No death before the fall

[_bcspace]

I have heard this exact thing as well. If I recall correctly, a friend of mine read the 'Thousand Year' books by Cleon Skousen and told me that this is how Cleon explains the fossil record - it came from crushed up planets that were used in the formation of the earth.

I've never read the Skousen books and I don't have copies at hand, so I can't verify.

I've heard the same. But these are out of non doctrinal works so far. The chemical differentiation of the early molten earth would have destroyed such bones and of course the earth is not made of crushed up planets; though the notion has a little bit truth to it in the sense that the materials used for solar system formation came from the deaths of other stars.

[_bcspace]

The give bcspace 10/10 for the best mental gymnastics. Really is there anyone better?

It doesn't take huge amounts of mental acuity to put two and two together and see how evolution is not in conflict with LDS doctrine. But I'm glad you're entertained.

It would be even more interesting for you to see what happens when I speak up in class on Sunday after a hardcore creationist has given his (or her) thoughts. Hasn't happened in a while in this Stake as people know what I believe and have seen that I can defend it and have also seen that I do not get censured or released. Many others also speak up for it now seeing my example (I think that's why). Some years ago, a Sunday School teacher told my oldest daughter how wrong I was when my daughter mentioned in class that I accepted evolution. The teacher's husband was in the Stake Presidency at the time and I think he put in a good word for me and I heard nothing more about it.

[_Jason Bourne]

In some cases, such as outside LDS doctrine, I'm sure I do.

You sure have an incredible amount of hubris.

But you don't have to look to me for that. The Church itself tried to dissuade both BRM and JFS to not publish their works or at least refused to publish such works under Church auspices.

This is correct for Mormon Doctrine but not for Smith's Doctrine of Salvation. And really, if these books were so off base annd wrong, and if the Church leaders did not want them to be published why didn't they repudiate them? Of I know...so as not to embarrass the leaders that wrote them. So the members knew nothing about the contreversy and read the books as if they represented doctrine. Wow. That says a lot of about the concern the LDS leaders have about members being misled.

In any case, by the Church's own definition of official doctrine, DoS is not doctrine and it never has been. You might find quotes from it in a doctrinal work and those would be doctrine. But I doubt you'll find these particular ones in such a context.

And that does that say when so much of the book is pure bunk. I guess an apostle/prophet of God really did not know what he was talking about.

For something more pertinent: consider ETB's 1970's doctrinal statement about the Book of Mormon being used to combat, among other things, evolution. Notice that when he makes the same doctrinal statement in the 1980's, evolution is removed from the list.

Bad as you want it too be BC evolution and LDS doctrine clash. You have to make to many assumptions and twists that are nonsensical like you do. Death till the garden, then no death for a period but only in a limited little area of the garden, Adam and Eve's parents being humanoids with no child of God spirit and on and on. You have an amazing knack for mental gymnastics to make things work for you.

Consider also BRM's softening his stance on evolution is his Seven Deadly Heresies speech (non doctrinal). Notice that while he himself still doesn't accept evolution, he essentially says if you can find a way for it to work in the context of doctrine, more power to you. This is exactly what I have done and I'm sure others have been able to as well.

Yet he called the ideas you epsouse heresy in a speech given to BYU students. So he proclaimed false doctrine to BYU students?

[_Jason Bourne]

Yes. This is the non doctrinal Adam Sr Adam Jr theory which some confuse for an Adam God theory. Bottom line, neither LDS doctrine.

Wrong. Adam God was published by the Church-meets your own standard. Adam Sr is pure bunk that you need to get around what BY actually taught. I just post this for lurkers so they know BC is peddling BS. He has been trounced over and over on this one.

[Guest]

Using BC's rules of doctrine and what is precluded by doctrine I hereby authoritatively declare:

Pre adamites were dropped off on this planet from space ships belonging to the dictator of the galactic confederacy Xenu (all hail Xenu!). These ships were nuclear powered and closely resembled DC-8s, except instead of propellers they had fusion impulse drives. They dumped scads of soulless pre adamites on the planet in order to alleviate overcrowding on the other planets of the confederacy.

As the brethren and doctrine do not strictly preclude it, it must have happened!

[_Jason Bourne]

[quote="bcspace"]
I am. Notice that the 1931 statement allows me to consider it as possible:

"The statement made by Elder Smith that the existence of pre-Adamites is not a doctrine of the Church is true. It is just as true that the statement: "There were not pre-Adamites upon the earth", is not a doctrine of the Church. Neither side of the controversy has been accepted as a doctrine at all."


So in other words the doctrine it there is no doctrine on this.

Isn't it nice to have so much wiggle room? Prophets really do enlighten us don't they?

[Guest]

In some cases, such as outside LDS doctrine, I'm sure I do.

You sure have an incredible amount of hubris.

I am confident in my beliefs which largely come from the Church anyway and so I have no problem holding the leadership to it.

But you don't have to look to me for that. The Church itself tried to dissuade both BRM and JFS to not publish their works or at least refused to publish such works under Church auspices.

This is correct for Mormon Doctrine but not for Smith's Doctrine of Salvation.

It is also correct for Doctrines of Salvation, being published by Bookcraft and not the LDS Church.

And really, if these books were so off base annd wrong, and if the Church leaders did not want them to be published why didn't they repudiate them?

Why didn't the Church publish them?

In any case, by the Church's own definition of official doctrine, DoS is not doctrine and it never has been. You might find quotes from it in a doctrinal work and those would be doctrine. But I doubt you'll find these particular ones in such a context.

And that does that say when so much of the book is pure bunk. I guess an apostle/prophet of God really did not know what he was talking about.

I don't think anyone is claiming that. Those works contain lots of good doctrine. They also contain lots of opinion which is why the Church didn't publish them. But if you want to be sure that particular notion in them is doctrine, you will have to find the same published by the Church in another work.

Bad as you want it too be BC evolution and LDS doctrine clash.

How so?

You have to make to many assumptions and twists that are nonsensical like you do.

Such as?

Death till the garden, then no death for a period but only in a limited little area of the garden,

When speaking of the creative period and the garden state together, the property of no death is never applied to the creative period. No stretch. No twist.

Adam and Eve's parents being humanoids with no child of God spirit and on and on.

I hypothesize that Adam and Eve's parent's are homo sapiens. That matches up with the doctrine of everything after it's own kind (which evolution also teaches by the way). I hypothesize that the pre Adamites might have had different spirits (I also can agree with an Uplift instead) which agrees with the doctrine that all living things have spirits and it also agrees with the already known fact that God obviously has created all kinds of spirits so I've not made Him do anything He hasn't already done. Again, no stretch, no twist.

You have an amazing knack for mental gymnastics to make things work for you.

I'll take that as a compliment meaning that you wish you would have come up with it earlier.

Yes. This is the non doctrinal Adam Sr Adam Jr theory which some confuse for an Adam God theory. Bottom line, neither LDS doctrine.

Wrong. Adam God was published by the Church-meets your own standard.

Adam God has not been published in any doctrinal context that I know of. If I recall correctly, I might have seen it in a doctrinal work once, but qualified as not being doctrine, just a historical observation.

Adam Sr is pure bunk that you need to get around what BY actually taught. I just post this for lurkers so they know BC is peddling BS. He has been trounced over and over on this one.

The "lurkers" would be wise to know that if BY had taught an Adam God theory, then he would be in conflict with several critical doctrines already extant at the time about death and the resurrection etc. Supporters of BY's having taught an Adam God have never addressed this by more than denial. Also, supporters of BY's Adam God have never addressed other statements by BY in the same sources which conflict with the notion of the Adam who Fell being God the Father. In other words, they are cherry-picking to support long held and favorite chestnuts. The bottom line is that Adam Sr/Jr. stands as the only explanation which accounts for these things as well.

Using BC's rules of doctrine and what is precluded by doctrine I hereby authoritatively declare:

Pre adamites were dropped off on this planet from space ships belonging to the dictator of the galactic confederacy Xenu (all hail Xenu!). These ships were nuclear powered and closely resembled DC-8s, except instead of propellers they had fusion impulse drives. They dumped scads of soulless pre adamites on the planet in order to alleviate overcrowding on the other planets of the confederacy.

As the brethren and doctrine do not strictly preclude it, it must have happened!

The problem for you here is that the issue of pre Adamites was directly and specifically addressed by the Church.

[_bcspace]

I am. Notice that the 1931 statement allows me to consider it as possible:

"The statement made by Elder Smith that the existence of pre-Adamites is not a doctrine of the Church is true. It is just as true that the statement: "There were not pre-Adamites upon the earth", is not a doctrine of the Church. Neither side of the controversy has been accepted as a doctrine at all."

So in other words the doctrine it there is no doctrine on this.

Isn't it nice to have so much wiggle room? Prophets really do enlighten us don't they?

Thank heavens for the First Presidency of Heber J Grant for saving the Church from making the same type of mistake the medieval christians did (geocentric universe).

[_Runtu]

"Answers to Gospel Questions" was a feature in the Improvement Era (then the official church magazine for adults) for years, written by Joseph Fielding Smith. Later, Deseret Book compiled these articles into a book of the same name. So, according to bc's defnition, "Answers to Gospel Questions" are doctrine, absent any specific refutation.

[_Brackite]

The Following is From The Poster, Darth J here:

“Of course, I think those people who hold to the view that man has come up through all these ages from the scum of the sea through billions of years do not believe in Adam. Honestly I do not know how they can, and I am going to show you that they do not. There are some who attempt to do it but they are inconsistent—absolutely inconsistent, because that doctrine is so incompatible, so utterly out of harmony, with the revelations of the Lord that a man just cannot believe in both.

“. . . I say most emphatically, you cannot believe in this theory of the origin of man, and at the same time accept the plan of salvation as set forth by the Lord our God. You must choose the one and reject the other, for they are in direct conflict and there is a gulf separating them which is so great that it cannot be bridged, no matter how much one may try to do so. . . .

“. . . Then Adam, and by that I mean the first man, was not capable of sin. He could not transgress, and by doing so bring death into the world; for, according to this theory, death had always been in the world. If, therefore, there was no fall, there was no need of an atonement, hence the coming into the world of the Son of God as the Savior of the world is a contradiction, a thing impossible. Are you prepared to believe such a thing as that?” (Smith, Doctrines of Salvation, 1:141–42.)

Old Testament Student Manual, Genesis--2 Samuel, "Genesis 1-2---The Creation" Points to Ponder (2-18)

viewtopic.php?p=545960#p545960

http://www.fairwiki.org/Death_before_the_Fall

"Some LDS leaders have interpreted LDS scripture to teach that there was no death prior to the Fall of Adam for all plants and animals. Others have seen pre-Fall death of plants and/or animals as compatible with LDS doctrine, with the doctrine of 'no death' applying only to Adam and Eve within the garden, and not the wider physical creation.

There is no official doctrine on the matter, and members in good standing have held both positions. "

The author of this statement is either abysmally ignorant of what official LDS doctrine is on the matter, or is lying. Official LDS doctrine is that there was no death anywhere on this planet before the fall of Adam and Eve.

Book of Mormon Teacher Manual (2009)

“The plan required the Creation, and that in turn required both the Fall and the Atonement. These are the three fundamental components of the plan. The creation of a paradisiacal planet came from God. Mortality and death came into the world through the Fall of Adam. Immortality and the possibility of eternal life were provided by the Atonement of Jesus Christ. The Creation, the Fall, and the Atonement were planned long before the actual work of the Creation began” (in Conference Report, Apr. 2000, 105; or Ensign, May 2000, 84).

CES Manual: Old Testament, Section 2-16

"Adam was the first of all creatures to fall and become flesh, and flesh in this sense means mortality, and all through our scriptures the Lord speaks of this life as flesh, while we are here in the flesh, so Adam became the first flesh. There was no other mortal creature before him, and there was no mortal death until he brought it, and the scriptures tell you that. It is here written, and that is the gospel of Jesus Christ.” (Seek Ye Earnestly, pp. 280–81.)

Bruce R. McConkie, “The Caravan Moves On,” Ensign, November 1984

There is no salvation in a system of religion that rejects the doctrine of the Fall or that assumes man is the end product of evolution and so was not subject to a fall.

True believers know that this earth and man and all forms of life were created in an Edenic, or paradisiacal, state in which there was no mortality, no procreation, no death.

In that primeval day Adam and Eve were “in a state of innocence, having no joy, for they knew no misery; doing no good, for they knew no sin.” (2 Ne. 2:23.)

But in the providences of the Lord, “Adam fell that men might be; and men are, that they might have joy.” (2 Ne. 2:25.)

By his fall, Adam introduced temporal and spiritual death into the world and caused this earth life to become a probationary estate.

Lesson 4: “Because of My Transgression My Eyes Are Opened”, Old Testament Gospel Doctrine Teacher’s Manual

The Fall of Adam and Eve brought physical and spiritual death into the world. Physical death is the separation of the body and the spirit that occurs at the end of our mortal lives......

To help explain that Adam and Eve did not sin when they partook of the forbidden fruit, read the following statement from Elder Dallin H. Oaks:

“It was Eve who first transgressed the limits of Eden in order to initiate the conditions of mortality."

Bruce R. McConkie, “Christ and the Creation,” Ensign, Jun 1982

Mortality and procreation and death all had their beginnings with the Fall. The tests and trials of a mortal probation began when our first parents were cast out of their Edenic home. “Because that Adam fell, we are,” Enoch said, “and by his fall came death; and we are made partakers of misery and woe.” (Moses 6:48.) One of the most profound doctrinal declarations ever made fell from the lips of mother Eve. She said: “Were it not for our transgression we never should have had seed, and never should have known good and evil, and the joy of our redemption, and the eternal life which God giveth unto all the obedient.” (Moses 5:11.)

And be it also remembered that the Fall was made possible because an infinite Creator, in the primeval day, made the earth and man and all forms of life in such a state that they could fall. This fall involved a change of status. All things were so created that they could fall or change, and thus was introduced the type and kind of existence needed to put into operation all of the terms and conditions of the Father’s eternal plan of salvation.

This first temporal creation of all things, as we shall see, was paradisiacal in nature. In the primeval and Edenic day all forms of life lived in a higher and different state than now prevails. The coming fall would take them downward and forward and onward. Death and procreation had yet to enter the world. That death would be Adam’s gift to man, and, then, the gift of God would be eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord.

Thus, existence came from God; death came by Adam; and immortality and eternal life come through Christ......

Thus we learn that the initial creation was paradisiacal; death and mortality had not yet entered the world. There was no mortal flesh upon the earth for any form of life. The Creation was past, but mortality as we know it lay ahead. All things had been created in a state of paradisiacal immortality.

Lesson 6: The Fall of Adam,” Aaronic Priesthood Manual 3

Explain that physical death, known also as temporal death, was introduced into the world as a consequence of the Fall. As a result of the Fall, all people and all forms of life upon the earth must suffer a physical death, a separation of spirit and body.

Chapter 3: "The Lamb Slain from the Foundation of the World,” Teachings of Presidents of the Church: Harold B. Lee

Besides the Fall having had to do with Adam and Eve, causing a change to come over them, that change affected all human nature, all of the natural creations, all of the creation of animals, plants—all kinds of life were changed. The earth itself became subject to death.

viewtopic.php?p=499899#p499899