Garden of Eden as an allegory, historicity of Adam

[mordorbund]

I think there are certain patriarchs who become foundational types for their descendants. In the process of becoming a type, individualistic elements of their stories are abstracted out to emphasize the essential themes their progeny should emulate. Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob are all variations on the theme of the Abrahamic covenant. Abraham receives it in full, and the others get allusions to it via snippets. They experience similar trials. Sarah's trial with Pharaoh is repeated with Abimelech, and then repeated again with Rebekah and Abimelech (really? - fool me once...). Paul takes the abstraction one level further and sees that by emulating Isaac they are truly of the covenant, while those outside the Christian covenant are Ishmaels.

 

1 Nephi 10 is interesting in this light. 1 Nephi 8 has Lehi sharing the elements of the American tree of life drama. 1 Nephi 11+ has Nephi seeing an expanded version of the same drama. In the extended version, Nephi sees the fate of his posterity for generations, until they meet Christ, and continuing on to when the covenants are extended to them again. Lehi got this too. Reading chapter 10 has Lehi preaching the meaning of the elements, so he clearly sees it the same way. The generations that followed understood the this representation of their tribal leaders as both allegorical and literal. There was indeed a real Nephi and a real Laman. They really did sail over on a boat from the land of Isaiah to the land of their inheritance. As their descendants, the elements of the ancestral life apply to them as well. I think that's why we see Mosiah escaping the land of Nephi (like Lehi did), Zeniff trying to claim a land of inheritance (like Nephi) and Alma ... (etc). Their life was abstracted directly by the Lord in the tree of life vision, and fulfilled down through the generations with those eating of the fruit being Nephi and those rejecting it being Laman (a very literal fulfillment comes in the 4 Nephi apostasy when dissidents voluntarily take the name of Laman).

 

I think we're seeing the same thing with Adam. His life has set a theme, and many of the personal elements have been abstracted out (although modern revelation has given us more details of the individual - but that also gets abstracted out to teach general principles). He shows us individual fall and redemption. Paul uses his story to show us death and resurrection (via a second Adam). What's more, as with the other cases, his story is not just generic to John Everyman, but also to entire societies - Talmage (in The House of the Lord) sees in Adam's journey a reference to the universal apostasy.

 

So from where I sit, there's a literal Adam and Eve who were literally tempted by the devil or one of his servants (I think the serpent is not literal, but there's a message there too), transgressed a law (it may have involved a tree, I'm not completely sold one way or the other so both models sit in my brain for now), and had to give an accounting of their actions. From that fallout, they learned of the redemptive power of the Son of God and repented (I think the altars and angels are literal).

 

What's more, I can see us already starting the process with our own dispensational head. How often do we compare our own conversion stories to Joseph Smith's? He has set the pattern for us for search, ponder, and pray; seek and ye shall find; ask and ye shall receive; knock and it shall be opened unto you; receiving line upon line until you come to a perfect knowledge.

[The Folk Prophet]

 incredibly flawed DNA analysis

 

Incredibly flawed in our apologetic point of view. Not incredibly flawed in other's points of view. Obvious in theirs. I mean, unless your a DNA scientist who's actually run the tests and understands the process, I presume you're pulling your "incredibly flawed" theory from LDS apologetics. I'm not saying they're wrong. I'm saying there's clear choice in what we choose to accept as valid empirical evidence or not.

 

My hands are really tied on this argument because I refuse to bring up and discuss "valid" critiques of the Book of Mormon from a supportive point of view. But Ignoring that there are, indeed, valid arguments (yes, empirical ones) is putting on blinders. And yes, lack of evidence is construed as evidence by many. That apologetic approach never held much water. But, fine...take out the "empirical" part of it. There are, still, things that to some make many things (like the BOM) in the LDS faith "obviously"  mistaken. Should we discredit them as valid thinkers? They're discrediting us that way.

 

The only solution to valid arguments against religious teaching is faith. I can't explain dinosaur bones. But I'm not going to accept them as evidence that the Bible is a bunch of made up stuff.

 

I think we should err on the side of explaining the sciences to fit religion rather than the other way around. As much as it's all speculation, I'd much rather go with a "dinosaur bones must be from another planet" sort of theory (as silly as it is) then a, "the Bible must be wrong" sort of theory.

 

It really stinks to me of, "they are learned, so they think they are wise". Donkey's don't talk! We know that. We're learned. So obviously the donkey talking story in the Bible is allegorical.

 

Meh.  What can I say. I'm keeping an open mind on the whole donkey talking thing.

[Urstadt]

I'm totally with Traveler on a couple of things:

 

1) there is a possibility that species evolved into organism nearly identical to homo sapiens sapiens. I've told close friends of mine that I would not be surprised if Heavenly Father used evolution of some kind (from the dust of the earth) to create man. Once He deemed it appropriate, He put Adam's spirit in a body and wham-o.

 

2) that death came by way of the fall of Adam when there is documented death hundreds of thousands of years prior (eg, dinosaurs). Like Travelor, I don't have an answer but a guess that stands out in my mind. Was Heavenly Father referring to spiritual death (separation from the presence of the Father by way of sin) when he said death came by way of Adam? The argument could be made that spiritual and temporal death came by way of Adam, so then I defer to a second alternative: Adam and Ever were, by the power of God, eternal beings once their spirits were made flesh. If so, this would be a wise purpose in the Lord, I would imagine. Just my thoughts up to this point in my life.

 

Regarding empirical evidence, I would like to point out that, epistemologically speaking, empirical observation is not the only source of knowledge. Furthermore, there is no empirical need for empiricism. Man is fallable and can easily misunderstand what he observes. This is because once man observes something, he is only able to make any sense of his observations based on the background understanding he has. This background understanding is both how we understand our empirical investigations and make sense of them, as well as serves as the limitations to how much sense we can make of something and how accurate our understanding can be. Immanuel Kant speaks to this with his concept of Transcedental Idealism, and has been expanded upon by great thinkers like Edmund Husserl. Other modern scientists such as Thomas Kuhn, Brent D. Slife and Richard N. Williams, Hans-Georg Gadamer, Richard Bernstein, and Paul Ricoeur (to name a few) have expressed similar concerns and made additional arguments. Charles Taylor, as far as I'm concerned, has cleaned house on the matter.

 

So while I am very sympathetic to empiricism and the Cartesian Anxiety, I don't consider it the only source of truth and knowledge. But, like other things, that is just where Urstadt is at. And there is no way I could ever fully articulate, in its entirety, my complete stance on the matter in an online forum (I know you all know that, though). :)

[Seminarysnoozer]

 

Somewhere critical evidence is missing - either in the scripture witness or in the empirical record.  I can understand somewhat if we think of the scriptures as symbolic but there were humans long before the time that scripture tells us that Adam existed and there is a preponderance of evidence that there was death taking place for hundreds of thousands of years on earth before  the scriptures tell us that Adam fell and initially brought death for the first time.  Obviously something is wrong somewhere and only one of the record possibilities even remotely allows for a possibility of humans tampering with and changing the evidence.

I agree that there is evidence missing but what also is missing is the exactness of our language. 

 

There may be a possibility that we interchange the word death from a gospel standpoint to death from an antrhopological standpoint.  In other words, just because there is organic tissue organized in forms that we call "human" does that automatically mean that there had to have been a spirit body attached to that organic material?  I know it requires an open mind but when we talk about death from a gospel standpoint we are just talking about the sepration of a spirit body (body being the key word) from the physical body.  If I lost a finger it would not be called "death" from a gospel standpoint even though some organic material would have died in the process of losing a finger.  Or if I go in for in vitro fertalization there may be some zygotes that "die" in the process, was that the same kind of death we refer to from a gospel standpoint?  Was there some spirit body (son or daughter of God) that became detatched to its corresponding physical body in that process?  Or could it be that there is no spirit body (son or daughter of God) attached to the zygote sitting in the tube while it is "alive" in the tube?

 

Consider Adam as the first organic entity to receive a matching spirit body (son of God - spirit) and therefore becomes alive and the first "man" and therefore can suffer a "death" - meaning separation of the spirit body from the matching physical body.   Before Adam, there very well could have been many DNA matching physical forms and organic material until it evolved or was manipulated enough to accept a spirit body or possibly the pre-Adam organic forms were a preparation to know when the body of Adam could be introduced into this world safely for God's purposes. If no spirit bodies attached to those pre-Adam physical bodies but were simply kept alive through the spirit creation that is in all material of the Earth, in the rocks, the water, the stem stells that are manipulated into skin cells etc, then there is no gospel use of the word "death" before Adam because he was the first to have a spirit body.   And there was no "man" from the gospel definition of "man" as there was no corresponding son-of-God spirit body attached to those humanoids.  From the antropology you are not going to find evidence that those entities once housed spirit bodies.

 

If I take a stem cell, turn it into skin cells, multiply them and separate them from the original cell and keep them alive in a lab, what spirit body is attached to those cells?  If I take some stem cells and put them in a lab somewhere and the person who donated them dies, what spirit body is attached to those cells?  If I donate a kidney and it sits in the container for several hours "alive" but clearly detached from my body before it is put into someone else - is the kidney dead or alive while it sits in the container?  Depends on which death term one is using.  It is organically alive but dead from being detached from a spirit body.   If you think about it, organic material can be alive without a spirit body attached to it.  Knowing that that can be true, organic material alive but not attached to any spirit body (even though the material may have its associated spirit just like a rock does) then just finding evidence of old organic material with similar DNA does not prove there was spirit separating type death before the presumed time Adam was around.  The issue is a matter of defining words more than anything.  What kind of death are we talking about?

[SpiritDragon]

Interesting stuff here guys.

 

I'm personally very much in the literal camp. Not saying I don't see allegorical elements, but why would we all be subject to the fall if we were not all descendants of Adam? I believe Folk Prophet has made some valid points as to the veracity of Adam existing as a real man so I won't spend much of this post defending that position.

 

I also find the idea of God using evolution to make man an interesting one and perhaps even a possible one. I even had the same thought as Seminary Snoozer that perhaps "death" couldn't happen in the doctrinal sense until the breath of life (spirit?) entered into man, so it couldn't be separated. The problem I have with this conclusion is that all things were created spiritually before they were created physically, so it doesn't make sense to have the order switched at some point to reconcile "mans" understanding of history.

 

I have heard some contend that Adam most likely was only the father of the hebrew nations; how else do have other races? Well of course I don't know how, but I believe the Lamanites being marked shows that God can create a new race when he wants to.

 

As for some evidence we have of things I can see how it can be easy to misinterpret findings. For instance suppose a house is built with wood framing and after several years some renovations are being done and the owner notices termite damage. It could be easy to conclude that termites have infested the house at some point. However it doesn;t have to be the case, the house also could have been framed with termite damaged wood from the lumber yard that was treated to ensure the termites were dead and causing no further problem. We have the same conundrum with Earth. It was made of matter unorganized, brought to order. Whether dinosaur bones were from Earth or some previous creation we don't know. Whether bones that appear to support evolution are actually "missing link" types or simply bones of individuals that adapted to harsh environments or had developmental disorders we just don't know. Take for instance gigantism or down's syndrome; could there be other such conditions that would make the appearance of a different skeletal structure that we could make fit the paradigm of evolution because that is what we're looking for? Perhaps these same conditions no longer exist and we have no point of reference.

 

As for the age of man and animals and Earth, again I first point out that the elements the earth is made of are older than the earth itself. Secondly, I suggest that methods such as carbon dating can be wrong for determining the age of matter. I don't have a specific reference but I recall reading in a national geographic as a teenager about an area that carbon dating showed stuff to be thousands of years older than it was based on other corroborating evidence to place the era the stuff was made. It was thought to be because of volcanic activity. My point is that if we can be off by thousands of years over the course of a couple centuries, could we not be way off over the course of 6,000 years?

[wheelercreek]

I'm new to this forum, but certainly not new to the church.. I've been thinking about these issues a long time.  I believe in evolution (this is a point of view I've come to after much study over the past several years).  I also believe in a literal Adam and Eve, Fall, introduction of death..   I wrote an article on my personal blog a few months back to show how I've come to reconcile these ideas (somewhat). 

 

http://wheelercreek.com/blog/mormonism-adam-and-eve-and-human-evolution

 

I welcome your thoughts.

[Urstadt]

I believe in evolution (this is a point of view I've come to after much study over the past several years).

 

Same here. I really believe Heavenly Father used it to create a literal Adam and Eve: from the dust of the earth. I also find it interesting that the theory of evolution came about after the First Vision and the Restoration. We know from our gospel that ever since the Heavens were opened in 1820, there has been an utter outpouring of knowledge, revelation, invention, scientific advancement, and improved quality of life.

 

Also, Joseph Smith taught that matter can neither be created nor destroyed. How that works I am not entirely sure, but it seems to me that coincides with evolution.

[Urstadt]

The original Hebrew word that is currently translated as "create" does not mean to make something out of nothing, it means to organize what eternally exists.

New worlds get built on the ruins of older worlds:

Ether 13:9...

In short, what we have is rather incomplete and ill defined.  I do believe in a literal Adam and Eve though, but think it is pointless at this time to speculate about how they fit into everything else.

 

 

 

 

Thank you for this. I very much agree that our world is created from older worlds. I also very much agree that there is a problem with the translations of many of the words. I kind of agree with finding it pointless and kind of disagree. one the one hand, I see your point; on the other, I find it fun to speculate about the mysteries of the kingdom. But, that's just me. :)

[The Folk Prophet]

Thank you for this. I very much agree that our world is created from older worlds. I also very much agree that there is a problem with the translations of many of the words. I kind of agree with finding it pointless and kind of disagree. one the one hand, I see your point; on the other, I find it fun to speculate about the mysteries of the kingdom. But, that's just me. :)

 

There is absolutely nothing that categorically leads to the conclusion that the world is created from older worlds. That's a stretch and a half to me. I don't see the world as a jigsaw puzzle. We aren't play-doughed together. :)

[Seminarysnoozer]

Also, I don't think we have any great idea of the time it took for Adam to be kicked out of the garden and into this world.  Moses; " 29 Therefore I, the Lord God, will send him forth from the Garden of Eden, to till the ground from whence he was taken;"

 

How do we know that the "will send him forth" didn't take 100,000 years?  His age may be measured by the time he finally was out of the Garden, so he wasn't 100,000 years old per se. The process of sending him forth may be a lot more complicated than what it seems to be by the story.  Bottom line is we don't have all the info.

[Urstadt]

There is absolutely nothing that categorically leads to the conclusion that the world is created from older worlds. That's a stretch and a half to me. I don't see the world as a jigsaw puzzle. We aren't play-doughed together. :)

 

I can see that. I must admit, I have gone back and forth on the notion myself. I see a logical train of thought that could lead to the speculation that our world is made from older worlds but I completely agree with you that aside from that, there isn't anything remotely concrete to support it.

 

Also, I don't think we have any great idea of the time it took for Adam to be kicked out of the garden and into this world.  Moses; " 29 Therefore I, the Lord God, will send him forth from the Garden of Eden, to till the ground from whence he was taken;"

 

How do we know that the "will send him forth" didn't take 100,000 years?  His age may be measured by the time he finally was out of the Garden, so he wasn't 100,000 years old per se. The process of sending him forth may be a lot more complicated than what it seems to be by the story.  Bottom line is we don't have all the info.

 

My mission president used to tell us that it very well may have been 2,000,000,000 years that Adam and Eve were in there. I think about him saying that when I read about Laurasia, Pangea, and other supercontinents.

 

It's fun to think about. :)

[Traveler]

Interesting stuff here guys.

 

I'm personally very much in the literal camp. Not saying I don't see allegorical elements, but why would we all be subject to the fall if we were not all descendants of Adam? I believe Folk Prophet has made some valid points as to the veracity of Adam existing as a real man so I won't spend much of this post defending that position.

 

I also find the idea of God using evolution to make man an interesting one and perhaps even a possible one. I even had the same thought as Seminary Snoozer that perhaps "death" couldn't happen in the doctrinal sense until the breath of life (spirit?) entered into man, so it couldn't be separated. The problem I have with this conclusion is that all things were created spiritually before they were created physically, so it doesn't make sense to have the order switched at some point to reconcile "mans" understanding of history.

 

I have heard some contend that Adam most likely was only the father of the hebrew nations; how else do have other races? Well of course I don't know how, but I believe the Lamanites being marked shows that God can create a new race when he wants to.

 

As for some evidence we have of things I can see how it can be easy to misinterpret findings. For instance suppose a house is built with wood framing and after several years some renovations are being done and the owner notices termite damage. It could be easy to conclude that termites have infested the house at some point. However it doesn;t have to be the case, the house also could have been framed with termite damaged wood from the lumber yard that was treated to ensure the termites were dead and causing no further problem. We have the same conundrum with Earth. It was made of matter unorganized, brought to order. Whether dinosaur bones were from Earth or some previous creation we don't know. Whether bones that appear to support evolution are actually "missing link" types or simply bones of individuals that adapted to harsh environments or had developmental disorders we just don't know. Take for instance gigantism or down's syndrome; could there be other such conditions that would make the appearance of a different skeletal structure that we could make fit the paradigm of evolution because that is what we're looking for? Perhaps these same conditions no longer exist and we have no point of reference.

 

As for the age of man and animals and Earth, again I first point out that the elements the earth is made of are older than the earth itself. Secondly, I suggest that methods such as carbon dating can be wrong for determining the age of matter. I don't have a specific reference but I recall reading in a national geographic as a teenager about an area that carbon dating showed stuff to be thousands of years older than it was based on other corroborating evidence to place the era the stuff was made. It was thought to be because of volcanic activity. My point is that if we can be off by thousands of years over the course of a couple centuries, could we not be way off over the course of 6,000 years?

 

To start with I have problems with the literal understanding of anything that is translated – especially poetry.   We have many saying common to everyday modern English that do not translate well to other languages and vise versa.   For example:  it is raining cats and dogs, giving 110%, I have not been there in a blue moon and I have a bone to pick with you.

 

I also have a problem with justice metered out to anyone that is not directly involved in some way.  I see no reason for the conditions of the fall to determine someone’s mortal state just because they were or are a descendent of Adam and Eve.   I can understand justice for those having a mortal existence based on their choices in a pre-existence but not for the choices of their parents.

 

Every explanation I have ever heard concerning the Genesis creation comes with a lot of explanation that is not found anywhere in scripture or in any historical record of past interpretations.  There have been a lot of changes since Galileo concerning the interpretation of scripture in light of scientific discoveries.  But I do not know of any changes in scientific discoveries based on scripture interpretation.  If you can explain why Genesis has trees producing fruit and grass producing seeds on earth (creation day 3) before there was a sun or moon associated with earth (creation day 4) – then I would be more inclined to go with you concerning literal interpretations.

 

I am most interested in any understanding you can bring to the table concerning death on earth prior to the fall.  Seminary gives an interesting explanation – but that seem to be something I have not been able to rhetorical (empirically) make any sense of

[Traveler]

I can see that. I must admit, I have gone back and forth on the notion myself. I see a logical train of thought that could lead to the speculation that our world is made from older worlds but I completely agree with you that aside from that, there isn't anything remotely concrete to support it.

 

 

My mission president used to tell us that it very well may have been 2,000,000,000 years that Adam and Eve were in there. I think about him saying that when I read about Laurasia, Pangea, and other supercontinents.

 

It's fun to think about. :)

 

Time measurement is a most interesting problem.  If we were to leave earth in a space ship that could continue to accelerate at just 16 feet per second squared we could circle the entire universe in about 2 weeks but as much as 100 million years could pass away on earth while we were gone for that two weeks.

[The Folk Prophet]

To start with I have problems with the literal understanding of anything that is translated – especially poetry.   We have many saying common to everyday modern English that do not translate well to other languages and vise versa.   For example:  it is raining cats and dogs, giving 110%, I have not been there in a blue moon and I have a bone to pick with you.

 

I also have a problem with justice metered out to anyone that is not directly involved in some way.  I see no reason for the conditions of the fall to determine someone’s mortal state just because they were or are a descendent of Adam and Eve.   I can understand justice for those having a mortal existence based on their choices in a pre-existence but not for the choices of their parents.

 

Every explanation I have ever heard concerning the Genesis creation comes with a lot of explanation that is not found anywhere in scripture or in any historical record of past interpretations.  There have been a lot of changes since Galileo concerning the interpretation of scripture in light of scientific discoveries.  But I do not know of any changes in scientific discoveries based on scripture interpretation.  If you can explain why Genesis has trees producing fruit and grass producing seeds on earth (creation day 3) before there was a sun or moon associated with earth (creation day 4) – then I would be more inclined to go with you concerning literal interpretations.

 

I am most interested in any understanding you can bring to the table concerning death on earth prior to the fall.  Seminary gives an interesting explanation – but that seem to be something I have not been able to rhetorical (empirically) make any sense of

 

The thing is, and the "official" policy, is that we don't know, we can't know, and we should stop arguing about it.

 

Of course we can view it certain ways and have discussion. It is interesting. Your personality leads you to see it the way you do and to resolve these issues a certain way. My personality leads me differently. Neither of us are likely right.

 

That being said, I'll respond to a few of your ideas:

 

1. A phrase such as "raining cats and dogs" does not strike me as equivalent to Biblical writings.

 

2. We know that our mortal state is a condition of the fall. Equating that with justice isn't exactly correct though. That's like saying if I make my kid go out and garden to teach him work and responsibility that I'm metering out justice. We are sent to earth to be tested and to learn and grow. It's not measured justice for Adam and Eve's choice. But it is a "result" of Adam and Eve's choice.

 

3. As stated, this is only guesswork, but I've heard it postulated that the earth was created somewhere else (with a different sun), then placed here whereupon it was giving it's days, etc., via it's relationship to the sun and moon. Regardless, I find the need to explain things according to our understanding of science unfortunate. The Lord's ways are not ours. Take Jesus healing a man's blindness by spitting in the mud, placing it on his eyes, and then having him wash in a dirty pool. That sure doesn't fit with anything we know about science. Are we to believe this was allegorical too. What "really" must have happened is laser surgery?

 

Just some thoughts I had.

[Urstadt]

To start with I have problems with the literal understanding of anything that is translated – especially poetry.

I LOLed at this. :)

 

I am most interested in any understanding you can bring to the table concerning death on earth prior to the fall. Seminary gives an interesting explanation – but that seem to be something I have not been able to rhetorical (empirically) make any sense of

 

I can understand where you are coming from. I can. That Cartesian Anxiety is strong in all of us at times. Two things came to my mind. If they help, great. If not, then thank you for taking the time to read what I had to say:

 

1) there is no empirical need for empiricism. Many forms of knowledge, epistemologically speaking, come more than just empirical observation.

 

2) if we had all the facts, all the empirical evidence, then faith would be negated. We wouldn't need it. However, the scriptures do assert that without faith, Heavenly Father could not reward us (Hebrews 11:6), nor could we even return back to live with Him.

 

Time measurement is a most interesting problem.  If we were to leave earth in a space ship that could continue to accelerate at just 16 feet per second squared we could circle the entire universe in about 2 weeks but as much as 100 million years could pass away on earth while we were gone for that two weeks.

 

Yeah, that stuff is so interesting. Isn't some of that still theoretical at present? I'm asking because I really don't know. Time travel, light, relativity: I consider myself familiar with it enough to want to say that a lot of it is still theoretical. But, I don't know if I am right. And if I am, I don't know how much of it is right.

 

3. As stated, this is only guesswork, but I've heard it postulated that the earth was created somewhere else (with a different sun), then placed here whereupon it was giving it's days, etc., via it's relationship to the sun and moon.

 

You are very much right that this has been posited. This has been speculated for a long time by many general authorities. If memory serves, Joseph Smith was the first to present it. Can someone clarify this?

[Traveler]

I LOLed at this. :)

 

 

I can understand where you are coming from. I can. That Cartesian Anxiety is strong in all of us at times. Two things came to my mind. If they help, great. If not, then thank you for taking the time to read what I had to say:

 

1) there is no empirical need for empiricism. Many forms of knowledge, epistemologically speaking, come more than just empirical observation.

 

2) if we had all the facts, all the empirical evidence, then faith would be negated. We wouldn't need it. However, the scriptures do assert that without faith, Heavenly Father could not reward us (Hebrews 11:6), nor could we even return back to live with Him.

 

 

Yeah, that stuff is so interesting. Isn't some of that still theoretical at present? I'm asking because I really don't know. Time travel, light, relativity: I consider myself familiar with it enough to want to say that a lot of it is still theoretical. But, I don't know if I am right. And if I am, I don't know how much of it is right.

 

 

You are very much right that this has been posited. This has been speculated for a long time by many general authorities. If memory serves, Joseph Smith was the first to present it. Can someone clarify this?

 

If there is no empirical evidence there are other means to gain truth.  My point is that when there is empirical evidence – it should not be ignored.  I do not believe a G-d of truth would create empirical evidence that is a lie.  But like scriptures may be misinterpreted by those seeking to prove their selfish and prejudice interests empirical evidence can be misinterpreted incorrectly in order to support selfish and prejudice interests.

 

Yes time dilation as a principle of relativity has been proven to take place.

 

As for things of the past showing on earth being creations of somewhere else – there is empirical evidence.  For example, some of the larger dinosaurs were too massive for current earth gravity and mastodons frozen in Siberia had food being digested inside them also frozen, which would have required temperatures colder than can be found anywhere on earth and the only place where such temperatures currently exist are in outer space.

[Seminarysnoozer]

If there is no empirical evidence there are other means to gain truth.  My point is that when there is empirical evidence – it should not be ignored.  I do not believe a G-d of truth would create empirical evidence that is a lie.  But like scriptures may be misinterpreted by those seeking to prove their selfish and prejudice interests empirical evidence can be misinterpreted incorrectly in order to support selfish and prejudice interests.

 

Yes time dilation as a principle of relativity has been proven to take place.

 

As for things of the past showing on earth being creations of somewhere else – there is empirical evidence.  For example, some of the larger dinosaurs were too massive for current earth gravity and mastodons frozen in Siberia had food being digested inside them also frozen, which would have required temperatures colder than can be found anywhere on earth and the only place where such temperatures currently exist are in outer space.

What happens with the uncommon situation where reason stands opposite to empirical evidence, which one do you choose?  (I am not asking this in terms of this particular issue per se - in general)

 

The power to reason seems to be more valued in LDS teachings than does the ability to gather empirical evidence, as the power to reason goes hand in hand with agency which we hold dearly as one of the purposes of this life. The power to reason goes with "the desires of the heart".  The "desires of the heart" is ignored with empirical evidence, it doesn't matter what the heart feels.  Empirical evidence seems to melt away agency that is driven by the desires of the heart and in that way seems to go against the whole purpose of this life.  The first estate test was one in which empirical evidence was tested.  The second estate test is one in which reason is tested, reflecting our character through agency.

 

Like you said, empirical evidence should be used when available and especially if it coincides with reason, but what if they clash?  By way of what one holds more valuable, one sometimes has to choose empirical evidence over reason or reason over empirical evidence.  That may be an important part of the test - does one value reason more than empirical evidence?

 

John H. Vandenberg, presiding Bishop; "These persuasions of the heart are related to two opposing forces constantly at work within every human being. They are the forces of good and evil, which the Master referred to as God and mammon. Coupled with these forces is the individual’s power to reason, which only man, of all God’s creations, possesses. This enables him to make choices. It is man’s control valve of what he wants to be. The forces governed by his own reasoning determine the nature and quality of the choice made. Thus, that which we call character is formed. We refer to this privilege of choice as the agency of man."

[Traveler]

What happens with the uncommon situation where reason stands opposite to empirical evidence, which one do you choose?  (I am not asking this in terms of this particular issue per se - in general)

 

The power to reason seems to be more valued in LDS teachings than does the ability to gather empirical evidence, as the power to reason goes hand in hand with agency which we hold dearly as one of the purposes of this life. The power to reason goes with "the desires of the heart".  The "desires of the heart" is ignored with empirical evidence, it doesn't matter what the heart feels.  Empirical evidence seems to melt away agency that is driven by the desires of the heart and in that way seems to go against the whole purpose of this life.  The first estate test was one in which empirical evidence was tested.  The second estate test is one in which reason is tested, reflecting our character through agency.

 

Like you said, empirical evidence should be used when available and especially if it coincides with reason, but what if they clash?  By way of what one holds more valuable, one sometimes has to choose empirical evidence over reason or reason over empirical evidence.  That may be an important part of the test - does one value reason more than empirical evidence?

 

John H. Vandenberg, presiding Bishop; "These persuasions of the heart are related to two opposing forces constantly at work within every human being. They are the forces of good and evil, which the Master referred to as God and mammon. Coupled with these forces is the individual’s power to reason, which only man, of all God’s creations, possesses. This enables him to make choices. It is man’s control valve of what he wants to be. The forces governed by his own reasoning determine the nature and quality of the choice made. Thus, that which we call character is formed. We refer to this privilege of choice as the agency of man."

When reason and empirical evidence stand in opposition to each other there is somewhere a disconnect.  That disconnect could be in understanding of the empirical evidence or in the rhetorical logic we rely on for our “reason”.  In science we saw this disconnect take place for over 100 years in the study of dinosaurs in thinking them to be exclusively cold blooded creatures.  In religion we have seen this occur for over 1000 years as Christians believed the earth to be the center of the universe.  I submit that only when reason conform with empirical evidence can there be any comprehension of the truth being witnessed to us.

[The Folk Prophet]

I do not believe a G-d of truth would create empirical evidence that is a lie.

 

This is just one big logical fallacy. It is not that black and white. There's a whole host of comprehension, knowledge, translation, interpretation, illusion, etc., and most importantly, perception issues in play.

 

Surely, at the very least, you've been to magic shows and the like that empirically deny known truths via illusion.

[Seminarysnoozer]

When reason and empirical evidence stand in opposition to each other there is somewhere a disconnect.  That disconnect could be in understanding of the empirical evidence or in the rhetorical logic we rely on for our “reason”.  In science we saw this disconnect take place for over 100 years in the study of dinosaurs in thinking them to be exclusively cold blooded creatures.  In religion we have seen this occur for over 1000 years as Christians believed the earth to be the center of the universe.  I submit that only when reason conform with empirical evidence can there be any comprehension of the truth being witnessed to us.

I agree with what you are saying here as it pertains to comprehending the whole truth.  But, in this life we are asked to reason without having the whole truth or at least in spite of not having it we have to move forward through reason.  When there is not enough empirical evidence we still are asked to choose and that is done through reason.

 

I mean, you have state the problem well but that doesn't answer the question, which one do you choose?  And we can't say, 'I'm undecided because I don't have all the empirical evidence yet.'   To me, if one says that, that is the same as saying 'show me a sign', as it pertains to religion or religious topics.

[Seminarysnoozer]

This is just one big logical fallacy. It is not that black and white. There's a whole host of comprehension, knowledge, translation, interpretation, illusion, etc., and most importantly, perception issues in play.

 

Surely, at the very least, you've been to magic shows and the like that empirically deny known truths via illusion.

I'm 100% with you on this one.  The brain does an amazing job of making up information.  It comes up with a logical explanation for things and turns it into what one thinks is actually perceived when it is not. 

 

This has been shown over and over again.  Sometimes, for example, people believe they have been molested when they haven't or had some traumatic experience in the past when it really hasn't occured.  Or they swear they know who the perpetrator of the crime is but in reality have all the details wrong.  Dreams are a good example of this, a made up story by the brain that can seem real.   The blind spot in the visual field is made up of information that does not really exist, it is covered over by surrounding information, making the brain think there is that visual information in that spot.    More often than not the evidence is skewed by the process of receiving the evidence.  We forget most of what we hear.  Our memory is not a video recorder but is based on the emotional response to a situation.  If a situation is more emotionally charged we are more likely to remember it than if it is emotionally bland.  Memory loss can be a part of depression, for example. 

 

You are right, there are a lot of factors that go into simply knowing if the evidence is real or not. 

[Traveler]

This is just one big logical fallacy. It is not that black and white. There's a whole host of comprehension, knowledge, translation, interpretation, illusion, etc., and most importantly, perception issues in play.

 

Surely, at the very least, you've been to magic shows and the like that empirically deny known truths via illusion.

The question concerns when empirical evidence and logic with reason are incompatible.  This question comes because of my understanding that the two must be used together to witness truth.  Part of my premise is that G-d will not create empirical evidence to deliberately lie.  As per you example – I do not believe G-d is a magician that deliberately creates illusions to deceive mankind.  For example, I do not believe that G-d deliberately left behind a preponderance of evidence of evolution to deceive us in order to test us to see if we would believe he created everything separately and uniquely from nothing without evolution.  I may be wrong – but I do not believe in an intelligent G-d with such methods and character nor do I want to spend eternity in the presents of such a being trying to guess what is real and what is an illusion.

[The Folk Prophet]

The question concerns when empirical evidence and logic with reason are incompatible.  This question comes because of my understanding that the two must be used together to witness truth.  Part of my premise is that G-d will not create empirical evidence to deliberately lie.  As per you example – I do not believe G-d is a magician that deliberately creates illusions to deceive mankind.  For example, I do not believe that G-d deliberately left behind a preponderance of evidence of evolution to deceive us in order to test us to see if we would believe he created everything separately and uniquely from nothing without evolution.  I may be wrong – but I do not believe in an intelligent G-d with such methods and character nor do I want to spend eternity in the presents of such a being trying to guess what is real and what is an illusion.

 

Apparently my use of a simple example of an illusionist dissuaded you from consideration of the rest of my suggested variables. Strange. I wouldn't have taken away from what I said that it meant "God is an illusionist". The clear implication is that we, as mortals, are stupid -- not that God is deceptive.

[Traveler]

I'm 100% with you on this one.  The brain does an amazing job of making up information.  It comes up with a logical explanation for things and turns it into what one thinks is actually perceived when it is not. 

 

This has been shown over and over again.  Sometimes, for example, people believe they have been molested when they haven't or had some traumatic experience in the past when it really hasn't occured.  Or they swear they know who the perpetrator of the crime is but in reality have all the details wrong.  Dreams are a good example of this, a made up story by the brain that can seem real.   The blind spot in the visual field is made up of information that does not really exist, it is covered over by surrounding information, making the brain think there is that visual information in that spot.    More often than not the evidence is skewed by the process of receiving the evidence.  We forget most of what we hear.  Our memory is not a video recorder but is based on the emotional response to a situation.  If a situation is more emotionally charged we are more likely to remember it than if it is emotionally bland.  Memory loss can be a part of depression, for example. 

 

You are right, there are a lot of factors that go into simply knowing if the evidence is real or not. 

 

 

From my experience - there are methods both from science and scripture that deal with conflicting evidence.  The first step is to study the empirical evidence and the second step as well in the logic and reason employed.  From my scientific background I begin to test the empirical evidence I am given and attempt to isolate the specific parts in question.  I will also use trusted individuals to test my logic.  You are an example of someone I trust to challenge any possible even resemblance of a logical flaw in my reasoning.   Part of my method is to petition G-d to assist me in my assessments.   Sometimes in my discoveries I experience great joy and excitement.  I believe this to be compatible with scripture that promises divine reward to our asking, seeking and searching.  Sometimes I am not able to make sense of it – I believe this to be a promised stupor of thought for indication of a flaw.   One example of a continuing stupor of thought of mine concerns the introduction of death in to our world through the fall of Adam.  I cannot resolve the revelations, empirical evidence with my best study and reasoning and I have not been confident much in what others put forward as sufficient insight.  For me I do not have an answer.  I am sure part of the reason is my own failing – in fact that may the only problems but I have not been able to reconcile that as the answer ether.  So I continue to study the revelations, the empirical evidence and my logic – quite sure I will someday be rewarded for my efforts.  If not in this life then at some time here after.  And since this is not a life or death scenario of my current quest or condition; I try not to worry about it too much and be as patient as I can (patients being another well documented failure of mine.)

[Traveler]

Apparently my use of a simple example of an illusionist dissuaded you from consideration of the rest of my suggested variables. Strange. I wouldn't have taken away from what I said that it meant "God is an illusionist". The clear implication is that we, as mortals, are stupid -- not that God is deceptive.

 

Interesting play on logic.  If we mortals are so stupid why would we make convenants with G-d, receive the Holy Ghost, become a Saint and try to believe in anything?