This post has been particularly difficult to form, because I find myself drawn to address the mechanisms which LDS-ers use to handle these issues. Drawing a progressively smaller circle of doctrine, claiming that it must be true but we just don’t have all the evidence, etc. etc. However, I should probably stick to how I view this. As usual, the best thing you can do is take me on and prove me wrong.
If there is a God who created the universe, it is likely that God knows how he did that.
If people claim to speak for God, but have incorrectly articulated a principle God would know, then their reliability rate at speaking for God is less than 100% (unless God is lying, which seems unlikely).
Declaring doctrine is the same as speaking for God.
Mormon doctrine is that the earth went from space gravel, to a global paradise, to a fallen earth.
This is clearly not factual.
There is a non-zero amount of false doctrine in Mormonism.
Further, as we discussed in ‘Does God Want You to Check the Math’, feelings of inspiration that this aspect of Mormon doctrine is true can be rightly contradicted by knowledge obtained through observation.
Does the presence of a non-zero amount of false doctrine mean ‘the LDS Church is not true’?
I’m not so sure. I’ve already come to terms with the reality that some things can never be proven but are still true (incompleteness theorems). I think it is reasonable that if God had a true Church, it might not bother him that it contained an amount of error.
Therefore, the presence of a non-zero amount of paradox or falsity does not necessarily then mean ‘the Church isn’t true’.
I’ve basically performed a Kobyashi Maru here and changed the rules for a game that wasn’t going very well. But, not by much. I do think that validating the testable assertions of our faith by observation (Scientific Method) is the way God would want us to validate whether or not our inspiration is well-tuned.
So, where do you draw the line? At what point has the paradox and falsity level hit a critical density to show that in fact, your inspiration is wrong? I have no idea. I have no mechanism to suggest how much error is too much error.
Conclusion: The Mormon Church might still be true, but for a different definition of true than most Mormons think.
That’s my view.
I’ll be here all week, don’t forget to tip your waitress.
As per the agenda, item 3 should be the topic for the day. However, I will dispense with proving it here. I believe it is reasonable to accept that there was in fact loads of death happening on the Earth before the fall of Adam. But, if this idea is still in dispute, please let me know in the comments.
Therefore, I shall proceed to item #4, which is much more interesting. I’ve tried writing this post without using sweeping generalities, but it became awkward. I’ll go ahead and refer to Mormons as a single group. If you are an exception, you know who you are.
I think the best way to illustrate the alien dinosaur issue is with the following quote:
“Once you eliminate the impossible, whatever remains, no matter how improbable, must be the truth.” – Arthur Conan Doyle
Mormons believe it is impossible that doctrine is untrue, whatever remains, however improbable, must therefore be true. Perhaps this is the reason theories that would fail to persuade a neutral person are seen as credible to some Mormons. Yes, this is the very definition of cognitive dissonance. An illustrative example can be seen here.
This may be related to how Mormons decide to be Mormon. The LDS Church teaches that people should be taught certain basic principles, and then they should pray to have God confirm to them if ‘the Church is true.’ Because Mormons believe that God has in fact told them it is true, anything which does not confirm this conclusion is seen as suspect or simply false. Cognitive dissonance fills in the gaps between an individual’s belief that the Church is true and conflicting postulates.
“Because God told me this Church is true, and it is obvious that these fossils predate Adam, then it is reasonable that they came from a different planet, or some other such idea.”
To illustrate, consider this quote from Thomas S. Monson (Thomas S. Monson was first counselor in the First Presidency of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints when this devotional address was given on 13 November 2007)
Remember that faith and doubt cannot exist in the same mind at the same time, for one will dispel the other.
Should doubt knock at your doorway, just say to those skeptical, disturbing, rebellious thoughts: “I propose to stay with my faith, with the faith of my people. I know that happiness and contentment are there, and I forbid you agnostic, doubting thoughts to destroy the house of my faith. I acknowledge that I do not understand the processes of creation, but I accept the fact of it. I grant that I cannot explain the miracles of the Bible, and I do not attempt to do so, but I accept God’s word. I wasn’t with Joseph, but I believe him. My faith did not come to me through science, and I will not permit so-called science to destroy it.”
I find this quote, together with the emphasized passages from mormonbeliefs.org to be deeply disturbing. However, I think many Mormons would find them beautiful and insightful. It is difficult for me to address these topics.
As the number of graphics has recently fallen to a severe low-point, I’m going to repost a previously used graphic that I find relevant here.
I think I’m just going to end here, because I don’t know how to address these issues in a better way.
In my next post I will finish the agenda with “… Other options, and my preferred resolution to the question”
@RainbowNarrows – Hey there! I didn’t know you were reading this blog. Nice to have you around. On becoming Catholic, one thing is for sure, it would be a lot easier to figure out what the doctrine actually *is*. =)
@Art- Glad to hear we are pretty much on the same page. I couldn’t decide whether or not to plave my response to your comment on the last post or page to itself. In the end, I couldn’t get any beautiful formatting in the comments section, so I went with this.
First, Even though some doctrines may be more important for salvation than others, I don’t believe it is OK for the less important ones to be false, because (as you say) they are just as important in establishing the validity of doctrine, itself.
Yipee! We agree.
However, if a “minor” doctrine appears false, my response is to consider everything I believe and conclude that there are things I don’t understand yet, rather than reject the whole.
Yes, I haven’t really touched yet on what the consequences would be of a non-zero amount of false doctrine. I will get to that, but haven’t done so yet.
So it is with the case at hand. From my viewpoint I believe the Fall brought death into the world and I also believe that the creation process took a long, long time, and that death needed to logically be a part of that. I had honestly never thought of the two being in conflict before. So, rather than reject one or the other I try and bring them into harmony. One possible route is to say that the Fall was restricted to the Garden, but, as you point out, that is somewhat problematic because the universality of the Fall bringing death into the world is so widely taught, and appears to be doctrine.
In my mind, the other way of bringing these into harmony is to consider the time differences between the world and the Garden. I was alluding to this and the two creation stories before. I believe it is in harmony with the scriptures that the Garden was a special enclave that was on God’s time, or timeless, while the rest of the earth was on our (normal) time.
Just as a side point, this is very close to the plot of an episode of Stargate: SG1. Doesn’t make it an invalid theory, just somewhat amusing for those of us who occasionally watch cheezy scifi.
In this way, the Fall would have taken place in a timeless realm, and just like God or angels are not bound by time or space, neither would the effects of the Fall. In this timeless state, the Fall could then bring death to the earth at any point God wanted it to. This point could have been before the development of life on earth, and might have been the event that triggered it.
Yes, if we reject all the non-scriptural sources as not doctrinal, I think there are a lot more options for coming up with an interpretation that would be more consistent with observed data.
I’m not saying this is right. Nor to I wish to say that I fully understand what I am talking about. I simply mean to point out that much more study and thought (at least on my part) is required before I conclude there is a conflict between the LDS Doctrine of the Fall and coal deposits.
Fair enough. Certainly, everyone should have room to fully explore their views before taking a position. Could I ask that as you are doing that would you please include some thoughts on the following?
1) When you have established your views, what epistemological process would make them doctrine? Or, in the alternative, are you clearing the slate and saying your view is not doctrine, and neither is anything else that isn’t clearly and explicitly stated in the scriptures?
2) Please contextualize your position in view of the following excerpt from mormonbeliefs.org
Before we can even begin to understand the temporal creation of all things, we must know how these three eternal truths—the Creation, the Fall, and the Atonement—are inseparably woven together. No one of them stands alone; each of them ties into the other two; and without a knowledge of all of them, it is not possible to know the truth about any one of them.
The Fall was made possible because an infinite Creator 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 kind of existence needed to put into operation all of the terms of the Father’s eternal plan of salvation.
The first temporal creation of all things was paradisiacal in nature.In the 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. Death would be Adam’s gift to man, and the gift of God would be eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord.
Knowing that the Creation is the father of the Fall, and that the Fall made possible the Atonement, and that salvation itself comes because of the Atonement, we are in a position to put the revealed knowledge about the Creation in a proper perspective.
“When the Lord shall come, he shall reveal all things,” our latter-day revelations tell us—“Things which have passed, and hidden things which no man knew, things of the earth, by which it was made, and the purpose and the end thereof” (Doctrine and Covenants 101:32–33). Pending the Millennium, it is our responsibility to believe and accept that portion of the truth about the Creation that has been dispensed to us. (emphasis added).
Looks like Art is going to be otherwise engaged for some time, so I shall attempt to integrate the issues he raised into our regular programming. I’ve been thinking about how best to do this, but I have yet to figure out a beneficial way. I’ll just have to take my best shot. He has raised at least two significant ideas. First, that the creation process went from space gravel to paradise to a fallen state as a planetary whole is not doctrine.
If Art is right, and the principle is not doctrine, we have at least two questions to consider. First, why is the LDS Church teaching this if it isn’t doctrine? Second, if this isn’t doctrine, what is the correct mechanism for identifying doctrine? I will post on these points later.
Second, he raises a distinction between important an unimportant doctrine. I’m not sure if he intends to reference the commonly-held interpretation of that idea, but in the absence of further comment, I will presume he does. I’ll address that one now.
If this idea is valid, then we must accept that some percentage of official LDS church doctrine is false. Because virtually all the Mormons I know wish to advance that 100% of LDS Church’s doctrine is true, this is a significant move indeed.
Some LDS-ers take the view that doctrine can be sorted into groups. At the most general level, these groups would be important and unimportant doctrine. The clearest Church statement I am aware of on this point comes from the press release I cited as ‘doctrine mechanism #2′ in my earlier post. The relevant point is here:
Some doctrines are more important than others and might be considered core doctrines. For example, the precise location of the Garden of Eden is far less important than doctrine about Jesus Christ and His atoning sacrifice. The mistake that public commentators often make is taking an obscure teaching that is peripheral to the Church’s purpose and placing it at the very center. This is especially common among reporters or researchers who rely on how other Christians interpret Latter-day Saint doctrine.
Based on the scriptures, Joseph Smith declared: “The fundamental principles of our religion are the testimony of the Apostles and Prophets, concerning Jesus Christ, that He died, was buried, and rose again the third day, and ascended into heaven; and all other things which pertain to our religion are only appendages to it.”
Amusingly enough, this statement of Joseph Smith’s itself does not appear to rise to the level of doctrine, but let’s skip over that for a moment.
I can certainly understand a core/non-core grouping, particularly in the context of accurately describing LDS beliefs to someone who has never heard them before. Certainly, it would be more responsible to start with core doctrines and it would be irresponsible to represent a non-core belief as thought it were core.
Does it then follow that it is more OK for a non-core belief to be false?
No.
If a peripheral doctrinal principle is false, at the very least, it illustrates that the doctrinal system is capable of making mistakes. That’s a pretty big issue.
***
Disclaimer: I think I should at least acknowledge that TBMs would want to say there is a difference between a doctrine being false, and appearing false. Some of the TBMs I talk to wish to advance that Church doctrine is actually 100% true, but there are some issues that they ‘…will wait for God to explain…” I think that should be addressed in a dedicated post, but I’ll at least mention it here.
I had planned to use this weekend to finish up the doctrine arc, but I think Art’s comment raises a number of important points. As he is unavailable on important family business, I have decided to take the weekend off.
Mind you, this would have been more effective as an announcement had it been made at the beginning of the weekend, but hey, you didn’t know I was planning to blog, so backing out can’t really be a surprise, now can it?
At any rate, our regularly scheduled programming with resume in the next day or two.
And by regularly scheduled, I mean fully exploring ideas that were not scheduled.
As promised in the agenda, the next step is to establish why the ideas in the last post are important. To address this, I have decided to forgo my usual witty dialog and steal:
Humbly I join the Book of Mormon prophet Jacob, who asked, “Why not speak of the atonement of Christ?”(1) This topic comprises our Third Article of Faith: “We believe that through the Atonement of Christ, all mankind may be saved, by obedience to the laws and ordinances of the gospel.”
Before we can comprehend the atonement of Christ, however, we must first understand the fall of Adam. And before we can understand the fall of Adam, we must first understand the Creation. These three crucial components of the plan of salvation relate to each other.(2)
*snip*
Scripture teaches that “Adam fell that men might be; and men are, that they might have joy.”(7) The fall of Adam and Eve constituted the mortal creation and brought about required changes in their bodies
*snip*
That brings us to the Atonement. Paul said, “As in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive.”(14) The atonement of Jesus Christ became the immortal creation. He volunteered to answer the ends of a law previously transgressed.(15) And by the shedding of His blood, His(16) … and our physical bodies could become perfected
Clearly, the atonement of Christ is as core a doctrine for Mormonism as you can get. If any of you still believe that the entrance of death into the world is too corollary to core doctrines to be relevant, please take it up with Elder Nelson. Or, leave your views in the comments. =)
After illustrating how difficult it is to establish Mormon doctrine, it is time to do just that. The doctrine in question is that:
Adam’s fall brought death into the world.
Mormon thought makes a distinction between spiritual death (separation from God) and physical death (separation of the spirit from the body). Physical death is the theme of this investigation.
I’m going to take it as a given that the earth was created as a paradise. This is so clear in scripture that it should need no exposition. Please let me know if you wish to dispute that the earth was created as a paradise and then proceeded to the fall, to be renewed as a paradise in the end (thanks the to the atonement, et al).
On to the first question:
Is this doctrine?
<begin literature review>
Let’s start with the sources most likely to be doctrine, the scriptures:
22 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.
Note: Mormon teaching (I would say doctrine) is that earth was created as a paradise before the fall of Adam. In paradise, there is no death of anything.
Note: On 2nd Nephi 2:22, the original state of the garden was immortal, so failure to remain in that state is clearly mortality (mortality = death).
For those of you who want full context, please feel free to read the whole chapters if you like.
Let’s continue with sources slightly less likely to be doctrine:
Footnotes published with the scriptures
It should be noted that footnote b on Moses 6:48 referers to death and mortality.
Official teachings of the church curriculum:
Thus, in the Fall, Adam and Eve became the first beings upon the earth who were mortal flesh, or subject to death.
Moses 3:7. “The First Man Also”
In 1909 the First Presidency stated: “It is held by some that Adam was not the first man upon this earth, and that the original human being was a development from lower orders of the animal creation. These, however, are the theories of men. The word of the Lord declares that Adam was ‘the first man of all men’ (Moses 1:34), and we are therefore in duty bound to regard him as the primal parent of our race” (“The Origin of Man,” Improvement Era, Nov. 1909, 80).
MOSES 3:8-17
GOD PLACED ADAM IN THE GARDEN OF EDEN
Moses 3:8. Where Was the Garden of Eden?
President Brigham Young taught: “In the beginning, after this earth was prepared for man, the Lord commenced his work upon what is now called the American continent, where the Garden of Eden was made” (Discourses of Brigham Young, 102).
President Heber C. Kimball, who was a counselor in the First Presidency, said: “The spot chosen for the garden of Eden was Jackson County, in the State of Missouri, where [the city of] Independence now stands; it was occupied in the morn of creation by Adam” (in Journal of Discourses, 10:235).
Moses 3:9. The Trees Became Living Souls
Moses 3:9 indicates that “every tree . . . became also a living soul.” Man, animals, and birds “were also living souls” (see Moses 3:7, 19). Doctrine and Covenants 88:15 teaches that a soul is a spirit and a body combined. On the subject of living things having souls, President Joseph Fielding Smith wrote: “The idea prevails in general, I believe, in the religious world where the gospel truth is misunderstood, that man is the only being on the earth that has what is called a soul or a spirit. We know this is not the case, for the Lord has said that not only has man a spirit, and is thereby a living soul, but likewise the beasts of the field, the fowl of the air, and the fish of the sea have spirits, and hence are living souls” (Doctrines of Salvation, 1:63).
Hmm, animals have souls? (ah, let’s not get distracted…)
Next, let’s look at statements of church leaders published in official church sources:
The Caravan Moves On, Elder Bruce R. McConkie, Of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles (1984)
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.
The Atonement of the Lord Jesus Christ is the heart and core and center of revealed religion. It ransoms men from the temporal and spiritual death brought into the world by the Fall of Adam.
*snip*
At this point we must insert a statement from our tenth article of faith: “We believe … that the earth will be renewed and receive its paradisiacal glory.”[A of F 1:10] That is to say, when the earth was first created it was in a paradisiacal state, an Edenic state, a state in which there was no death.
For brevity, I am going to truncate this section.
Now let’s take a look at one of the official church websites:
The first temporal creation of all things was paradisiacal in nature. In the 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. Death would be Adam’s gift to man, and the gift of God would be eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord.
Lastly, illustrative sources that are known to be authoritative but not official:
The bible dictionary (published by the church along with the scriptures, but not official doctrine)
Latter-day revelation teaches that there was no death on this earth for any forms of life before the fall of Adam. Indeed, death entered the world as a direct result of the fall (2 Ne. 2: 22; Moses 6: 48).
</end literature review>
Conclusion: Taken together, the evidence is overwhelming that the officially doctrinal scripture, supplemented by apostolic and prophetic teaching, supplemented by the official curriculum indicates, supplemented by Church published study aids, that there was no physical death on planet earth before the fall of Adam.
While I maintain that the standard of official doctrine is very hard to understand, whatever that standard might be, it would be mighty hard to consider this amount of evidence to be insufficient. If such a threshold did indeed exist, and this doesn’t meet it, I should wonder what possibly would.
Loading ...
If you chose a poll option containing an “X”, please elaborate in the comments.
Loading ...
