Zerinus - Do you believe there was death before Adam's fall?

[_Doctor CamNC4Me]

I'm genuinely curious what you think the earth was like before Adam's transgression.

- Doc

[Guest]

Your question is not as straightforward as you might think. When you say “death before Adam’s fall,” how far do you want to go back “before Adam’s fall”? You see, in Mormon theology this earth is not the only inhabited planet. There have been trillions of them before, and will continue to be after. The universe has been and will continue to be full of inhabited planets. So “death before the Fall” needs to be understood in that context. So was there “death before the Fall”? Yes there was, at least on other planets. As far as this planet specifically is concerned, again we don’t know the answer to that question if you go back far enough. Was this earth part of an earlier “creation cycle”? We have no way of knowing, unless it is revealed to us by God. But I think that the real question you are asking is:

1. Do I believe in the literal creation story of the Bible?
2. Do I believe in Evolution?
3. How do I explain the discovery fossils dating back millions of years?

The answer to the first question is Yes.
The answer to the second question is No.

The answer to the third question is, I don't know. There are too many unknowns to be able to answer that question without further revelation. But I believe there is no contradiction between that and my earlier statements. The existence of fossils dating back to millions of years before the chronology of creation story of the Bible does not invalidate the creation story. Other explanations for it exist which do not cause a contradiction between two.

[_sock puppet]

I'm genuinely curious what you think the earth was like before Adam's transgression.

- Doc

Your question is not as straightforward as you might think. When you say “death before Adam’s fall,” how far do you want to go back “before Adam’s fall”? You see, in Mormon theology this earth is not the only inhabited planet. There have been trillions of them before, and will continue to be after. The universe has been and will continue to be full of inhabited planets. So “death before the Fall” needs to be understood in that context. So was there “death before the Fall”? Yes there was, at least on other planets. As far as this planet specifically is concerned, again we don’t know the answer to that question if you go back far enough.

Reason #2933 why Mormonism is damned nutters.

[_moksha]

Zerinus, do you believe that a literal interpretation of the creation story is essential in your own version of the LDS faith? I know it is both unessential in my version and that literalness actually diminishes its worth by adding a needless degree of superstition.

I want a faith that gives me both comfort and meaning without resorting to pretzelized explanations. When I take a leap of faith I want to land in clear warm water rather than on thin ice.

[_I have a question]

Your question is not as straightforward as you might think. When you say “death before Adam’s fall,” how far do you want to go back “before Adam’s fall”? You see, in Mormon theology this earth is not the only inhabited planet. There have been trillions of them before, and will continue to be after. The universe has been and will continue to be full of inhabited planets. So “death before the Fall” needs to be understood in that context. So was there “death before the Fall”? Yes there was, at least on other planets. As far as this planet specifically is concerned, again we don’t know the answer to that question if you go back far enough. Was this earth part of an earlier “creation cycle”? We have no way of knowing, unless it is revealed to us by God. But I think that the real question you are asking is:

1. Do I believe in the literal creation story of the Bible?
2. Do I believe in Evolution?
3. How do I explain the discovery fossils dating back millions of years?

The answer to the first question is Yes.
The answer to the second question is No.

The answer to the third question is, I don't know. There are too many unknowns to be able to answer that question without further revelation. But I believe there is no contradiction between that and my earlier statements. The existence of fossils dating back to millions of years before the chronology of creation story of the Bible does not invalidate the creation story. Other explanations for it exist which do not cause a contradiction between two.

How do you account for Labradoodles?

[_zerinus]

How do you account for Labradoodles?

[_zerinus]

Zerinus, do you believe that a literal interpretation of the creation story is essential in your own version of the LDS faith?

For the most part yes. Parts of it may be allegorical, but not all of it. The story of Eve being created out of Adam's rib is very likely allegorical, but the story of Adam and Eve itself, the Fall, and the rest is literal.

I know it is both unessential in my version . . .

What is your version? Is it a version of LDS, or something else?

. . . and that literalness actually diminishes its worth by adding a needless degree of superstition.

I don't see why it should. That depends on your theology of course. If your theology is biblical and scriptural, then it shouldn't present a problem. If it is something else, then maybe you need to think a bit more about that.

I want a faith that gives me both comfort and meaning . . .

I want a faith that is true.

. . . without resorting to pretzelized explanations.

Not sure what that means. You need to explain.

When I take a leap of faith I want to land in clear warm water rather than on thin ice.

I am not following your arguments to be honest. I don't know what your conclusions are based on.

[_Doctor CamNC4Me]

Hrm. That's interesting. Do you believe there was death occurring on earth before Adam transgressed?

- Doc

[_bcuzbcuz]

Your question is not as straightforward as you might think. When you say “death before Adam’s fall,” how far do you want to go back “before Adam’s fall”? You see, in Mormon theology this earth is not the only inhabited planet. There have been trillions of them before, and will continue to be after. The universe has been and will continue to be full of inhabited planets. So “death before the Fall” needs to be understood in that context. So was there “death before the Fall”? Yes there was, at least on other planets. As far as this planet specifically is concerned, again we don’t know the answer to that question if you go back far enough. Was this earth part of an earlier “creation cycle”? We have no way of knowing, unless it is revealed to us by God. But I think that the real question you are asking is:

1. Do I believe in the literal creation story of the Bible?
2. Do I believe in Evolution?
3. How do I explain the discovery fossils dating back millions of years?

The answer to the first question is Yes.
The answer to the second question is No.

The answer to the third question is, I don't know. There are too many unknowns to be able to answer that question without further revelation. But I believe there is no contradiction between that and my earlier statements. The existence of fossils dating back to millions of years before the chronology of creation story of the Bible does not invalidate the creation story. Other explanations for it exist which do not cause a contradiction between two.

How do you explain that Etroplus Suratensis, a freshwater/brackish cichlid with an elevated number of up to 12 spines in its anal fin (that's how its put in its classification) and large skull because of the placement of its complex paired anterior swim bladders (look it up), in southern India, is only related to Parentroplus cichlid in Madagascar? Two freshwater cichlids, related only to each other, are separated by 5000 kilometers of salt water.

A understanding of plate techtonics and geology, along with the understanding of continental drift explains it. What's your explanation?

[_Themis]

Zerinus, do you believe that a literal interpretation of the creation story is essential in your own version of the LDS faith?

For the most part yes. Parts of it may be allegorical, but not all of it. The story of Eve being created out of Adam's rib is very likely allegorical, but the story of Adam and Eve itself, the Fall, and the rest is literal.

Why would you dismiss that as allegorical and not the rest? If Eve did not come from the rib, was she created out of dirt like Adam or do you believe they both had human parents?