Was there Death Before Adam

[The Folk Prophet]

I think the way I saw changed's theory was something like this: God builds a world. In the building of that world there is harshness, growth, death, brutality, and the natural course of things. That is part of the creation process. The dinosaurs and the monkey-men and the whatsoever, all part of the creation process. Death is part of the creation process. Then, when the creation is done, the world enters it's no-death state along with Adam and Eve being created, etc. And there the world will remain until and unless Adam and Eve partake of the forbidden fruit and bring death back into the world.

 

Of course, it's just a meaningless theory, and I don't buy into it as any more valid than any other meaningless theory. It's a "could be" and of interest as an idea. But like I said before, I'm content to not have these things resolved. In point of fact, I don't think they are meant to be or will be in this life. It's part of our trial. Will we live by faith or not?

[cdowis]

The part of this that seems intriguing to me is that some variations of cosmology suggest that the universe starts in the big bang, expands to a point, then contracts in a big crunch. This seems to leave open the possibility of a cycle where the universe explodes, expands and evolves to fulfill God's purposes, then contracts back into a singularity to be used by God again, if He desires. Of course, at this point, we are way beyond the question of fossils and death before Adam's fall, and all the way back to the ultimate creation of the universe, how that works, and God's role in creation.

 

It also suggests a multiverse model, which was suggested in the discussion between Dawkins and Hawkin.  He was trying to explain how, without a Creator, life became possible ("so carefully designed") with such impossible odds against it.  

https://youtu.be/CMJFfaKZXRs

Edited August 30, 2015 by cdowis

[Traveler]

Along with Changed ideas I would like to point out something.  I am not sure we understand death or life.  Please let me give an example.  An abundance of life exist at the microscopic level.  A single cell life form (the basic structure of all life) will begin to unravel it DNA and divide internally, eventually dividing the life form into two new live forms.  The two new children will be as different from the single parent as they are from each other.  In essence the parent no longer exists but in its place are two children.  Did the parent life form die?

 

If we say the parent life form died - that is quite different than the death we currently experience.  In essence nothing actually died - there is no organic matter - no physical stuff that quit living.  We do know that the DNA of the offspring is slightly different than the initial parent.  Do spiritual life forms operate in the same manner?  Are individual protozoa without individual spirits?

 

If we explorer the possibility that as a life form we are made up of many individual parts - both physical and spiritual.  Maybe we are not only individuals we are also colonies of individuals acting as one.  As long as the union of individual cells remains and the life form we call ourselves continues to live and not die - could we say there is no death? 

 

Is it possible that for hundreds of millions of years that our "earth" was actually such an individual life form made up on many lower life forms and that the earth continued on without itself dying?  Could it be that the earth itself will die and be resurrected - all part of the plan of G-d and that this death was the result of the fall of man (Adam).  Could it be that the death of dinosaurs was in essence the evolution of life of this planet and that we are  in essence arguing over points that do not apply in the way we are trying to make them apply?  Could it be that the answer to our questions and divisions is very simple but that we just do not understand it?

 

I am not saying that my little theory is what has been happening.  All that I am saying is that it is possible none of us actually know what we are arguing about when we say there was no death before Adam.  And our certainty that someone that dare consider anything different from how we interpret scripture needs to be soundly denounced and put in their place - may not be as smart or intelligent way as we think.

 

I have a feeling that when the day comes that G-d reveals to us the truth of all things - many will slap their foreheads and wonder why they could not have thought of that.  And realize that in so arguing points of doctrine we thought we knew for sure; will have much to apologize to many for what we have said and done in ignorance.  It may actually be possible that both the scriptures and the empirical evidences that exist are both spot on.

 

Let me make it clear - I do not have the answer.  I do not know how to explain death and what was going on - on this planet before Adam and exactly what happened with the fall of man.  The only thing I am sure of is that any one that thinks they have the answers - does not really understand the questions.  My only purpose in posting on such subjects is the hope that we all realize we do not know as much as we think or purport to know.

Edited August 31, 2015 by Traveler

[Vort]

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

 

TFP, is it fair to say that you believe the earth is not a spheroid orbiting the sun and surrounded by a vacuum, but rather a flat crust with the heavens above and hell beneath? Because it's a bit hard to get around Alma 18:31-32.

[The Folk Prophet]

TFP, is it fair to say that you believe the earth is not a spheroid orbiting the sun and surrounded by a vacuum, but rather a flat crust with the heavens above and hell beneath? Because it's a bit hard to get around Alma 18:31-32.

 

Huh? I have to say, you've entirely lost me.

[Vort]

Huh? I have to say, you've entirely lost me.

 

Is it [the heavens] above the earth?

 

How best to answer this question? Of the following two possible answers, choose which you think would be more appropriate in a Sunday School class or similar gospel-teaching situation.

1. "You question is naive and does not actually make sense. 'Above' and 'below' are strictly relative terms that have meaning only with respect to your orientation in a gravitational field. We do not live on a flat crust of earth, though that is what things sort of look like to us. Rather, we live on an immense globe, almost a sphere. Every point on that surface has a different direction for 'down' and 'up'. Roughly speaking, 'down' is the direction from your current location on the sphere's surface toward the center of mass of the earth, and 'up' is the opposite direction.

   "The question is further complicated because the spherical earth itself turns. Because of this, the heavens above (and below) you are constantly shifting position. The moon might be directly overhead, and thus 'above', you at the moment, but a moment (or half a day) later, it is no longer directly above you, and might even be underfoot.

   "Thus, when you ask if the abode of God is 'above' the earth, your question is not well-defined. Do you mean above your location at the moment you asked the question? We would also need to know the current location of God's abode. Is it even within our physical universe? If so, there is (probably) an actual physical location we could point at, and determine whether it is overhead, underfoot, or in some sideways direction -- but that knowledge hasn't been given us. If God's abode is not actually a part of our physical universe, as some have suggested, then the question is literally unanswerable.

   "In any case, even if the question makes sense, we cannot currently answer it. Even if we could, that answer would constantly change, so it would not be useful."

    

2. "Yea, and he looketh down upon all the children of men."

Why did you choose the one you chose? Didn't the unchosen answer have any factual merit? What's wrong with it?

Edited August 31, 2015 by Vort

[The Folk Prophet]

Is it [the heavens] above the earth?

 

How best to answer this question? Of the following two possible answers, choose which you think would be more appropriate in a Sunday School class or similar gospel-teaching situation.

1. "You question is naive and does not actually make sense. 'Above' and 'below' are strictly relative terms that have meaning only with respect to your orientation in a gravitational field. We do not live on a flat crust of earth, though that is what things sort of look like to us. Rather, we live on an immense globe, almost a sphere. Every point on that surface has a different direction for 'down' and 'up'. Roughly speaking, 'down' is the direction from your current location on the sphere's surface toward the center of mass of the earth, and 'up' is the opposite direction.

   "The question is further complicated because the spherical earth itself turns. Because of this, the heavens above (and below) you are constantly shifting position. The moon might be directly overhead, and thus 'above', you at the moment, but a moment (or half a day) later, it is no longer directly above you, and might even be underfoot.

   "Thus, when you ask if the abode of God is 'above' the earth, your question is not well-defined. Do you mean above your location at the moment you asked the question? We would also need to know the current location of God's abode. Is it even within our physical universe? If so, there is (probably) an actual physical location we could point at, and determine whether it is overhead, underfoot, or in some sideways direction -- but that knowledge hasn't been given us. If God's abode is not actually a part of our physical universe, as some have suggested, then the question is literally unanswerable.

   "In any case, even if the question makes sense, we cannot currently answer it. Even if we could, that answer would constantly change, so it would not be useful."

    

2. "Yea, and he looketh down upon all the children of men."

Why did you choose the one you chose? Didn't the unchosen answer have any factual merit? What's wrong with it?

 

Vort, I very well understand the complexities of "above". What I am lost on is how you're applying this to 2 Nephi 2:22.

[Vort]

Vort, I very well understand the complexities of "above". What I am lost on is how you're applying this to 2 Nephi 2:22.

 

The fall of Adam is not a well-understood event. We know that it happened, and we have a representation of some of the actions that surrounded it. We also know that the event (the fall itself) was a necessary and planned part of the plan of salvation. Beyond that, we know almost nothing.

 

We equate "the fall" with "Adam's transgression", but that equation is not necessarily correct. Adam's transgression was disobedience; the fall was the expulsion from paradise and entering into a mortal, fallen sphere. The latter was a consequence of the former. But must it have been so? From other sources (and I am trying to be careful here), we know that Satan claimed his action was something that had been done elsewhere, with the clear implication that it was not a fallen devil who acted in those former situations. Satan acted in a way he was not authorized to act. But someone was authorized so to act. Or at least that is the clear implication.

 

The fact is that things went down as they did. For us, in our reality, the fall is functionally synonymous with Adam's transgression. But "functionally synonymous" does not mean "the same as". The teachings in 2 Nephi 2 were given for a clear purpose: To teach of the importance of the fall. I see no reason to believe they were intended as a lesson in absolute history. Just as the answer to Limhi's question had little to do with physics and everything to do wtih spiritual reality and what he (and we) needed to know, so I believe Lehi's answer was far less concerned with the actual role played by the actors in the fall and much more concerned with teaching spiritual truths about our relationship with God and the necessity of opposition -- the theme of the chapter.

 

My point is, you are welcome to take 2 Nephi 2:22 as absolute scriptural proof that death itself did not exist on our planet in any form until a few thousand years ago, when we assume Adam's fall must have taken place. But using the same absolutist logic, I am equally justified in proclaiming that we live on a more or less flat crust of earth, wtih heaven above and hell beneath, based on Alma 18:31-32. I personally reject the line of reasoning -- "The scriptures say it and are speaking in a historical/scientific/social sense that I completely understand, so my interpretation is correct and all others that contradict mine are wrong" -- which leads to both conclusions.

[The Folk Prophet]

My point is, you are welcome to take 2 Nephi 2:22 as absolute scriptural proof that death itself did not exist on our planet in any form until a few thousand years ago

 

I believe I did not say this. In fact, if you read the thread, it's very plain what my actual position is, as I've stated it a few times.

[Vort]

I believe I did not say this. In fact, if you read the thread, it's very plain what my actual position is, as I've stated it a few times.

 

I confess I have not read the thread carefully, but I thought I had characterized your argument correctly. If not, I apologize. What is your position?

[The Folk Prophet]

I confess I have not read the thread carefully, but I thought I had characterized your argument correctly. If not, I apologize. What is your position?

 

http://lds.net/forums/topic/57729-was-there-death-before-adam/?p=833810

[Vort]

http://lds.net/forums/topic/57729-was-there-death-before-adam/?p=833810

 

Okay, I agree with that.

[The Folk Prophet]

Okay, I agree with that.

 

Cool.

 

My point in saying it's hard to get around 2 Nephi 2:22 is more a response to those would would discount it entirely. It is a dangerous precedent, I think, to write off scripture or explain it away because of the knowledge of man. 2 Ne 2:22 doesn't prove science wrong. To resolutely take it as such would be to deny the sun shining in your face. But the existence of dinosaur bones and ancient human skeletons and oil in ground do not prove 2 Ne 2:22 wrong either.

 

That was my point.

[Traveler]

Cool.

 

My point in saying it's hard to get around 2 Nephi 2:22 is more a response to those would would discount it entirely. It is a dangerous precedent, I think, to write off scripture or explain it away because of the knowledge of man. 2 Ne 2:22 doesn't prove science wrong. To resolutely take it as such would be to deny the sun shining in your face. But the existence of dinosaur bones and ancient human skeletons and oil in ground do not prove 2 Ne 2:22 wrong either.

 

That was my point.

 

Please allow me to suggest something - by taking 2Nephi 2:22 and all by itself coming to a conclusion - without even considering any other scripture (let alone any empirical evidence) I would submit that one is likely to come to an incorrect conclusion).  I believe the problem is having set a predetermined conclusion and searching for some possible evidence in scripture and finding something that can be interpreted to support the preconceived idea - it is deemed as divine revealed truth.

 

Lets take a look at some other scriptures that are given multiple times  in Genesis 1:11-12, Moses 2:11-12 and Abraham 4:11-12 and also Abraham 4:29 - (as well as verse 29 in Genesis and Moses as well)

 

What we see in beginning in these scriptures (starting with verse 20).  Is that creation was not static that many things were in the process of bringing forth seed for the express purpose of new life - filling the earth with living things. 

 

Then 2Nephi 2:23 begins with "And they"  -- the word they is plural and as such grammatically could only point to the plural "all things" in the previous verse.  That is unless Lehi is talking about a very specific purpose in creation that deals with man and the plan of salvation.  Note that verse 23 continues to say that they would have no children.  This is another big clue.  Only man can have children.  This means that the all things are intended to refer to a specific set of things associated with Eden and the man Adam and the woman Eve - or perhaps more than that.  That is the possibility that 2Nephi 2:23 is not about the prehistory of earth prior to the Fall of Adam and Eve but symbolic of the purpose for which the earth was being prepared with life and that broad understanding of the plan of salvation for all of G-d's children to experience birth, becoming parents and having children and death.  That the real focus is about the fall of man and the mortality of man.  That trying to make sense of things in creation outside of man and the plan of salvation for man - will not make sense with other scripture or actual empirical evidences so abundant on earth.

 

It appears to me that taking the revelations concerning the purpose of the fall of man and the plan of salvation and trying to apply it to the earth and its past history being prepared for fallen man is not the purpose of 2Nephi 22 and is likely to confuse and draw attention away from the actual truth provided by Lehi.  The revelation is not about earth and its past prior to the fall -- it is about man and our past prior to the fall.

Edited September 1, 2015 by Traveler

[Man of Eloquence]

It clearly states in Moses 3:7 that Adam was the first flesh on the earth AND the first man also. Seeing that Moses was a great prophet and in the depths of humility and full of the spirit, I percieve his words to be literal and to the point. That being said the account of the creation stated in the book of Moses is accurate and should be taken as the truth. In my mind, there is no way man lived before Adam. He is the first man on this earth.

[cdowis]

It clearly states in Moses 3:7 that Adam was the first flesh on the earth AND the first man also. ....... He is the first man on this earth.

 

http://en.fairmormon.org/Mormonism_and_science/Pre-Adamites

[estradling75]

Just to muddy the waters a bit

 

Doctrine and Covenants 77

6 Q. What are we to understand by the book which John saw, which was sealed on the back with seven seals?

A. We are to understand that it contains the revealed will, mysteries, and the works of God; the hidden things of his economy concerning this earth during the seven thousand years of its continuance, or its temporal existence.

[cdowis]

SUMMARY
Going back to my theory -- death existed during the five days of creation, and was suspended on the sixth.

 

It is a working hypothesis which explains the fossil record and chronology, but it also appears to contradict the scriptures.

[Traveler]

It clearly states in Moses 3:7 that Adam was the first flesh on the earth AND the first man also. Seeing that Moses was a great prophet and in the depths of humility and full of the spirit, I percieve his words to be literal and to the point. That being said the account of the creation stated in the book of Moses is accurate and should be taken as the truth. In my mind, there is no way man lived before Adam. He is the first man on this earth.

To begin with – I am not in any way speaking for official doctrine. However, I believe it is good to discuss our understanding of scripture and doctrine. I would like to address my personal understanding of Moses 3:7

I agree that words have literal meaning – in scripture the word first can mean something other than the first in chronological order. A literal meaning for first also means highest, best or most noble. One such example is flying first class – the literal meaning is not the chronologically first – the literal meaning is the best. If we are trying to figure out the “first” meaning chronologically first flesh – Moses in his prophetic and inspired writhing – in Moses 2:20-22 we learn that the flesh of beast was upon the earth before the flesh of man.

I believe that Moses 3:7 is teaching that man is the most noble and greatest flesh created by G-d. That we have physical fleshly bodies that are superior or for great purpose than any other creation of flesh. I find this meaning to be more in line with the doctrines that we are created in the likeness of G-d and that man has dominion over all other flesh.

Moses 3:7 could have literal meaning that Adam (man) was the first ever flesh on the earth – but I find this particular literal understanding contrary to empirical evidence and not necessarily consistent with other scripture - teaching us of creation and that man was not place on earth until all other things had been prepared and readied.

This understanding does open up the possibility that there were pre-Adamites that were human like but not what is meant by “man” in scripture.

[cdowis]

"First flesh" is understood to mean the first mortal creature -- the first creature that was subject to death.

Edited September 7, 2015 by cdowis

[Traveler]

"First flesh" is understood to mean the first mortal creature -- the first creature that was subject to death.

Perhaps????

Genesis 2:23 – flesh - refers to Adam as flesh before he was a mortal creature

Genesis 9:15 – flesh - refers all living creatures (prior to the flood)

And Luke 24:39 flesh – refers to someone resurrected and immortal.

Again you are trying to use “first” as a chronological order – I am suggesting that first also has another meaning – not based in time or time sequence but ordered by value, best or of highest rank. In fact in almost all cases in scripture “first” is reference to highest or most noble rank. This also plays out when the “first born” of Egypt died – It was not the oldest son but the highest rank of rulers.

Edited September 7, 2015 by Traveler

[cdowis]

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.

 

You'll just have to take my word for it.

Or not.

Edited September 7, 2015 by cdowis

[Traveler]

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.

 

You'll just have to take my word for it.

Or not.

 

Thanks for your input.  I do not want everyone to think I have all the answers and know it all.  What I do want to put across is that we do not have to disregard scripture to understand the world around us and it history nor do we have to nor should we disregard empirical evidence to understand and interpret scripture.  Empirical evidence is not an enemy to truth or even things spiritual.  Sometimes there is no empirical evidence to spiritual things - but when there is empirical evidence failure to incorporate such a witness is likely to bring about misunderstandings.

 

I would also point out that Satan will quote and use scripture in an attempt to misdirect the very Son of G-d.  If scripture is our only authority of truth - we are certainly an easy target for being mislead.  This is how ideas like a flat earth or earth centered solar system are given legs - it becomes the excuse to threaten those that would enlighten their fellow man in the understanding of very simple things like calculating the tides or more difficult things like when the next eclipse will take place (which BTW was calculated by some societies on earth before the advent of Adam as we understand from the Bible).

[MrShorty]

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.

[Guest]

Does any of this matter in terms of our salvation?