Was there Death Before Adam

[cdowis]

The idea (doctrine?) that there was no death before the Fall of Adam has caused a real issue on reconciling science with religion, when we look at the fossil record.

 

Several years ago, I suggested the idea that death was operative during the five days of creation on another LDS forum, and was renounced as a heretic, an apostate.

 

Few have noticed a recent comment by Elder Holland in the last General Conference.  He was speaking of the Creation and Adam and Eve.  He said something very interesting

I do not know the details of what happened on this planet before that, but I do know these two were created under the divine hand of God, that for a time they lived alone in a paradisiacal setting where there was neither human death nor future family

https://www.lds.org/general-conference/2015/04/where-justice-love-and-mercy-meet?lang=eng

 

This is the first time in my memory that the door was opened to the idea that there was death prior Adam, and that the Fall only affected HUMAN death.

Edited August 27, 2015 by cdowis

[jerome1232]

For as long as I have had a care to care, I've regarded the creation story as just that, an allegory. 

[MrShorty]

Assuming people like this have done their historical research correctly, this has been a long standing issue in the Church, even among the apostles: http://mormonevolution.blogspot.com/2005/05/bh-roberts-episode.html According to these people, Elder B H Roberts and Elder Joseph Fielding Smith strongly expressed opposing views on "pre-Adamites" as they are called. Elder Talmage enterred the discussion, arguing that there is evidence of death before Adam and Eve. The official response of the 1st Presidency in that day was to suggest that they should not speculate about things that are not revealed and leave science to science. Basically, as Elder Holland noted in your quote, we really do not know about whether there was death before the fall or not. For whatever reason, perhaps because he eventually became president of the Church, Joseph Fielding Smith's opinions seem to hold more sway among LDS, but they do not represent the official position of the Church, and we certainly should not consider alternative hypotheses as "heretical" or "apostate".

[mrmarklin]

Until relatively recently, it had never occurred to me that the pre Columbian Indians were anything other than descendants of the Lamanites. I'm now convinced that this is not so.

So with regard to pre Adamic life, if the timeline of the Bible is even close to correct, it's obvious that there was death.

[Guest]

So with regard to pre Adamic life, if the timeline of the Bible is even close to correct, it's obvious that there was death.

 

Not necessarily.

 

Okay, let me just preface this as - there is no official position from the Church regarding these things.  The following is just my take on the matter.

 

I can see the concept that there was no death before the fall through this logic:

 

Creation was pre-mortal - with Adam and Eve in pre-mortal bodies in Eden.  The light, water, firmaments, etc were created and prepared, pre-mortal life was created and there was no death.  Adam and Eve then made their first free agent choice which caused the Fall.

 

Now... when people think of the Fall - they think, Adam was immortal, then literally one second after his body became mortal.  I can see the Fall as a billion years old process... where the transformation from immortal to mortal occurred in stages.  Looking at science - our only way of knowing if there was any life on the planet was through death - fossils.  So, unless they died at a certain time and left their bones for us to unearth, we wouldn't really know how long each of those fossils lived before that or what was alive in that time frame that did not produce fossils for us to unearth.  Now, there is a period in evolutionary theory (through the study of fossils) when all deaths seems to have started.  We can interpret this (with only our current knowledge) as the beginning of the Fall.  It was billions of years after that that science placed a human death on that evolutionary timeline.  I can interpret this as the Fall played out through the death of certain types of life in different stages before Adam and Eve's Spirits finally settled on a mortal body (this could be their pre-mortal body transformed to a mortal one and finally died, or their Spirits left their pre-mortal bodies to join a mortal one that finally died) thus concluding the Fall.

 

Make sense?

Edited August 27, 2015 by anatess

[The Folk Prophet]

It's a bit hard to get around 2 Nephi 2:22.

[Guest]

It's a bit hard to get around 2 Nephi 2:22.

 

Right.

 

I see this as - Adam and all of creation would have remained in its pre-mortal state.

[Traveler]

A couple of thoughts - It does not take a real keen mind for even an expert in ancient scripture to figure out that there are serious problems with literal interpretations of the scriptural creation account.  But the saddest element of this are the excuses made up by those that hold to literal understanding of scriptural to mitigate the preponderance of empirical evidence (both in lack of supportive evidence of religious creation theory and the ever increasing evidence contrary to religious creation theory) that such interpretation of scripture is critically flawed.

 

The second and perhaps even more shameful conduct of self appointed "Christians" is the shunning and at times bitter behavior towards those that have realized the serious questions that empirical evidence that G-d allows to exist of his creation, brings to the table.  So bitter has this conflict been fueled by the religious community that many scientist have become convinced that there is no rational way to study empirical evidence and be accepted by a Christian community as anything but a heretic or infidel.  I personally have been asked by well meaning LDS how I can believe in the possibility of scientific thinking - such as evolution and have a testimony of Christ?  Actually in my discussions with other scientist I will often voice a very different idea - how can one pretend to be a scientist and not believe in G-d and Jesus Christ?  This usually results in my saying - "Obviously you have an extremely flawed understanding of G-d and Jesus Christ.  I am most surprised that you do not pursue a better understanding of such an important matter"

 

Last of all what surprises me the most - are what I would call pretenders of truth.  These are individuals that have a predisposition of what they want to be true.  They will argue all kinds of things - one of their favorites is that man and G-d are so different that it is impossible for man to understand the truth of G-d - usually quoting the scripture that G-d's thoughts are not man's thoughts and are higher than man's.  The obvious answer to that argument is that if you are saying we humans cannot understand the reality of creation - why are you pretending you understand the reality of creation?

 

There is an old saying - "Do not take a knife to a gun battle."  The point here is that if someone has not seriously studied the empirical evidence in conjunction to careful study of the scripture references of the cycle of life on earth and how dating this cycle over hundreds of millions of years of empirical evidence and reconciling that with scripture interpretation - they will not win any logical exchanges with someone that has.  And by quoting only religious sources you will only convince someone that has studied the issue (both empirical and religious) that either you have misinterpreted your religious sources or that religious sources you are referencing is flawed.

 

There was death on this planet of even humanoid creatures long before 6,000 years ago which is the general date understood  of Adam's introduction to fallen earth that is its current condition.   If someone is going to address this issue by saying there was no death on earth before Adam -- It would be very helpful to such a discussion if they had good reason to back their viewpoint.  If they reject empirical evidence - as part of their reason - they seriously put their conclusions at risk if in their next statement they rely on empirical evidence as a means to validate how they interpret and accept a particular scripture as divine canon.  

[Guest]

There was death on this planet of even humanoid creatures long before 6,000 years ago which is the general date understood  of Adam's introduction to fallen earth that is its current condition.   If someone is going to address this issue by saying there was no death on earth before Adam -- It would be very helpful to such a discussion if they had good reason to back their viewpoint.  If they reject empirical evidence - as part of their reason - they seriously put their conclusions at risk if in their next statement they rely on empirical evidence as a means to validate how they interpret and accept a particular scripture as divine canon.  

 

Many points here that can present logical failure for those trying to piece the story together...  first - the assumption of 6,000 years all the way to what Adam means as simply the human Adam and not the Eternal Intelligence That Is Named Adam.

 

Make sense?

[Traveler]

It's a bit hard to get around 2 Nephi 2:22.

 

Not sure why you are saying this - are you saying that there was no lone and dreary world before Adam fell and left Eden?

[Traveler]

Many points here that can present logical failure for those trying to piece the story together...  first - the assumption of 6,000 years all the way to what Adam means as simply the human Adam and not the Eternal Intelligence That Is Named Adam.

 

Make sense?

yes - but how does scripture give an age of Adam - When scripture says Adam was so old when he died - what is the scripture saying is his age - from his creation or from his fall?

[Guest]

yes - but how does scripture give an age of Adam - When scripture says Adam was so old when he died - what is the scripture saying is his age - from his creation or from his fall?

 

The scripture says 930 years old right?  That would be from the time of mortal existence (after the completion of his change from pre-mortal to mortal in the Fall).  Because, if you go by the time his pre-mortal body was created - his body was in an unchanging state, therefore, it does not age.

 

But that's just my take on it.

[MrShorty]

The second and perhaps even more shameful conduct of self appointed "Christians" is the shunning and at times bitter behavior towards those that have realized the serious questions that empirical evidence that G-d allows to exist of his creation, brings to the table.  So bitter has this conflict been fueled by the religious community that many scientist have become convinced that there is no rational way to study empirical evidence and be accepted by a Christian community as anything but a heretic or infidel.

I will agree with this. Considering the logical difficulties involved, why can't we be more tolerant of each other on such topics.

 

"AAAAGHHH. It's that spawn of Satan -- an old earth creationist!!!! I can see the flames of hell licking at his heels as he walks the halls of the church." Especially as LDS, where our prophets and apostles have told us that the Church does not take an official position on OEC vs YEC vs what have you, why do we get so bent out of shape. I don't know how to reconcile 2 Ne 2:22 or any of the other scriptures involved, but I do know that, somehow Adam and Eve were the first of the "human" race (whatever that is and how is that different from the other hominids). They fell and introduced sin, death, etc. to God's creation -- somehow. I don't understand the mechanism. Because of their fall, A Savior, Jesus Christ, is needed to provide redemption from that fall. Whatever the details of the physical creation are, they will fit into that model somehow.

[The Folk Prophet]

If someone is going to address this issue by saying there was no death on earth before Adam -- It would be very helpful to such a discussion if they had good reason to back their viewpoint.

 

Why? What good would it possibly do?

[The Folk Prophet]

Not sure why you are saying this - are you saying that there was no lone and dreary world before Adam fell and left Eden?

 

Um...

 

What?!

 

What are you going on about? I'm not saying anything. Lehi is. Argue with him about it.

[The Folk Prophet]

I don't know how to reconcile 2 Ne 2:22 or any of the other scriptures involved, 

 

It's not 2 Ne 2:22 that needs to be reconciled. It's the so-called "empirical evidence" that does. The Book of Mormon is true.

[cdowis]

I can see the concept that there was no death before the fall through this logic: etc

This is THE paradox -- no death at all before Adam vs the fossil record indicating there was death.  Resolve the paradox and you probably have the answer.

(similar to the paradox of the translation of the Book of Abraham, but that is for another discussion)

 

In my own mind, I have proposed a hypothesis to resolve the paradox,  that there was death during the five days of creation, the fifth day was dedicated to "cleaning up the creation process", and  death was suspended on the sixth day.  

 

Not a perfect solution, but perhaps a step in the right direction.

Edited August 27, 2015 by cdowis

[Guest]

This is THE paradox -- no death at all before Adam and the scientific evidence indicating there was death.

 

In my own mind, I have proposed a hypothesis to resolve the paradox,  that there was death during the five days of creation, the fifth day was dedicated to "cleaning up the creation process", and  death was suspended on the sixth day.  

 

Not a perfect solution, but perhaps a step in the right direction.

 

There is no paradox if one would qualify what it means to be "before Adam".  Science cannot show where Adam is on their timelines, so Science has no answer as to which period is "before Adam" so they can't provide scientific evidence relating to it.

 

All Science can do is analyze death in ancient eras.  It cannot analyze birth.  It can also analyze mortal things (because it dies), it cannot analyze pre-mortal things.  If we take the position that there was no death before Adam - then "before Adam" is scientifically unobservable because science, as it currently stands, cannot observe pre-mortal states, or states prior to the Fall.  Also note that The Fall is the start of mortality.. anything before that is part of pre-mortal life.

Edited August 27, 2015 by anatess

[Just_A_Guy]

There is no paradox if one would qualify what it means to be "before Adam".  Science cannot show where Adam is on their timelines, so Science has no answer as to which period is "before Adam".

 

The trouble we run into, though, is that scripture does give us some general timelines--sometimes a fixed number of years; other times numbers of generations--that give us a pretty decent idea of when Adam was supposed to have lived; and that number is supposed to be somewhere in the neighborhood of 4000 BC.

 

I think cdowis' proposal is intriguing.  I haven't taken the time to work through the implications of this or reconcile it with available science and scriptural references; but I sort of wonder whether scriptural references to "this earth" (in the context of the creative process) refer, not to the planet, but to the earth at a particular phase of its existence. 

 

So in other words, death exists throughout planet earth's history (as affirmed by geologists), and perhaps even some of the "other worlds" Moses saw created and populated by God were in fact this planet at different stages in its geological history where human civilizations rose, fell, and disintegrated into oil deposits without leaving any impact in the known fossil record.

 

BUT--at some point God begins the creation process anew (perhaps, to some degree, building on prior geological and evolutionary advances) to form the earth as we know it today.  When the scriptural sixth creative period ends, God calls creation "good" and death disappears briefly--to be (re-)introduced by Adam, a historical being who lives and dies right when the scriptural record says he does.  Heck, maybe the 10th Article of Faith should be taken literally when it says "earth shall be renewed and receive its paradisaical glory"--it becomes an Eden (again), to be inhabited by new Adam and Eve figures through whom God introduces the next batch of spirit children to experience their own mortal probations.

Edited August 27, 2015 by Just_A_Guy

[cdowis]

 

There is no paradox if one would qualify what it means to be "before Adam".  

 

 

I don't understand.  

 

We know that the Fall of Adam happened less than 7k years ago, but the fossil record is supposedly millions of years old.  There "should" be no indication of death older that the 7k years.  The date of the creation of Adam is irrelevant to the age of the fossil record, IF there was no death prior to the Fall.

 

IOW, as scientists, we don't need to know when Adam was created (no death prior), only the date of the Fall (when death began).  The fossil record is our link to the existence of life in the distant past, which means the beginning of death.

 

(I corrected my error from "before Adam" to "before the Fall of Adam)"

Edited August 27, 2015 by cdowis

[The Folk Prophet]

I'm not sure why this has to be reconciled. I accept the science as scientific -- but with a healthy helping of "we're always learning and science changes it's mind a lot". I accept the scriptures as accurate (particularly proclamations of prophet's such as Lehi). I do not have a way of reconciling the dinosaur bones with this. And I don't care to. Someday, if we're lucky, and I'm not dead yet, science will come up with an answer that fits what is truth. Until then, I have no problem separating the two concepts and just letting them lie un-reconciled. Dinosaurs are cool. I like them. I believe they existed. I just simply don't know how that fits into the 6-thousand year earth theory. And that's okay. Who needs it to? I let it be. And that, I believe, is the advice we are officially given by our leaders. Let it be. Trust God. Trust his word. Let science be science. And someday we'll understand it all.

Edited August 31, 2015 by The Folk Prophet

[MrShorty]

I have no problem separating the two concepts and just letting them lie un-reconciled.

I concur with this statement. I, too, don't have a problem leaving these things un-reconciled. It can be interesting to think about and speculate, but, ultimately, wait for God to reveal (through prophets or scientists or direct to me sometime on the other side of the veil) the reconciliation.

[cdowis]

Look deep into nature, and then you will understand everything better.

Albert Einstein

 

Anything that involves a paradox, I want to know more about it.

cdowis

 

My idea on how to resolve a paradox ==>>

 

If the facts don't fit the theory, change the facts.

Einstein

Edited August 27, 2015 by cdowis

[The Folk Prophet]

Albert Einstein

 

-the atheist

 

or...agnostic, at least.

[Average Joe]

see comment below -

Edited August 27, 2015 by Average Joe