Was there Death Before Adam

[jerome1232]

Does any of this matter in terms of our salvation?

Are we only allowed to discuss things pertaining to our salvation?

[f1lbr]

Are we only allowed to discuss things pertaining to our salvation?

 

Certainly not.  We just need to make certain that our discussion does not move into the area of generating doubt.

 

To me, true religion and true science are the same thing.  But some things simply cannot be figured out by man's reasoning alone.  For those things, I have a "bookshelf" in the back of my head of things I would (mostly out of curiosity) like to have and answer but for which I accept that answers are not forthcoming.

[cdowis]

cdowis: If I had to guess, that sounds like something that Joseph Fielding Smith would have said. See if this sounds like the quote you are thinking of: http://www.goodreads.com/work/quotes/1193318-seek-ye-earnestly

 

As I noted very early in this discussion, JFS and BRM and several others have offered, as their personal opinions and interpretations of scripture, that "first flesh" means something like you describe. As near as I can tell, since this is their personal opinion on how to interpret the scripture, we should not claim that it is the "only" valid interpretation of the scripture, but maybe should allow each of us to interpret the scripture in our own way, until "the Church" decides to officially declare the correct interpretation of the scripture.

 

Thank you very much for doing the research.  It is interesting to see how my mind works -- in this case,  "probably doctrine" indicates that it is an opinion, and the one that made the most sense to me.  Other interpretations seem to lead down a rabbit hole.

 

I get caught in so much wild and crazy stuff, that I just wanted something simple for a change.

 

Thanks again.

Edited September 7, 2015 by cdowis

[Traveler]

I do not believe that many dedicated scientists have lied about creatures that died for millions of years before we understand from scripture that Adam came and dwelt on this planet earth.  I do not believe that these dedicated scientists have lied about any evidence nor has there been a conspiracy to cover up or misrepresent any evidence.

 

I am somewhat disappointed my many in the religious community the refuse to address the preponderance of consistent empirical evidence of continuing life for millions of years on this planet earth.   I am greatly disappointed that the religious community has not responded to Neanderthal DNA in various populations (and not in others) in modern human populations.  There has been some in the religious community that has admitted not knowing the answers – but for those that say or suggest any evil or complicit wrong doing in investigating historical empirical evidences and trying to understand truth I do not understand at all. 

 

If something is to be accused of being false – those so accusing so better come with amble and creatable evidence of their accusation.  If scripture is to be used as evidence – one must also recognize that scripture requires two or more witnesses. 

 

I personally do not know the answer as to death on earth before the transgression of Adam and Eve as we are counseled in scripture – but I am inclined towards believing the evidence we have and those that have looked at, considered and at least prayed about the evidence as much as they have prayed and considered their singular perception of witness in scripture.

[Blackmarch]

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

 

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.

I'd say that the concept is outside of what's said within the scriptures, as well as doesn't really matter much as it doesn't touch on the atonement outside of where humanity is concerned.

loigc would suggest yes (strongly), but there isn't any explcit statement in the scriptures.

[Rhoades]

Does any of this matter in terms of our salvation?

 

If you mean, is it necessary to have a perfect knowledge of this before we die in order to be saved? Then, no.

If you mean, is having a perfect knowledge of this a part of our salvation?  Then, yes. Celestial beings will eventually learn all of this.  It is part of their salvation.  "It is impossible for a man to be saved in ignorance." (D&C 131:6)    

We just need to be wise enough to know that some questions need placed in the "learn later" pile.  The later could be in this life or the next.  We need to be content with that.  My experience has been that the mysteries of God that we do learn in this life often lead to additional questions we hadn't thought of previously.  It seems there's always more to learn, which I love.

[cdowis]

 I am greatly disappointed that the religious community has not responded to Neanderthal DNA in various populations (and not in others) in modern human populations.  

 

Perhaps "they" have not responded because no one has asked them a question.

 

Anyway, perhaps this would be pertinent

Gen 6 [4] There were giants in the earth in those days; and also after that, when the sons of God came in unto the daughters of men, and they bare children to them, the same became mighty men which were of old, men of renown.

Edited September 17, 2015 by cdowis

[Traveler]

Perhaps "they" have not responded because no one has asked them a question.

 

Anyway, perhaps this would be pertinent

Gen 6 [4] There were giants in the earth in those days; and also after that, when the sons of God came in unto the daughters of men, and they bare children to them, the same became mighty men which were of old, men of renown.

 

There are many way to interpret scripture.  That there could have been soiled offspring and intermingling of genetics of decedents of Adam and Eve with other creatures is not an interpretation hardly considered much within the religious community.  The arguments against such interpretations appear to me to be mostly emotional. 

 

I personally am inclined to believe that despite modern revelation and ancient scripture - we really do not know very much.  And when empirical evidence seem to indicate how little we really know - many see truth as their enemy and not their long lost friend.

[cdowis]

I'd say that the concept is outside of what's said within the scriptures, as well as doesn't really matter much as it doesn't touch on the atonement outside of where humanity is concerned.

loigc would suggest yes (strongly), but there isn't any explcit statement in the scriptures.

 

Are you saying, "We don't know"  That never occurred to me.

[Traveler]

Are you saying, "We don't know"  That never occurred to me.

 

I think what Blackmarch is suggesting is that the purpose of scripture is not to provide such information - that the focus of scripture is for something else.  Therefore to rely on scripture for something for which it was not intended - is not likely to produce our particular desired or intended results.  Kind of like going fishing in sand dunes.  That just is not the place to look for fish and concluding since they cannot be found there - that they cannot be found anywhere.

[cdowis]

I think what Blackmarch is suggesting is that the purpose of scripture is not to provide such information - that the focus of scripture is for something else.  Therefore to rely on scripture for something for which it was not intended - is not likely to produce our particular desired or intended results.  

 

 

 

 

I think D&C section 91 applies here, as the Lord talks about the apocrypha.  Not needful, but the Lord encourages us to lean what we can from it.

4 Therefore, whoso readeth it, let him understand, for the Spirit manifesteth truth; 5 And whoso is enlightened by the Spirit shall obtain benefit therefrom;

 

Also Facsimile 2 in the Book of Abraham

11. If the world can find out these numbers, so let it be. Amen.

The Lord encourages us to glean what we can from revealed scripture, even if it is not "needful at this time" for the Lord to clarify it.

Edited September 20, 2015 by cdowis

[Traveler]

I think D&C section 91 applies here, as the Lord talks about the apocrypha.  Not needful, but the Lord encourages us to lean what we can from it.

4 Therefore, whoso readeth it, let him understand, for the Spirit manifesteth truth; 5 And whoso is enlightened by the Spirit shall obtain benefit therefrom;

 

Also Facsimile 2 in the Book of Abraham

11. If the world can find out these numbers, so let it be. Amen.

The Lord encourages us to glean what we can from revealed scripture, even if it is not "needful at this time" for the Lord to clarify it.

 

I am not sure I understand what you are trying to say.  Are you saying we should or should not seek truth that is not testified to - specifically in standard or canon scripture?

Edited September 21, 2015 by Traveler

[cdowis]

We are encouraged to learn from all  sources of truth, from the best books"  -- science, math, history, etc, and, yes, from the scriptures.  I think we are responsible for making an attempt to reconcile the scriptures with science,  history, languages, social studies, psychology.

 

The Lord made it clear that the attitude "it doesn't affect my salvation" is an unacceptable excuse.  DC90:15

Edited September 21, 2015 by cdowis

[NeedleinA]

Yes, I know... semi-old thread. I enjoyed reading all of this and decided to read an older thread versus start a new thread called "Dinosaurs ate my scriptures". I will add an interesting link for any future reader from a BYU professor:

Steven L Peck on Why Evolution and LDS Thought are Fully Compatible

 

[Blackmarch]

On 8/27/2015 at 0:10 AM, cdowis said:

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

 

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.

what are the bounds- in relation to just the garden, to just earth, to just the spirit realm, to the universe, or to everything?

[Guest]

On 9/7/2015 at 4:34 AM, cdowis said:

This is not my interpretation.   Sorry,  I cannot give you the source but it comes from my "probably official doctrine" part of my memory, and I trust it implicitly.  This means that it came from a single authoritative source.

Cdowis,

I too heard this.  A religion professor at BYU told me this.  But since then, I'd come across many scriptures like what @Traveler pointed out.  And I tend to agree with his take on it.

[Faapefuoe]

Spiritual death?

[The Folk Prophet]

On 9/17/2015 at 10:46 AM, Traveler said:

There are many way to interpret scripture. 

2 Peter 1:20-21

20 Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation.

21 For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost.

[The Folk Prophet]

On 9/21/2015 at 4:56 PM, cdowis said:

We are encouraged to learn from all  sources of truth, from the best books"  -- science, math, history, etc, and, yes, from the scriptures.  I think we are responsible for making an attempt to reconcile the scriptures with science,  history, languages, social studies, psychology.

 

The Lord made it clear that the attitude "it doesn't affect my salvation" is an unacceptable excuse.  DC90:15

Well that's not what D&C 90:15 says at all. How does "become acquainted with all good books" translate to "science has to be reconciled with religion"?

[Traveler]

On Saturday, March 05, 2016 at 9:39 PM, The Folk Prophet said:

2 Peter 1:20-21

20 Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation.

21 For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost.

This particular scripture was first written by Peter around 2,000 years ago in another language and culture.  His original document in which he wrote his words are currently lost.  We are told specifically in the Book of Mormon that many plain and precious truths have been lost from the Bible.  This being a manuscript of the Bible.  I am not sure that your use of the translation made many years after (that included a Great Apostasy) the manuscript Peter original created is 100% accurate and spot on and that there is nothing more to learn or to think on or to ponder and study.

I submit as proof that your thinking by quoting a single verse from the Bible should be sufficient to dispel all possible opinions different from yours to be flawed – the proof is in the thousands of differing Christian sects and churches almost all of which claim authority to their doctrinal opinions from scripture (including this scripture you are quoting) – and that there is no single doctrine (that I know of) that all are in complete agreement concerning.  Scripture just is not that well understood, translated and interpreted to be the final means to establish true doctrine.   Also I can provide scripture that would indicate that all scripture should be (likened unto ourselves).  In addition there is the Article of Faith that specifically states that we LDS believe there very important “things” yet to be revealed.

 

The Traveler

[The Folk Prophet]

7 hours ago, Traveler said:

This particular scripture was first written by Peter around 2,000 years ago in another language and culture.  His original document in which he wrote his words are currently lost.  We are told specifically in the Book of Mormon that many plain and precious truths have been lost from the Bible.  This being a manuscript of the Bible.  I am not sure that your use of the translation made many years after (that included a Great Apostasy) the manuscript Peter original created is 100% accurate and spot on and that there is nothing more to learn or to think on or to ponder and study.

 

I submit as proof that your thinking by quoting a single verse from the Bible should be sufficient to dispel all possible opinions different from yours to be flawed – the proof is in the thousands of differing Christian sects and churches almost all of which claim authority to their doctrinal opinions from scripture (including this scripture you are quoting) – and that there is no single doctrine (that I know of) that all are in complete agreement concerning.  Scripture just is not that well understood, translated and interpreted to be the final means to establish true doctrine.   Also I can provide scripture that would indicate that all scripture should be (likened unto ourselves).  In addition there is the Article of Faith that specifically states that we LDS believe there very important “things” yet to be revealed.

 

 

The Traveler

What are you talking about? Are you LDS or not?

[Traveler]

18 hours ago, The Folk Prophet said:

What are you talking about? Are you LDS or not?

Why do you ask? Are you being judgmental?  Please specify which point you contend is contrary to LDS doctrine so I can understand why you are asking such a palpably absurd question.

[The Folk Prophet]

1 hour ago, Traveler said:

Why do you ask? 

Because your philosophies are oft times out of sync with basic lds teachings.

1 hour ago, Traveler said:

Are you being judgmental?  

Maybe. But that's a different thread.

1 hour ago, Traveler said:

Please specify which point you contend is contrary to LDS doctrine.

That anyone can willy-nilly interpret scriptures and it's just as valid as those who are authorized to interpret scripture. That's a very non-lds protestant view.

[Traveler]

20 hours ago, The Folk Prophet said:

Because your philosophies are oft times out of sync with basic lds teachings.

Maybe. But that's a different thread.

That anyone can willy-nilly interpret scriptures and it's just as valid as those who are authorized to interpret scripture. That's a very non-lds protestant view.

I personally would not refer to revelation from the Holy Ghost to an individual reading scripture as willy-nilly.  I find the idea that only certain authorized individuals should seek understanding from the scriptures through the Holy Ghost - repugnant and way out of sync with basic LDS teachings.  The idea of deferring "spiritual gifts" is the main point I find in Moroni's exhortations in Moroni chapter 10 of the Book of Mormon.

 

The Traveler

[Vort]

1 hour ago, Traveler said:

I find the idea that only certain authorized individuals should seek understanding from the scriptures through the Holy Ghost - repugnant and way out of sync with basic LDS teachings.

I am approximately 99.8% sure this is not what TFP meant. Rather, I am quite sure he meant that only the General Authorities are authorized to receive revelation for the operation of the Church (hence the "general" part), and that doctrinal explication to the Church is therefore a function of the President, the First Presidency, and the Quorum of Twelve.

That is to say, when an individual says "I have received revelation that thus-and-such nonstandard scriptural interpretation is true", we are under no obligation in the least to give that claim any consideration. If the individual is telling the truth, it is likely he is breaking a covenant to keep such things sacred and not reveal them to the world or even to others, unless specifically directed to do so.