Conference tecrus::mormonism

RE: Note 228.0 by CACHE::LEIGH 

Regarding Allen's dichotomy of thought about evolution/creationism/etc. I 
can identify with his dilemma. On the one hand, the Scriptures allude that
Day One occurred about 4000 BC, while on the other hand the overwhelming
scientific evidence indicates that the solar system is on the order of 4.5
billion years old. 

On the one hand, it's okay to accept truth wherever you find it, yet the 
Scriptures, which I believe to be divinely inspired, contradict my 
understanding of scientific truths.

Oh, one can drone on with all sorts of muddled conjecture about 
"the-Lord's-timeframes-are-not-our-timeframes," or the good ol' "our-
scientific-understanding-will-one-day-explain-Biblical-principles," or even 
an iconoclastic "carbon-dating-is-fallacious-and/or-a-satanic-plot." Such
arguments only obscure the fact that either science or the Bible is wrong. 
Evolution and creationism are incompatible. Period.

So what's a Mormon to do? 

I don't know.

I have a fairly substantial scientific background, and long before I joined 
the church I used to shake my head in amazement that people could honestly 
believe in the 4000 BC figure and totally ignore the preponderance of the 
evidence. The scientific 'model' is self-consistent and workable (more-or-
less); you can buy a ticket on the evolution train, and always imagine that
whatever happens you'll never have to make any major changes in direction. 

But now that I belong to the church and have seen for myself that God's 
truths are far more sublime, substantial, and everlasting than anything man 
has ever come up with, I'm not so sure that creationism is a fairy tale. 
Moreover, the 'spiritual' model of the universe has one big thing going for 
it that the 'scientific' model lacks: the scientific model has no 
explanation for itself. It is ontologically sterile. It can't tell you
"why" things are, and therefore if you step back from the trees and look at 
the forest, it makes no sense.

But I'm not willing to ignore the mastodon bones or the trilobite fossils 
or the Cro-Magnon skulls or the Neanderthal skeletons.

So what's a Mormon to do? 

I don't know.

/kevin

    I agree that both science and scriptural descriptions are paradigms
    that serve different purposes.  A purpose of science is to come
    up with models of how things happened.  A purpose of the scriptural
    descriptions is to come up with why, as mentioned in the previous
    note.  
    
    Perhaps if God were to give us a new rev of Genesis or of John it 
    would be different in details, but there would probably be no new 
    significant info as far as our salvation is concerned.  Which is 
    probably why we don't get a new rev.  I think God wants us to learn 
    and try to figure out how He did it.  I don't think people were around 
    with the dinosaurs.  I don't yet swing with either paradigm as
    providing the complete answers, but current science probably is better 
    for the how, and the story in Genesis and other places is better for 
    the why.
    
    Steve

I think it interesting that the scientific 'model' has adopted the Big Bang
theory which implies existing matter prior to the Big Bang, and a specific
event that changed things and began the process that led to the universe as
we know it.  Not too different than the Mormon concept of eternal matter that
was organized by God into our universe.

Allen

    
    	
    	Re .-1, Allen does the Big Bang theory imply the existence of
    	"matter"? it implies the existence of something, I guess.
    	Define "matter" in the context of the big-bang theory. I thought
    	matter formed as a result of the tremendous energy released
    	by the Bang. 
    
    Neal/B

Hi!


Here are some questions that came up on the usenet mailing list.

I thought they were thought-provoking and would be of interest
in our Notes Conference:

Here goes:                        (quoted, with spelling corrected)  
    
"
1) How long did Adam and Eve live in the garden of eden?

2) Do you think they saw dinosaurs live and die out?

3) Or, do you think it was a few days?

4) I am not looking for how old you think the earth is."

FWIW, the answers (to the best of my knowledge) can only be pure speculation
and in no way are the opinion of our Church.


Best Regards,

Frank

    Ooooh, Frank!  This could get to be pretty fun.  I don't know how much
    of the history of Adam and Eve is figurative and how much is literal.
    I allow that Brigham Young and others were free to speculate and that
    they did so openly.  
    
    I think that Adam and Eve were real people, but I don't understand much 
    about what happened.  For example, I don't know how Adam was created from 
    dust.  I suspect that this is figurative and literal at the same time.  
    Yes, dust was used.  But, the process was without doubt very complex.  
    We know that people can be created from dust today.  Dust -> plants -> 
    consumption -> procreation.  But, what of a person who could live
    forever?  
    
    I remember going over the human body processes in Biology.  As we were 
    going over kidney functions, one student asked how it was that the process 
    would "wear out", given that there were so many ways that the system could 
    repair itself.  The teacher's answer indicated that viruses and outside
    influences had a lot to do with it.  But, otherwise the answer was not
    really known.
    
    I suppose that if a person knew how to manipulate genetic material at
    the cellular level, it would be possible to create a mortal being that,
    for all intents and purposes, could live forever.  It would be possible
    to construct "perfect" genetics in every cell.  Further, it should be
    possible to construct a "perfect" immune system that could respond to
    all carcinogenic agents.  But, even though it is a "perfect" body,
    ingestion of some materials could upset it (like, some kind of apple?).
    And, there could be some antidote for these materials (like, the fruit
    of the tree of life?).
    
    As for Eve's creation, the process involved with the creation of Adam
    may involve taking available materials and running them through a
    process to make them "perfect".  Once you have "perfect" cells, it may
    make more sense to use those to create other "perfect" mortal than to 
    start again from scratch.  So, the creation of Eve from Adam's "rib" may
    have been a reference to such an economic decision.
    
    Dinosaurs?  I suspect that the idea about death not existing until
    after things were worked out in the Garden is figurative and may refer
    to spiritual death.  Again, this is my own speculation.  Thus, there could 
    have been dinosaurs much earlier.  There could have been apes that lived 
    and died.  There could have been "missing links" as part of the process of 
    creating the "perfect" mortal man.  I just don't know.  But, as a result 
    of what happened in the Garden, for the first time it was possible for a
    creature to die and to have a spiritual death (complete separation from
    God) after mortal death.  Before that time, all was innocent and obedient 
    to God's will.  Emphasis here is that this is speculation.
                          
    Steve 

1) How long did Adam and Eve live in the garden of Eden?

	Of course, this is all speculative and for fun as it really has no
	bearing on our external existence.  But it is neat to think about.

	Brigham Young stated that the Adam's body was brought from another
	planet.  The concept of "dust" is that the body of man and the earth
	are of the same elements, therefore, they can be referred to in that
	manner.  As to the length of time in the garden of Eden, who knows?
	But when Adam's spirit was veiled over by his body, he did not know
	of his pre-existance or that he helped develop the earth.  Also, what
	we (as human mankind) know about this mortal body is insignificant
	to what God knows.  I mean, could anyone else in this world heal a
	man blind from birth?  What about a deformed hand or foot?  Blood
	diseases?  Leprosy?  etc. etc..  Mankind knows so little about the
	physical body they inhabit.


2) Do you think they saw dinosaurs live and die out?

	No, I do not think so as plants and animals were on the earth before
	man was.  Since the earth started out as rock, and dirt for plants
	takes some time to make (or so I am told), there was some sort of
	evolution (wrong word?) with that aspect of the earth's development.
	(Remember that the earth is celestial.)  The garden of Eden is where
	Adam and Eve became conscious of their new world, and I think that 
	all the development to that stage had already taken place.  Which
	means that the dinosaurs were long gone.

	As a side note, I do believe in evolution, but not from monkey to man.
	I think that in each and every sphere there is evolution.  Plant and
	animal life have it as well as humans.  We have indeed evolved over
	the years.  Look at the average height of man a couple of hundred
	years ago as to today.  I am 6'5".  There is absolutely NO way I could
	ever have traveled in a stagecoach--they were too small.  In fact,
	I have no trouble whatever resting my elbow on the tops of them.


3) Or, do you think it was a few days?

	Many, many, many of our days--no telling how many of God's days as the
	whole constructive period of seven days is figurative.


4) I am not looking for how old you think the earth is."

	Wouldn't even want to guess.

    
Again, this entire note (and all of its replies) are pure speculation, 
so here goes . . . 

The questions in .0 (originally from usenet) are good questions. 
I have thought of them before, but not in the context of a Notes 
Conference).  Wish I had some good answers - rather than just pure speculation.


1) How long did Adam and Eve live in the garden of eden?

My guesstimate is from thousands to millions of years.
(I know, this isn't what you wanted to hear - so I'll narrow it down 
to a couple of thousand years - just a wild guess).


2) Do you think they saw the dinos live and die out?

Possibly, but I don't think so.  I think they existed and died out 
before Adam and Eve came along.


3) Or, do you think is was a few days?

I think (guess, speculate) that the creation process took thousands
to billions years.

    
4) I am not looking for how old you think the earth is.

That one is easy - it is infinite in age.  My opinion is that the elements 
(matter) have always existed, just re-organized a little later.


First let's figure out what we do know and try to draw (highly speculative)
conclusions from that:

Before we start, two crucial questions:
1) It took a day to accomplish each task.
   How long is a day?  From what I understand, a day means a long, (undefined)
   period of time.  Second, whose frame of reference are we talking about 
   (God's or man's)?

2) How long between the accomplishment of the task and the beginning of the
   next task.  This is also undefined.  On just these two alone, a guesstimate
   could run from thousands to billions years (or even more).

Let's take a look at the creation:

DAY 1 - ORGANIZE MATTER  
DAY 2 - SEPARATE LIGHT/DARKNESS
DAY 3 - SEPARATE SEAS/LAND
DAY 4 - PUT VEGETATION ON EARTH
DAY 5 - PUT ANIMALS ON EARTH
DAY 6 - PUT MAN/WOMAN ON EARTH
DAY 7 - REST

Let's look at days 5 & 6.
Since we don't know how long it took to accomplish the task of putting animals
on the earth AND we don't know how long it took between the beginning of the 
task to the end of the task AND we don't know how long after the completion 
DAY 5 that man appeared, we can't begin to make an accurate guess as to how
long this entire process took place.

Perhaps the creation period took billions of years or perhaps in 6 (earth) 
days.  We don't know.  If it took billions of years, then DAYS 4 & 5, could 
have (read I don't know, but maybe) been used to bring about evolution - 
(a tool in creating plant and animal life?).  I could view evolution as a 
controlled progressive creation).  I absolutely, positively reject that man 
came from apes (although after spending 4 years in the army, I could see 
where people might get this idea). 8^)  

In this case, DAYS 4 & 5 could have been used to bring about evolution to
bring in the lower forms of plant & animal life - under divine guidance
and control.  I must admit that I don't know the mechanics of creation.  
I know it was accomplished by the power of the Priesthood, but exactly 
HOW it was accomplished - I don't remember.  8^)  I believe that we all 
either participated in or watched the process of creation.
 
If DAYS 4 & 5 were used to progressively create life for the lower forms
of life (evolution) then it is possible that the dinosaurs were created
in this way.  All creatures and plants were put on the earth for our benefit.
I personally believe that dinosaurs also put here for or benefit.  Think
about it the next time you tank up.  Each animal plays a role in God's plan.
Along with that, I also feel it is our personal obligation to take care of
the resources over which we have been given dominion.

BTW, I don't know about evolution.  What I wrote above is pure speculation
on my part.  It is also an attempt by me to resolve the conflict between
science and religion.  This conflict is caused about by a simple lack of 
knowledge.  If the veil weren't drawn and we could remember our pre-existence,
then we wouldn't be having this discussion, because we would know how the 
creation took place.  This apparent conflict (on the surface) is due to a 
lack of knowledge by scientists and those who believe in God.  Each realm 
only contains a part of the whole truth.  I believe that we will find out 
later (after this life), that both go hand-in-hand.  I feel that science 
is the study of natural laws and that the priesthood is the divine power 
through which these natural laws can be manipulated - to accomplish the 
will of God.  Eventually, we will have an better understanding of science
and the works and purposes of God.  I look at science/natural laws as a 
tool through God's purposes can be accomplished and His Glory Magnified.


Best Regards,

Frank

I like to speculate about such things as long as it doesn't take up much of
my time....


>1) How long did Adam and Eve live in the garden of eden?

The Garden of Eden was Celestial, i.e. time was not defined.  So this
question doesn't have an answer.  Time (as I understand things) pertains
to mortality.

>2) Do you think they saw the dinos live and die out?

One thing that the scriptures make very clear is that death came into the
world via the Fall of Adam; this is both physical and spiritual death.  If
we deny this, then we deny the Atonement of Christ!

Thus, IMHO, dinos and other such animals couldn't have lived and died out
prior to the existence of Adam & Eve.  They might have lived but couldn't
have died prior to Adam.  The earth was created as a Celestial or perfect
world, and the Fall of Adam caused it to change to the physical world that
we know today.  Thus all of the laws of science that we know only pertain to
the world after the Fall.  We know nothing about laws of science that pertained
to the Garden of Eden.

My own opinion is that dinos did exist, because we've found fossils of them.
They had to have lived after the Fall since they died, killed each other,
etc.  So, IMHO, Adam & Eve or their descendants would have seen them if they
were in the same area as the dinos.

To me, a more important question is how to correlate the time differences
between the Bible and Science, i.e. the Bible dates the Fall at about
6000 years ago while scientists date the dinos at millions of years ago.
(keep in mind that in comparing science & the Bible, we can only go back to
the Fall; there is no basis at all for a comparison of the two concerning the
creation, or even for speculation about the creation, because science has no
knowledge of the earth being Celestial.  In other words, the Bible and science
have different models for the creation, and it is nonsense to compare them,
but science & the Bible have similar models for events after the Fall, and it
does make some sense to compare them.  Einstein taught us that time is
relative, and perhaps this is a key.  Perhaps the 6000 years of Biblical
history can be mapped into the millions of years of scientific history of
life on earth: same events but different time scales....

I think that as LDS it is important for us to keep two things in the forefront
of our speculation.  

1.  The earth didn't happen by chance.  It happened by the intent and planning
of God.  However it was created, it was created by God.

2.  The earth was created as a perfect, Celestial world, and that it was
changed into a mortal world (the Fall of Adam), and that there is a need for
a Redeemer to perform his Atonement.

As long as we hang our faith on these two concepts, we can enjoy our
speculation without having our faith destroyed.  Let scientists have time
to do their research.  Let God have time to reveal more truth to us through
his prophets.   Eventually, the two will come together and we'll understand
it all (at least those who receive Eternal Life will).

Allen

	RE: <<< Note 365.5 by CACHE::LEIGH "Jesus Christ: our role model" >>>

>One thing that the scriptures make very clear is that death came into the
>world via the Fall of Adam; this is both physical and spiritual death.  If
>we deny this, then we deny the Atonement of Christ!
>
>Thus, IMHO, dinos and other such animals couldn't have lived and died out
>prior to the existence of Adam & Eve.  They might have lived but couldn't
>have died prior to Adam.  The earth was created as a Celestial or perfect
>world, and the Fall of Adam caused it to change to the physical world that
>we know today.  Thus all of the laws of science that we know only pertain to
>the world after the Fall.  We know nothing about laws of science that pertained
>to the Garden of Eden.
>

	Allen,
		I am really having a hard time with your concept of Adam, 
	Eve, and the earth being Celestial before the fall.  I think it
	is contrary to your last sentence.
		In my mind, Celestialness, i.e. being or having perfection,
	comes about through the resurrection and only through the resurrection.
	If they were Celestial in the beginning, then they fell from a
	perfect state, and I have to reject that kind of concept.  Once you
	are there (celestialization), you do not change to a lower state.
		I think that the state of the earth and Adam and Eve was in
	some kind of non-celestial state that allowed continuence of life
	but not that of mortality.  Whether or not plant/animal life could
	die is not known to us.  All we know is that human posterity was
	not possible in the Garden of Eden, and that there had to be a "fall"
	to mortaility for the desired change to come about.
		Just because man could not die does not mean plant/animal 
	life could not die.  For man to fulfil the measure of his creation
	is different than the plant/animal like fulfilling their measure
	of creation.  In fact, the whole plant/animal life cycle is not
	given to us.  That they have spirits we know, but where do they go
	after death we are not told.  Just as we are only concerned with
	the princilples of this earth only, so we should be with that of
	man who is why this earth and everything on/in it was greated.

	Charles

Hi Charles,

I used the word "Celestial" to refer to the world prior to the Fall because
that was the word Brigham Young used.  I think I would prefer the word
"immortal".

Regardless of the word used, I think Genesis is clear that Adam and Eve would
have lived forever in the Garden if they had not eaten of the fruit.  Their
eating of the fruit caused them to change from a condition of living forever
to the mortal condition known to us.

You've suggested the idea that Adam and Eve might have lived forever in the
Garden, i.e. been immortal,  but that the plants & animals might not have 
immortal.  That's interesting concept.  If that's the case, then it seems
Christ's Atontment was only for us humans and not for the plants and animals,
since Christ atoned for the effects of Adam's sin.

Allen

	Hi Allen,

		Yes, Adam and Eve would have lived forever if they had
	not eaten of the fruit of the tree of good and evil.  And if
	they had eaten of the fruit of the tree of life, they would then
	have been imortal, and we would all be miserable.

		The concept I presented of the plants and animals must not
	be misunderstood that I do not think that what Christ did excludes
	them entirely.  I think the atonement of Christ, as the final step 
	in the plan of salvation, includes everything in and on this earth,
	with the earth included!  But it should be understood that it is 
	done only when it "filleth the measure of its creation" (D&C 88:25).

		Just as there are different stewardships, there are 
	different "measures of creation."

	Charles

    
Re.

<<Note 365.6  by BSS::RONEY   -< animal/plant life not the same as man. >-


<		In my mind, Celestialness, i.e. being or having perfection,
<	comes about through the resurrection and only through the resurrection.
<	If they were Celestial in the beginning, then they fell from a
<	perfect state, and I have to reject that kind of concept.  Once you
<	are there (celestialization), you do not change to a lower state.

Sorry for butting in but are you saying that God did not create man perfect?

From what state did Lucifer fall?   Did God create Lucifer imperfect?

If you people do not believe in a literal 6 days of creation, then:

How could Jesus Christ raise Laserus on command?

Feed 4000 with seven loaves and two fish?

He did not have to wait for a harvest for wheat nor the fish to procreate.

He did not have to wait for the storm to pass in order for His command to 
be accomplished, Peace be still!

There is no difference for Him to command the blind to see not the lame to
walk. Those cells were instantly there. Therefor by His voice did he command
this earth into existence.

Ben,

	RE: <<Note 365.9 by CSC32::JAMI  -< sorry but........ >-


>Sorry for butting in but are you saying that God did not create man perfect?

	That is correct--man is inherently sinful.

>From what state did Lucifer fall?   Did God create Lucifer imperfect?

	Lucifer does not have a physical body--he is spirit only.
	God gave Lucifer his agency and Lucifer rebelled and lost
	his first estate.  Has nothing to do with perfection.

>If you people do not believe in a literal 6 days of creation, then:
>How could Jesus Christ raise Laserus on command?
>Feed 4000 with seven loaves and two fish?
>He did not have to wait for a harvest for wheat nor the fish to procreate.
>He did not have to wait for the storm to pass in order for His command to 
>be accomplished, Peace be still!

	What has all that to do with the creation?  Just because God can
	command the elements doesn't mean he zaps everything into being.
	Since no one knows how God can do those things, then it is all a
	matter of supposition.  And NO, I do not believe in a literal
	6 day creation--I believe in a figurative 6 time period creation.

>There is no difference for Him to command the blind to see not the lame to
>walk. Those cells were instantly there. Therefor by His voice did he command
>this earth into existence.

	Again, what has the blind and lame to do with the creation?  Yes,
	God used his voice to command this earth into existence, but I
	really don't think it was a zap operation with anything instantly
	put into place.  In fact, some of the Biblical miracles may have
	taken some time to do--like why did the one blind man take three
	times?  I think that how God operates is in a logically and balanced
	manner--not by some instantaneous magic show.  Even the flood took
	40 days.

    
    Yet Lazerus was brought forth by His voice.
    
    Sorry but I believe when it says that the evening and the morning were
    the 1st. day as litteral. I cannot say that God does not have the 
    power to do so, just because I fail to believe that it is posible.
    
    I'll agree to disagree with you.
    
    Ben,
    

    Here's a monkey wrench to throw in ...  According to our current
    scientific understanding, time progresses at different rates at
    different parts of the universe.  This is because, relative to each
    other, different planets in different parts of the universe travel
    at speeds close to the speed of light and in lots of different
    directions.  It is possible for time on one planet to take thousands of
    years on another.  So, when we try to nail down how long it takes for
    God to do something, we are thinking in terms of our own time.  Genesis
    indicates that God created the "lights in the firmament of the heaven".
    This seems to me to indicate that God created not just this Earth and
    Sun, but also other stars.  This was done in the fourth day.
    
    Now, granting that time is different on those stars, how much time did
    it take to create each one?  Ironically, science thinks the universe was
    basically created in an instant far shorter than one Earth day.  More,
    since stars accelerate and decelerate, it is reasonable to assume that
    not only is our time different, it varies.  
                              
    My own opinion is that God created the universe in an instant.  The
    other stuff took MANY years in Earth time.  But, how could He explain 
    that to someone who's occupation and understanding was that of a 
    sheepherder, or carpenter or hunter?  These folks didn't even have sun
    dials, let alone watches.  Better to explain time to them in ways that
    they can understand.  Keep it as simple as possible.  And, hope that
    they can grasp the spiritual significance.
    
    We know that voices don't do much.  But, a command by one having
    Priesthood authority can cause that Priesthood to take effect.  What is
    Priesthood?  I don't know exactly.  But, I suspect it has something to
    do with forces in nature associated with the spiritual.  The Bible is full
    of, for example, accounts of angels perfoming God's biddings.  But, we 
    don't usually see them with our own eyes.
                
    Steve

	Do we really understand time?  Of what consequence is time to an
	eternal being?  I mean, if God is eternal and has no end, then
	what is time?  Does he care? No.

	Since man is finite, we care about time and everything revolves
	around it.  So, yes, we have a reference with time and God will
	talk within that reference.  Jesus talked about every day common
	situations to drive home his teachings.  So also God talks to us
	within our references.

	I find it sort of interesting that when God commanded Adam not to
	eat the fruit of the tree of knowledge that if he did he would die
	that day--how could Adam comprehend a concept (death) that had no
	bearing on him?

	re: <<< Note 365.11 by CSC32::JAMI >>>

    
>    Yet Lazerus was brought forth by His voice.

	Sorry, I fail to see the connection here.  Of cource Christ brought
	back Lazerus from the dead.  So what?  Christ had the keys of the
	resurrection and the power and authority.  Even though Lazerus was
	not resurrected, but only brought back from the dead, this "mirical"
	had been performed before.  Just because Christ used his voice has
	no bearing unless the authority to command is there. 
	(See Acts 19:13-16 for an example of not having authority.)

    
>    I cannot say that God does not have the 
>    power to do so, just because I fail to believe that it is posible.
    
	I did not mean to imply impossible, just improbable.  God does 
	indeed have the power, but he acts within certain laws and will 
	not go beyond them.  Else he would cease to be God.


>    I'll agree to disagree with you.
    
	OK.

    
    
    So God rested on the seventh day. How long did he rest. Or is he still
    resting. *) 
    
    Also how long did it take for the Fig tree to wither . (Matt.)
    
    How long did it take Him to create the fish for the feeding.
    You called these the elements, fish are not elements.
    
    I see that in trying to come up with a scientific solution, you limit	
    God's power.
    
    Ben,
    

    Limit God's power?  Far from it.  Scientists now are only beginning to
    understand a fraction of the extent of God's power.  It also seems a
    non sequitur to associate the time Christ took to perform miracles with
    the time taken to create the universe.  Though the same powers may have
    been used, there is no established link to indicate that the duration
    of time to do a miracle has anything to do with whether or not God has
    done it.  If anthything, the Scriptures indicate that God does things
    in His own time, and not always in an instant or on demand.  
    
    I believe that where we disagree fundamentally is in whether or not God
    operates according to laws of nature.  I believe that we are learning
    those laws through our scientific efforts, but we still have a long way
    to go.  
    
    Steve

    
>    So God rested on the seventh day. How long did he rest. Or is he still
>    resting. *) 

	As far as the creation of this earth - yes, he is still resting.
	As far as completing his work and glory - he is continously at
	work there.  Besides, this isn't the only world he has anything
	to do with.
    
>    Also how long did it take for the Fig tree to wither . (Matt.)
>    How long did it take Him to create the fish for the feeding.
>    You called these the elements, fish are not elements.

	I do believe these earthly physical objects are made up of what
	would be classified as "elements."  Or am I in the wrong world?

>    I see that in trying to come up with a scientific solution, you limit	
>    God's power.
    
	I don't limit God's power, but I don't look at it in a 
	magical aspect either.  As far a scientific solution, I
	don't really belive there is one. 
	(Isn't "scientific" something from man?)

Hi Charles,

Ok, let me see if I understand the difference between our concepts of the
Garden of Eden.

You believe that the Garden was neither mortal nor immortal.  Adam and Eve
were immortal and could not die.  Plants and animals, however, were neither
mortal nor immortal, and they could die; they were in some different 
condition.  When Adam & Eve partook of the fruit, the earth was changed from
this different condition to our mortal world, Adam & Eve became mortal and
could die, and the plants and animals became mortal and could still die.
Christ atoned for the Fall such that at some future point, the world will
become immortal as will all humans, plants, and animals.   Do I understand
you correctly?  An interesting implication of this view is that God created
things in a condition in which they could die, i.e. some of His creations
were not "perfect" (I used quotes because I'm not sure I understand what it
means for God's creations to be perfect).

I believe that the Garden was immortal (or Celestial as Brigham Young
Expressed it) and that nothing could die--plants, animals, and Adam and Eve
were immortal.  Notice that I'm not saying they were resurrected.  When Adam
& Eve partook of the fruit, everything became mortal and death came upon
everything.  Through Christ's atonement, the world, plants, animals, and all
humans will become immortal.  This view implies that God created everything
in an immortal or a "perfect" state and that death came as the result of
man's use of freedom of choice.  I shouldn't use the word "perfect" to
refer to Adam's condition in the Garden.  I believe he was immortal but
certainly not "perfect" because he wasn't resurrected.  Also, there are
differences between resurrected bodies, so what does "perfect" mean in terms
of our bodies (a topic for another note....)

Interesting difference between the two concepts.....

Allen

	RE: 365.18

	Allen,

	Yes and no.  Let me try to explain my thoughts further.

	In the "Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith," page 291-291,
	the prophet points out the salvation of beasts "in their sphere."
	Anything further regarding their salvation is not given us yet.
	(However, I personally believe the second level of the Celestial
	 Kingdom is where they will go.)

	All things of this earth were created spiritually first (D&C 29:32).
	But the "measure of their creation" is different, and therefore, 
	their purpose and salvation is different.  The earth and all things 
	pertaining to it are just a support system for the children of God
	to obtain their salvation.  

	This support system was in development a long time before man was 
	placed here.  In Abraham 4:11, it says "prepare the earth", and in
	Abraham 4:20 is says "prepare the waters."  The dinosaurs came and 
	went.  The environment of their time came and went.  The earth 
	evolved from stone and water to support systems (like dirt or topsoil)
	so other plant life could take its turn.  The constant cycling of 
	water against the rock made sand, etc., etc..  Why should the creation
	and subsequent evolutionary process be any different than what we see 
	today.  Now, this is what the animal and plant life were for--the 
	preparation of a world for man.  

	As far as the Garden of Eden and its status before the fall, maybe
	you could share with us your reference of Brigham Young's?  But I
	have been thinking about the term "celestial" and reading in D&C 88.
	In verses 34-39, he talks about the *law* of a given kingdom.  As
	long as the bounds and conditions of that kingdom are kept, then it
	will allow those who abide there.  When Adam and Eve partook of the
	forbidden fruit, they went outside the law of their kingdom and were
	sent to the telestial law we live in now.  The earth, animals, and
	plants went with them because that was part of their measure.

	We are told what will happen to the earth and mankind, but I could
	not find any scripture that details what will happen to the plant
	and animal life.  Therefore, there is only speculation and I do not
	make a stance one way or another (other than what Joseph said above.)

	As to a "perfect" state of being, I believe that will exist only after
	the resurrection.  Immortal does not mean "perfect" but only no end.
	Mortality came about because of the fall, but that only applies to
	the temporal covering.  The spirit is immortal and had to experience
	mortality to progress to exaltation.  Also, could you explain your
	assertion that God created all things "perfect"?  Where does it say
	that something created by God could not die to fulfill the measure of
	its creation?

	Charles

Hi Charles,

I checked what Brigham Young really said, and my memory was off a bit.  He
used the word "celestial" to refer to Adam not to the Garden in general.

>Now hear it, O inhabitants of the earth, Jew and Gentile, Saint and sinner!
>When our father Adam came into the garden of Eden, he came into it with a
>celestial body, and brought Eve, one of his wives, with him.

               (note 55.7)

If you study all of the replies to note 55, you will see that Brigham
believed that Adam came into the Garden with a resurrected body, a celestial
body.  I don't agree with Brigham on that, but that is a topic for note 55.
As far as this note is concerned, the type of body Adam had in the Garden
doesn't imply anything about the Garden itself.  I think everyone agrees that
Adam was immortal while in the Garden (otherwise there is no need for the
Atonement), so I will retract my use of the word "celestial" in reference to
Adam and use the word which I've already said is a better word, "immortal".

I'll make other comments next week.  Have a nice weekend everyone!

Allen

Replies .19, and .22 through .26 are discussing whether mankind is
inherently sinful or not.  They have been moved to note 121.

FWIW, here is McConkie's opinion about the Garden of Eden.

    Adam and Eve...were placed in the Garden of Eden,... in a garden
    which the Lord had planted on an earth which was paradisiacal in nature.
    As things were then constituted, death had not entered the world either
    for Adam and Eve or for any living creature; there was no procreation;
    and all things were in a state of pristine innocence and beauty.
    (2 Ne. 2:19-25)

      -- Mormon Doctrine, p. 303

Verse 22 of 2 Nephi 2 refers to the creations of God that were in the Garden.

    And now, behold, if Adam had not transgressed he would not have fallen,
    but he would have remained in the garden of Eden.  And all things which
    were created must have remained in the same state in which they were
    after they were created; and they must have remained forever, and had
    no end.

That last part, "and they must have remained forever, and had no end"
indicates that all of God's creations were immortal prior to the fall.
That is, when Adam transgressed and brought death into the world, he did
it for all of God's creations, not just for mankind.

Allen

Re .20

>	This support system was in development a long time before man was 
>	placed here.  In Abraham 4:11, it says "prepare the earth", and in
>	Abraham 4:20 is says "prepare the waters." 

We don't know what Abraham meant by the word "prepare", and we really can't
say anything about what that "preparation" did or means.


>       The dinosaurs came and 
>	went.  The environment of their time came and went.  The earth 
>	evolved from stone and water to support systems (like dirt or topsoil)
>	so other plant life could take its turn.  The constant cycling of 
>	water against the rock made sand, etc., etc.. 

There is nothing in the scriptures that even hints that the dinosaurs came
and went prior to the Fall of Adam.  As I read the scriptures, the meaning
that comes to my mind is that when Adam brought death into the world, he
brought it in for all of God's creations.  I realize that this is only my
interpretation and that you interpret those verses differently, Charles.
And that's ok.


>       Why should the creation
>	and subsequent evolutionary process be any different than what we see 
>	today.  Now, this is what the animal and plant life were for--the 
>	preparation of a world for man.  

I feel that the answer to your question is that the physical creation of
the earth was an immortal but still physical (not resurrected) world, and
if this is so then we have no reason to expect that the physical laws of
mortality are the same as the physical laws of an immortal world.


>	As to a "perfect" state of being, I believe that will exist only after
>	the resurrection.  Immortal does not mean "perfect" but only no end.

I agree that in the full sense of the word, "perfection" of physical things
requires a resurrection, and I indicated in my previous reply that
immortality was not the same as "perfection".


>	Also, could you explain your
>	assertion that God created all things "perfect"?  Where does it say
>	that something created by God could not die to fulfill the measure of
>	its creation?

Excuse me, Charles, but I didn't assert that God created all things perfectly.
I gave that conclusion as an implication, quite a different thing.

As I sit back and try to understand both your perspective and mine, Charles,
it seems to me that we have different interpretations of the scriptures and
that neither of us has any basis for being dogmatic about our viewpoint
(I'm not implying that either of us has or is dogmatic).  The scriptures
say that in Adam all die.  I take it to mean all of God's creations and you
take it to mean all mankind.  We understand the verses differently.

I think we would both agree that the key point of this discussion is the
fact that God did create the world, and however He did it, it was done for
His purposes and under His plan; it wasn't by chance or accident.

Allen

    I had this comparison come to be last week, and thought I would post it
    here for all to bat around. It didn't seem to quite fint any of the
    other topics on Faith so I opened a new topic, but of course the
    moderators are free to re-asses that opinion and make appropriate
    adjustments.
    
    It seems that Everyone has to have Faith, even the most sceptical of
    people. It is just a matter of what they have Faith in.
    
    In the process of learning, it seems that one must make assumptions,
    use a proceedure and use sources of information. That person has to
    accept the validity of each of these by "faith".  While it is true that
    during the process (eg. the scientific method) one may gain some
    supporting evidence for the assumptions, it is well known that starting
    with different assumptions a person will by and large end up at a
    different place, therefore the assumptions at the beginning were taken
    by "faith" and influenced the outcome.
    
    Therefore I choose (for spiritual matters) to start with the
    assumptions that God Lives and that he can and might communicate with
    me. I choose as process to Peruse (study), Pray, and Prove (try it
    out). For sources I choose the Prophets (living and dead), personal
    revelation (a sixth sense).
    
    While it is true that Satan will work to decieve me into accepting his
    inputs in place of those revelations I might get from God, I recognize
    that he also works hard to decieve our other 5 senses, and to confuse
    the "Reason" that most people rely on so heavily.
    
    Therefore I propose that the means of learning that we teach in this
    church is every bit as valid and scientific as the "Scientific Method"
    or any other means.
    
    Comments?
    
    Len