with the most reliable and proven sources at the time. On a related note, I heard the news today that Mormon Doctrine will not be printed again. It has apparently outlived its usefulness.

Yeah - that's pretty big news - fortunately I've got two copies, both 2nd editions, a 15th printing and a 31st printing.

[Seminarysnoozer]

Well, I'm a heretic and that's all there is to it.

All things pertaining to this earth existence were created in spirit first. The planet itself was created in spirit first. As were the animals, and Adam & Eve.

Physically, the Suns and planets came first, then plant life upon the life-viable planets, then animal life, then Man.

While the billions of years passed in which life came forth, Man waited in the spirit realms for life on the physical earth to reach the point of viability for Man. This 'viability' was more than just physical. All things had to be ready.

When Adam "fell", he moved from the spirit world (Eden) to the physical world, where his body already existed, ready for him to "arrive". In the physical world, biological life and death were fully in operation for at least hundreds of millions of years, if not a few billion. In Eden, there was no death and no birth. It is not possible in that state of existence.

All other details that we see in the Temple or scripture or conference talks is figurative mythology to help us 'get' the story.

HiJolly

Heretic

So, just to make it clear (sorry), you believe that Adam did not have a physical body before the fall? As a result of the fall he received a physical body?

[JohnnyRudick]

And even if it even makes it into the D&C or P of GP it still may be ignored by certain corners of the congregation as pure fantasy.

What does that mean?

If you have something to say, for heavens sake , have the courage to say it.

For instance

. . But, being canonized, doesn't necessarily makes something doctrinal either -if by doctrinal we mean "true." There are things in the scriptures that clearly are not true and there are things that are, at least, not literally true. Brigham Young certainly accepted the Bible as canon but clearly did not believe that is was all literally true and correct.

While I don't like criticizing leaders... well let me put it this way. I wish that Elder McConkie had not been the one to write the Bible Dictionary, and I be please if and when the Church publishes a new, scholarly, Bible commentary.

[Moksha]

And even if it even makes it into the D&C or P of GP it still may be ignored by certain corners of the congregation as pure fantasy.

Johnny, there are always statements that can paint us into a darkened corner. That is why greater light and knowledge can enter the world, so as to show us more luminescent steps to help guide our way. When science helps broaden the understanding of the mechanisms of God's handiwork, it should not be required of everybody to except that understanding. Likewise, it should not be required everybody to disregard this insight.

:)

[HiJolly]

Yeah - that's pretty big news - fortunately I've got two copies, both 2nd editions, a 15th printing and a 31st printing.

Ok, so after reading this I had to run get my copy off the shelf to check and see.

Published 1958, with no indication as to edition nor printing. I think it must be a first printing.

HiJolly

[HiJolly]

So, just to make it clear (sorry), you believe that Adam did not have a physical body before the fall? As a result of the fall he received a physical body?

Yes, that's my opinion. I think I have thought through all the implications of this view, but if you'd like to toss a few you've thought of in my direction, I'd appreciate it.

Sewing fig leaves? Naming animals? Eating fruit? Having ribs surgically removed? --- lay it on me! Of course since I see so much of it in a metaphorical manner, that does make a difference...

HiJolly

[Snow]

Ok, so after reading this I had to run get my copy off the shelf to check and see.

Published 1958, with no indication as to edition nor printing. I think it must be a first printing.

HiJolly

If it's a first edition, first printing, that would be pretty valuable, I should think - doctrinally unsound, but valuable.

[rameumptom]

I think we need to consider a few things regarding JFS, BRM and prints such as the Bible Dictionary:

1. they were written during a time when strong opinion was allowed in the Church. 2. These views were based solely upon one interpretation (literal) of the bible, and did not consider science. 3. Those involved in such writings have been dead for a very long time. 4. The Church tried providing a replacement for Mormon Doctrine, Bible Dictionary, etc., in the early 1990s with the Encyclopedia of Mormonism. This is still available online, and in many libraries as an official Church publication. Of course, even it is now out of date on many issues, but is still very valuable resource.

So, should we quote the Bible Dictionary published in 1979, or the Encyc of Mormonism published in the early 1990s? On issues like pre-Adamites or evolution, I'd go with the newer publication of the Church.