My favorite cogdis of the Mormons.

[_Gadianton Plumber]

If there was no literal Adam and Even and no literal fall I think it does cause problems for Mormonism. I also think it causes problems for ALL of Christianity as well as Judaism. But in particular the fall of man brought death and sin and thus the need for a redeemer. Without it all of Christianity seems to be mssing one od the key missions that Jesus fulfilled.

I personally have no problem believing that God created things via evolution nor do I have an issue with believing the Adam and Eve may have been the first two humans God placed a soul in as ridiculous as some thinks that sounds. Or, Adam and Eve could have been to persons God decided to covenant with. However this does pose a problem for the no death issue so would have to conclude that death did exist in the world for a long time and that religious teachers were simply wrong about this like they have been about other things as well.

Thank you for engaging in this discussion, JB.

So if I understand you correctly, you have no issues with the insertion of a soul into A/E. Follow up questions just for you:

1. Did A/E have physical human-animal parents. If so, how are they first flesh? If they were the first humans to have Elohim approved souls in some fashion, this does not explain that they inherited their flesh from their parents.

2. What happened to the soul-less human animals that they descended from? Did they get souls after A/E, interbreed with Elohim humanity, or go extinct?

3. Why aren't they mentioned? Were they created before A/E and on what day? When god was looking around asking if man is to be found on the Earth, why is the answer no?

On the second point, God covenanting with humans with souls:

1. Again, how are A/E first flesh? When god was looking around asking if man is to be found on the Earth, why is the answer no? (repeating that question)

2. What happened to the humans with souls but did not covenant with Elohim? Again, interbreed, go extinct, etc. Also, are they saved?

Thank you in advance, JB.

[_karl61]

From the LDS dictionary:

Fall of Adam

The process of which mankind became mortal on the earth. The event is recorded in Gen. 2,3,4; and Moses 3,4. The fall of Adam is one of the most important occurrences in the history of man. Before the fall, Adam and Eve had physical bodies but no blood. There was no sin, no death, and no children among any of the earthly creations. With the eating of the "forbidden fruit", Adam and Eve became mortal, sin entered, blood formed in their bodies and death became a part of life.

[_AlmaBound]

...blood formed in their bodies...

This is one of my favorite parts. Even if a person (be he or she an LDS Christian or otherwise) can somehow reconcile the creation story with evolution, either metaphorically, "gap theory" or through some other means, blood forming in their bodies at the point mentioned is an anomaly unique to Mormonism.

The trouble, of course, is this pretty much amounts to an argument that devolves into "the stuff you believe is weirder than the stuff I believe."

With apologies, though I've become doubtful that my posts are ever read here anyway.

[_DarkHelmet]

From the LDS dictionary:

Fall of Adam

Before the fall, Adam and Eve had physical bodies but no blood.

So what happens if a boulder crushes one of them, or a lion decides to eat Eve for breakfast, or a pre-Adamite throws a spear through Adam. They didn't have blood, but did they have guts? If an elephant stepped on Eve, would he get her guts smooshed all over his feet? If there was no death, what happened if a Pre-adamite chopped off Adams head?

[_Nightlion]

Can I get a straight answer? One thing has proved to be one of the most interesting contradictions found between Mormon doctrine and hard, clear science.

Adam and Eve.

So, my apologist brethren, my apostate people, or bored folks, is this ignored for a reason?

I throw some original thinking at it.
God said before he put Adam and Eve into the Garden that he had not yet caused it to rain upon the earth and that there were no plants or animals upon the earth who were first created in heaven before they were PLACED upon the earth. God take credit for creating worlds without number. So the notion of evolution is moot. Life did not orginate on this earth.

What about the fossil record. Yes there is a fossil record because God prepared the resources of the earth by the sudden deep burial of huge amounts of floura and fawna. That there might have been bones of a few keepers and dino heardsmen, of what ever primate variety that may be, squished about to twist the tits of latter-day Science, cool that. He foreknew that the great big heads would hate him and so he also provided the resource to convict them in their villany.

[_The Dude]

...blood formed in their bodies...

This is one of my favorite parts. Even if a person (be he or she an LDS Christian or otherwise) can somehow reconcile the creation story with evolution, either metaphorically, "gap theory" or through some other means, blood forming in their bodies at the point mentioned is an anomaly unique to Mormonism.

The trouble, of course, is this pretty much amounts to an argument that devolves into "the stuff you believe is weirder than the stuff I believe."

Indeed, the "no blood" flourish sounds like one of those tale toppers meant to elevate the Mormon mythos into the tallest of tall tales. It creates mystery for its own sake.

With no blood, was there anything at all pumping through their vessels? If there was at least some kind of fluid doing the job of blood (carrying oxygen and nutrients, removing waste, transporting immune cells and hormones) then at least the story is science fiction. But if there was no fluid at all, then the purpose of biological form becomes utter nonsense. If there was no fluid at all, then why blood vessels and why a heart? Why lungs? Why a digestive system? Why a pituitary and a hypothalamus? Thyroid? Adrenals? If you whimsically deny the existence of blood in Adam and Eve's unfallen bodies, then why did they have bodies at all? They were formed with all this stuff that only serves a purpose if you have blood, which makes perfect sense from a physiological and evolutionary standpoint, but no sense at all from the Mormon mythos standpoint. And supposedly, when we are resurrected, we will once again have no blood but still have all the rest of our organs just sitting inside us like meat in a refrigerator. It isn't weird. It's idiotic.

[_Nightlion]

From the LDS dictionary:

Fall of Adam

Before the fall, Adam and Eve had physical bodies but no blood.

So what happens if a boulder crushes one of them, or a lion decides to eat Eve for breakfast, or a pre-Adamite throws a spear through Adam. They didn't have blood, but did they have guts? If an elephant stepped on Eve, would he get her guts smooshed all over his feet? If there was no death, what happened if a Pre-adamite chopped off Adams head?

Adam and Eve's resurrected and glorified bodies were placed into the Garden. They were only tethered by adding the dust of this earth so that they could not hie to Kolob at their wim. This dust also took away their memory.

[_AlmaBound]

Adam and Eve's resurrected and glorified bodies were placed into the Garden. They were only tethered by adding the dust of this earth so that they could not hie to Kolob at their wim. This dust also took away their memory.

Awesome.

It's stuff like this that makes me wonder if you aren't just pretending to be a Mormon so that you can showcase the oddities and thus scare people away.

But I still like you - I'm still trying to figure out your puzzle contained in the play. I'm stuck between thinking one of the characters is your brother, but it gets sticky when compared to his relationship with the rest of your family.

[_AlmaBound]

Indeed, the "no blood" flourish sounds like one of those tale toppers meant to elevate the Mormon mythos into the tallest of tall tales. It creates mystery for its own sake.

And thus putting the test of "faith" to the extreme.

Does anyone know the origins of this teaching? I mean, the revelation that produced it and such, not the simplistic "God" answer.

I mean, obviously this came from God, as a test.

[_Sethbag]

I personally have no problem believing that God created things via evolution nor do I have an issue with believing the Adam and Eve may have been the first two humans God placed a soul in as ridiculous as some thinks that sounds. Or, Adam and Eve could have been to persons God decided to covenant with.

Perfect examples of excuses to which you would never have had to resort had science not come along and revealed as false the teachings of the Prophets, Seers, and Revelators of Mormonism and Mormonism's scriptures. I'm not saying this to slam you, because you're a nice guy, with an open mind, and I kind of understand where you're coming from. But in the end, all of these things you mentioned are just ways of rationalizing, and making excuses for, the fact that your Prophets have just been making this stuff up, and right from the very beginning. There's no evidence that these guys have known things that men could not have invented themselves, no evidence of supernaturally-learned truths that actually turned out to be true, etc. There's no credibility there.

However this does pose a problem for the no death issue so would have to conclude that death did exist in the world for a long time and that religious teachers were simply wrong about this like they have been about other things as well.

Accidentally writing 5 to the question of what is 3 + 3, when you know the answer is really 6, is a mistake. I can forgive mistakes. But claiming to speak for God, and then pronouncing teachings of fairly great detail and explanatory power, that turn out to be just flat-out completely wrong, is not a mistake. They were making this stuff up. Somewhere along the line the writers responsible for this kind of "no death before the fall" mythology invented these ideas. It's manmade. It's fiction.

I'm not nearly as ready as you seem to be, and the other members who know the church was wrong about "no death before the Fall" and these other kinds of issues, to start excusing this stuff away. Our Prophets, Seers, and Revelators are representing themselves as having authority to teach us the words of the Creator of the Entire Universe. And more than that, they claim to know his mind and will for us, and to be able to pass on commandments to us from that Creator. IE: they claim the right to tell us what to do, with the authorization of the Creator of the Entire Universe. These are very remarkable claims. Many have made them, and these people have been universally shown not to know what they were talking about. Every single one of them. Including Mormonism's versions of this phenomenon.

Throughout the history of mankind it has been very common for people to claim that they know the mind and will of the Creator of the Universe, and that the Creator deputized this person to go around telling the rest of us what to do. There are probably thousands of instances of this. Mormons would recognize that at least the overwhelming majority of cases where people have stood up and claimed to have been personally empowered by the Creator of the Universe to lead the rest of us, these people have been charlatans and frauds. Mormons see right through the claims of folks like Tony Alamo and David Koresh. What becomes perfectly clear, once one parts the haze of testimony enough to really see Joseph Smith and Mormonism's prophets since Joseph in the very human context of false pretenders to the Creator's power and authority on Earth, our Prophets, Seers, and Revelators fit right in. It's just the Mormons' particular instantiation of some fundamental human base class of religious charlatans.

And stuff like what's talked about in this thread are some of the ways this can be recognized. When the guys who "commune with Jehovah" are shown to be spouting mythology, fictional nonsense, it pretty much shows what their source of "truth" is - not the Creator of the Entire Universe, but just manmade sources, like every other false prophet that there's ever been.