Diverse apostolic views on evolution

For more than 100 years, LDS apostles and prophets have spoken plainly against the idea that organic evolution explains the origin of man.  But many LDS evolutionists feel everything said against evolution before 1970 was premature because most of the scientific evidence for evolution has come since then. [1]

Clearly, those who spoke against evolution before 1970 did not then understand today's science.  So for the sake of discussion, let's temporarily disallow everything said about evolution by apostles and prophets before 1970.  In that context, let's examine the claim that there are diverse viewpoints among the apostles on evolution.

A few years ago, William E. Evenson and Duane E. Jeffery made this claim in their book Mormonism and Evolution: The Authoritative LDS Statements.  They said:

"If one included statements by LDS apostles in a handout on evolution, the range of views would include some statements against evolution, some sympathetic to evolution and several shades of opinion in between." [2]

First, the LDS Church has never published a statement by any LDS apostle sympathetic to human evolution.  Second, if we disallow pre-1970 statements in a handout on evolution, the range of views becomes very narrow:  There are no Church published statements sympathetic to evolution.

SteveP on diverse apostolic views

SteveP recently said my position is coherent "with the words of selected general authorities."  This makes it sound like there are diverse viewpoints among the authorities and only the words of "selected" authroities support my position.  But the fact is that in my adult lifetime, including my high school and mission years plus 40 years of marriage, all Church published statements about evolution by the apostles and prophets have been against evolution.  Not one apostle or prophet has been sympathetic to evolution.

In other words, SteveP, I am questioning your choice of the word "selected" because my position is consistent with ALL of the words of the apostles and prophets on evolution spoken during my entire adult lifetime.  For me, the coveted yet elusive diversity simply doesn't exist.

_______________________

Notes:

1.  In their 2001 book, Trent D. Stephens and D. Jeffrey Meldrum explain it this way;

"Many of the unofficial statements concerning evolution were products of their time. However, it is important to understand that scientific progress has been enormous in this area over the past thirty years. Even statements made as late as the 1960s and 1970s are dated in terms of the science they respond to in light of the recent explosion of new knowledge in biology and anthropology relative to the theory of evolution. The conclusions of scientists are now corroborated by vast amounts of molecular (DNA) data, which did not exist before 1970, and by a greatly expanded fossil record." (Trent D. Stephens and D. Jeffrey Meldrum, Evolution and Mormonism: A Quest for Understanding, Signature Books, 2001, p.11.)

"The techniques for rapidly sequencing DNA (discovering the sequence of the base units) were not developed until the early 1970s. Therefore, essentially all of what we know about animal interrelatedness at the molecular level has been discovered since 1970. It is important to remember that most of the books that have been written concerning the Mormon church and the theory of evolution were published before any of the molecular data, which are some of the most convincing supporting the theory of evolution, were available.

"The first gene was isolated from a bacterium in the summer of 1970, and no genes had yet been sequenced. We now have sequenced thousands in hundreds of species of plants and animals." (Ibid., pp.104-105.)

"No more powerful evidence exists for any scientific theory than that it clearly and precisely predicts the data obtained from future experiments and observations, especially in fields of science that do not yet exist." (Ibid., p.111.)

2.  William E. Evenson and Duane E. Jeffery, Mormonism and Evolution: The Authoritative LDS Statements, 2005, p.5.

(read more...)

Isn't Jesus a fundamentalist Mormon creationist?

These are questions for SteveP of The Mormon Organon who said Friday that fundamentalist Mormon creationists should "form their own Church."

Either God created the earth and man, or they evolved as proposed by the Big Bang theory.  For me, it's one or the other.  It is my belief that the book of Genesis accurately records the origin of the earth and man and that the books of Moses and Abraham, as well as the temple narrative, confirm the Genesis creation account.  If this belief makes me a fundamentalist Mormon creationist, so be it.  I am in good company.  I am in company with Joseph Fielding Smith, Ezra Taft Benson, Bruce R. McConkie, Boyd K. Packer, and Russell M. Nelson, plus a host of other fundamentalist Mormon creationists.  So why should we form our own Church?

What if Jesus Christ, whose Church we already belong to, is better represented on the subject of evolution by past and present apostles and prophets than He is by SteveP and Kenneth Miller?  In other words, what if Jesus Christ himself is a fundamentalist Mormon creationist?

(read more...)

Was Jesus an impostor?

The First Presidency's "doctrinal guidebook," True to the Faith: A Gospel Reference, defines the plan of salvation as follows:

"The plan of salvation is the fulness of the gospel. It includes the Creation, the Fall, the Atonement of Jesus Christ, and all the laws, ordinances, and doctrines of the gospel." [1]

The plan of salvation incorporates three events:  the Creation, the Fall, and the Atonement.  These are the three most important events in the entire history of man.  Moroni teaches that God "created the heavens and the earth, and all things that in them are.  Behold, he created Adam, and by Adam came the fall of man."  (Morm. 9:11-12.).

Quoting Moroni further, President Ezra Taft Benson taught:

"The Book of Mormon Saints knew that the plan of redemption must start with the account of the fall of Adam.  In the words of Moroni,  ' By Adam came the fall of man. And because of the fall of man came Jesus Christ,... and because of Jesus Christ came the redemption of man'  (Morm. 9:12).

"Just as a man does not really desire food until he is hungry, so he does not desire the salvation of Christ until he knows why he needs Christ.

"No one adequately and properly knows why he needs Christ until he understands and accepts the doctrine of the Fall and its effect upon all mankind." [2]

Darwin's theory of evolution

Today, the perception of overwhelming evidence supporting Darwin's theory of evolution leads some Mormons to believe that scriptural accounts of the Creation and the Fall must be interpreted figuratively.  Why then is the Atonement not also a figurative event?

"If the hypothesis of evolution be true, if man is only a product evolved from the lower forms of life, better still producing better, until the highest type of intellectual manhood crowns with glory this long continued process—then it is evident that there has been no  ' fall,'  such as the revelations of God speak of; and if there was no fall, there was no occasion for a Redeemer to make atonement for man, in order to reconcile him to God; then the mission of Jesus Christ was a myth, the coinage of idle brains, and Jesus himself was either mistaken, or one of the many impostors that have arisen to mock mankind with the hope of eternal life." [3]

Did Jesus mock mankind with the hope of eternal life?  Was Jesus an impostor?

Notes:

[1]  True to the Faith, s.v. "Plan of Salvation," p.115.

[2]  Ezra Taft Benson, Ensign, May 1987, p.85.

[3]  B. H. Roberts, "Man's Relationship to Deity," Contributor, April 1889, 10:212; found also in The Gospel and Man's Relationship to Deity, 2nd edition, 1893; as quoted from the 7th edition, 1928, pp.266-267.

(read more...)

Making the Bloggernacle a better place

Today, Matt W. posted Simple Rules For Using Social Media. I think his post should be required reading for all bloggernacle bloggers and commenters. I believe we can talk with one another frankly—even disagreeing with scrubbed/correlated things—and still follow the 1 Do and 3 Don't Dos listed by Matt. If we do this, the bloggernacle will be a better place.

(read more...)

Easy as 1-2-3, Mormons reject evolution

A recurring bloggernacle question is:  Why do so many Mormons reject evolution?  (See also here.)  In my view, the answer is as easy as 1-2-3:

1.  From childhood, Mormons "follow the Prophet."

2.  The Prophet urges "make institute a priority."

3.  Institute's "doctrinal foundation" includes no death before the fall:

"2 Nephi 2:22.  ' All Things'  Were Affected by the Fall of Adam.

"Elder Bruce R. McConkie explained how all things were connected to the Fall of Adam:  ' Then comes the Fall;  Adam falls;  mortality and procreation and death commence.  Fallen man is mortal;  he has mortal flesh;  he is "the first flesh upon the earth."  And the effects of his fall pass upon all created things.  They fall in that they too become mortal.  Death enters the world;  mortality reigns;  procreation commences;  and the Lord's great and eternal purposes roll onward....'

" ' Mortality and procreation and death all had their beginnings with the Fall....

" ' ...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....

" '...In the primeval and Edenic day all forms of life lived in a higher state than now prevails.... Death and procreation had yet to enter the world.' "  (Book of Mormon Student Manual, Religion 121-122, 2009, pp.53-54.)

This is merely the most recent among many similar passages.  Mormons are taught no death before the fall as children, youth, students, and adults.  Even investigators are taught this doctrine.  The result?

Evolution fails for lack of time.

(read more...)

Gospel Doctrine Lesson 35 does NOT promote false doctrine

In an article posted yesterday titled "Before You Teach or Attend Gospel Doctrine 35 on the Handcart Rescue, Read This," Ardis Parshall claims a particular statement from the current Sunday School lesson manual is "false and problematic" and that it promotes "seriously false doctrine." The disputed paragraph says:

" ' Three eighteen-year-old boys belonging to the relief party came to the rescue; and to the astonishment of all who saw, carried nearly every member of that ill-fated handcart company across the snow-bound stream. The strain was so terrible, and the exposure so great, that in later years all the boys died from the effects of it. When President Brigham Young heard of this heroic act, he wept like a child, and later declared publicly, "That act alone will ensure C. Allen Huntington, George W. Grant, and David P. Kimball an everlasting salvation in the Celestial Kingdom of God, worlds without end" ' "

Ardis apparently sees false doctrine in the claim that an act of physical bravery can guarantee celestial glory worlds without end. She apparently feels Brigham Young's promise was based on the idea that a single act can be so heroic that nothing else in the person's life can overshadow it. But, that doctrine doesn't exist. And Brigham Young was not referring to such a doctrine, nor was he creating it.

The "false doctrine" claim is hard to reconcile with the fact that the manual quotes the above paragraph from President Thomas S. Monson's April 1990 general conference talk (Ensign, May 1990, p.46). In addition, President Gordon B. Hinckley (Ensign, Nov 1981, p.40) and President James E. Faust (Ensign, Nov 1992, p.84) in general conference quoted the same Brigham Young declaration regarding the three young men.

If the words "false doctrine" come up in your ward during this lesson, you might want to share the following paragraph:

Brigham Young was NOT declaring doctrine. He spoke of a single event and about three specific young men. As God's Prophet, Brigham Young spoke with authority. And it appears that Presidents Monson, Hinckley, and Faust also think Brigham Young spoke with authority.

(read more...)

Ardis Parshall is wrong about Joseph Fielding Smith

On her blog at Keepapitchinin, Ardis Parshall claims that publication of Joseph Fielding Smith's 1954 book, Man, His Origin and Destiny, "ignored the First Presidency's injunction to leave such matters alone."

Let's be clear about this. Whatever else he may have done during six decades as an apostle, Joseph Fielding Smith did not disregard a First Presidency directive when he published Man: His Origin and Destiny. In fact, David O. McKay's First Presidency, in a signed statement published in the Improvement Era, said of him: "No man has ever been more loyal to the President of the Church." (July 1966, p.613.)

Yes, that's right. It was David O. McKay's published opinion that Joseph Fielding Smith had always been loyal to the Church President—every bit as loyal, in fact, as any other man had ever been. So who do we believe, Ardis or President McKay?

Let's analyze more closely what Ardis says:

"In 1930-1931, several church leaders, notably Joseph Fielding Smith (apostle, and son of the church president), B.H. Roberts (a Seventy, and philosopher/historian), and James E. Talmage (apostle, chemist, and geologist) engaged in an extended and often rancorous exchange of views in various Mormon publications, with Smith taking a fundamentalist, anti-evolutionary position and Roberts and Talmage advocating elements of the secular scientific theories. The public argument called forth a memorandum of the First Presidency addressed to all of the church's general authorities. This memorandum noted the detrimental effect of such disputations on the church and commanded:  ' Leave Geology, Biology, Archaeology and Anthropology, no one of which has to do with the salvation of the souls of mankind, to scientific research, while we magnify our calling in the realm of the Church.' "

And there you have it, folks. In one paragraph, Ardis gives us the injunction that was allegedly ignored and some background so we can understand it.

The paragraph contains minor inaccuracies, [1]  but more importantly, there are significant omissions. For example, Ardis doesn't say anything about the book that was the object and focus of the discussions. Leaving that book out of the above story is like leaving the Book of Mormon out of the Restoration story.

So here is some of the information I feel Ardis should have included. (A more detailed version of these events was posted here and here in 2004.)

The 1931 First Presidency memo (the one that Ardis quotes) closed the Church's lengthy and official evaluation of a priesthood manual submitted in 1928 by Elder B. H. Roberts, a Seventy. Neither the author nor his manuscript were sympathetic to evolution. [2]  Problems arose for the manual, however, because it tried to reconcile fossils with scripture by (a) bringing the conclusions of science into its gospel lessons, and (b) advancing a new theory about the creation. The 1931 First Presidency memo says:

“Elder Roberts quotes from the scripture and extensively from the conclusions reached by the leading scientists of the world, to show that the earth is older than the time given to its creation in Genesis indicates.”

In the manuscript, and in his presentation before the Twelve (which was taken from Chapter 31 of the manuscript) Roberts brought in the latest conclusions of scientists in the fields of Geology, Biology, Archaeology, and Anthropology to support his theory.

Then, after two and a half years of discussion, the 1931 First Presidency memo said basically, Let's get back to work. Referring to the Roberts book, the First Presidency said the conclusions of Geology, Biology, Archaeology, and Anthropology don't belong in a priesthood manual. Discussions about the manuscript are over. The book will not be published. [3]

To the extent that it applies to anything beyond the Roberts book, the 1931 First Presidency memo was a directive not to bring the conclusions of science into the gospel and use them to interpret scripture as Roberts had done. And clearly, Joseph Fielding Smith's book, Man, His Origin and Destiny, doesn't use science to interpret scripture. President Smith's book does the opposite. It is, therefore, in full compliance with the 1931 First Presidency directive.

All of which means Ardis Parshall is merely bringing trumped-up charges against Joseph Fielding Smith when she says:

"The controversy was renewed briefly in 1954 when Smith, the last survivor of the leaders so prominent in the earlier debates, published Man, His Origin and Destiny. This volume ignored the First Presidency's injunction to leave such matters alone."

A Pharisee named Gamaliel counseled moderation when criticizing the apostles "lest haply ye be found even to fight against God" (Acts 5:39). Oh that all of us would more often heed this wise counsel.

In conclusion, a bloggernacle that watches quietly while Ardis Parshall makes a good man look bad should also be willing to allow this lowly blogger to refute her ridiculous charges and clear his good name on that one point.

---

Notes:

1.  Inaccuracies include:

The exchange of views began in October 1928 when, after the Roberts manuscript was submitted, a committee of five members of the Quorum of the Twelve was assigned to review it.

Joseph Fielding Smith was not "son of the church president" (Heber J. Grant), he was the son of a previous president (Joseph F. Smith);

This was primarily a private discussion and there was no rancor in either of the two items that were published. Therefore, calling it an "often rancorous exchange of views in various Mormon publications" is an exaggeration at best.

2.  Elder Roberts was not an evolutionist and his book does not promote evolution. On the contrary, his book plainly teaches that each "subdivision of life ... produces after its kind, whereas evolution in all its forms destroys that thought."

William E. Evenson has confirmed that Roberts, in his book, "addresses three forms of evolutionary theory with which he was familiar from science: materialistic or mechanical evolution, agnostic evolution, and theistic (or purposeful or creative) evolution. He finds all three approaches to be inadequate and rejects all current theories as he understands them. Instead he puts forward his own theory of evolution, which he calls 'developmental theism.' "

Evenson concludes that "Roberts's opinions are not those of an evolutionist. The differences of opinion between Roberts and Elder Joseph Fielding Smith on the subject of evolution were not centered on the scientific theories of origins of life forms. Rather, the central point of concern was whether death occurred on earth before the fall of Adam." (William E. Evenson, "Science: The Universe, Creation, and Evolution," a review of chapters 3-5, 9-10, 12, 21, 23-25, 29-32, in B. H. Roberts, The Truth, The Way, The Life, 2nd edition, Provo: BYU Studies, 1996, p.645.)

3.  More than sixty years after his death, the Roberts book was published posthumously.

(read more...)

Ardis Parshall is right about no death before the fall

Last week, I had an interesting encounter with Ardis Parshall on her blog Keepapitchinin. There was some disagreement but not much discussion as she responded to my comments mostly with name calling. However, there was one pair of comments that I'd like to discuss further.

Gary (comment 22): "In terms of alignment with what the Church teaches, [evolution] has a problem, because all fossils are dead; and the Church's Bible Dictionary, Guide to the Scriptures, True to the Faith, Teachings of Presidents of the Church: Wilford Woodruff, Teachings of Presidents of the Church: Harold B. Lee, and Gospel Principles 2009 (to name a few) all teach no death before the fall of Adam."

Ardis (comment 29): "The Church has no official position. I will continue to fight for that until a unified quorum or quorums announce otherwise. Beyond that, Gary and you and everybody else can believe what you want, with my cheerful blessing. I just won't let it go unchallenged that because this or that individual religious authority, in this or that random publication that may have been sponsored by the Church and happens to include some incidental statement relative to the matter, such statement constitutes a revelation that is binding upon me or anyone else. It isn't."

Notice how Ardis sidestepped the issue by marginalizing the six books I named. But these are not random publications. They are current LDS publications. All six were produced at the request of and under the direction of the First Presidency.

Every copy of the LDS Bible has bound in with it the LDS Bible Dictionary (English) or Guide to the Scriptures (Spanish); and all electronic editions of the LDS Scriptures have them both. True to the Faith was written and published for all youth, young single adults, and new members. The other books are given to all adult members as gospel reference and for Melchizedek Priesthood and Relief Society class discussion.

I believe these publications do show "what the Church teaches" about death before the fall. Ardis argued against that by saying the Church has no official position, it isn't a revelation, and it isn't binding.

Ardis Parshall is right. No death before the fall is not binding, or a revelation, or the official position of the Church.

But her arguments misrepresent my comment. I've never even heard the claim made that no death before the fall is binding, or a revelation, or the official position of the Church. And I've certainly never made such a claim myself.

I've said simply that it's "what the Church teaches."

Okay. So here are some of those statements that are "incidental" from publications that are "random." Read them and decide for yourself what the Church teaches.

LDS Bible Dictionary

"Before the fall,... 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,... and death became a part of life. Adam became the 'first flesh' upon the earth, meaning that he and Eve were the first to become mortal. After Adam fell, the whole creation fell and became mortal. Adam's fall brought both physical and spiritual death into the world upon all mankind." ("Fall of Adam.")

"Adam is spoken of as the 'first flesh' upon the earth, meaning he was the first mortal on the earth, all things being created in a nonmortal condition, and becoming mortal through the fall of Adam." ("Flesh.")

"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)." ("Death.")

Guide to the Scriptures

"The Fall brought mortality and death to the earth (2 Ne. 2:22; Moses 6:48)." ("Death, Physical.")

True to the Faith

"The Fall of Adam brought physical death into the world (see Moses 6:48)." ("Death, Physical.")

Teachings of Presidents of the Church: Wilford Woodruff

"We acknowledge that through Adam all have died, that death through the fall must pass upon the whole human family, also upon the beasts of the field, the fishes of the sea and the fowls of the air and all the works of God, as far as this earth is concerned." (Chapter 8.)

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.... How it took place no one can explain, and anyone who would attempt to make an explanation would be going far beyond anything the Lord has told us. But a change was wrought over the whole face of the creation, which up to that time had not been subject to death. From that time henceforth all in nature was in a state of gradual dissolution until mortal death was to come, after which there would be required a restoration in a resurrected state." (Chapter 3.)

Gospel Principles (2009 edition)

"Jesus Christ created this world and everything in it" (p.23). "When Adam and Eve were placed in the Garden of Eden,... there was no death" (p.28). "Adam and Eve were married by God before there was any death in the world" (p.219). "Their part in our Father's plan was to bring mortality into the world" (p.27).

(read more...)

Gospel Principles (2009): "There was no death."

The Church's basic doctrine manual, Gospel Principles, reaffirms that Adam's fall brought mortality and death into the world. The 2009 edition of Gospel Principles teaches:

"Jesus Christ created this world and everything in it" (p.23). "When Adam and Eve were placed in the Garden of Eden,... there was no death" (p.28). "Adam and Eve were married by God before there was any death in the world" (p.219). "Their part in our Father's plan was to bring mortality into the world" (p.27).

Originally written in 1978 for investigators and new members, the 2009 edition will be used for Melchizedek Priesthood and Relief Society second and third Sunday instruction during 2010 and 2011. The manual is also an approved resource for Melchizedek Priesthood and Relief Society first Sunday lessons.

(read more...)

Going toe-to-toe with an Apostle

SteveP wants to "create a space in the church where those who look deeply enough at evolution and are concerned that there is no place for them because of the anti-evolution rhetoric that so fills our discourse" (click here).

SteveP, we both know where LDS anti-evolution rhetoric currently originates, starting with Packer and Nelson of the Twelve. So here's some friendly advice born out of personal experience.

Beginning in the late 1970s, Deseret Book told me over and over to forget about them ever removing R-rated fiction from their stores. Management said they had the support of their board of directors whose chairman and one other member were apostles. So buzz off, Gary. And so it went for well over a decade.

"Racy Novels Spark Fiction Friction at Deseret Book." was written by Christopher Smith and published by The Salt Lake Tribune in 1995. In his article, Smith called me "perhaps the most outspoken proponent of ditching fiction at Deseret Book." But he didn't take my word for anything. He purchased five fiction novels at Deseret Book, only to find that four of them "contained passages deemed inapropriate by this newspaper to be reprinted verbatim."

Bottom line? Deseret Book no longer sells R-rated fiction.

So here's my advice, SteveP: You really can go toe to toe with one or more living apostles. I know. I've done it. But first you need at least one living apostle on your side. And second, you must never criticize any apostle in any public way. If you follow these two suggestions, I think you'll be fine and possibly even successful in your quest.

Good luck on your project, SteveP. I'm a very interested observer.

(read more...)

Priesthood Ordination before 1978

I've been blogging for more than four years now.  A regular topic in the bloggernacle has been the Church's previous denial of priesthood to blacks and the various teachings that were suggested over the years as reasons for that denial.  A particularly sensitive aspect of this discussion was brought up last week, when Clean Cut published his belief that the priesthood denial was the "result of human weakness and prejudice" and was "not God's will."

Well, I believe it was God's will.  I believe that from the days of Adam, God has always said who could and could not receive the priesthood, and this includes both the latter-day restriction and the 1978 revelation that ended it.

The following three paragraphs represent the Church's own explanation of the former priesthood restriction.  Click anywhere on the image to read the article at LDS.org.  I endorse these paragraphs without reservation and hope they will have a positive influence on future bloggernacle discussions of the subject.

.

.

(read more...)

LDS Church in Guide to the Scriptures says "the Fall brought mortality and death to the earth"

In 2002, the LDS Church published its scriptures on CD.  One of the study aids found on that CD is Guide to the Scriptures which "defines selected doctrines."

Defining doctrine

One of the "selected doctrines" defined in Guide to the Scriptures is based on the following verse of scripture:

"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."  (2 Ne. 2:22)

According to Guide to the Scriptures, this verse means:

"The Fall brought mortality and death to the earth."

The LDS Bible Dictionary interprets the same verse similarly:

"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."

Some individuals feel the disclaimer in its Preface authorizes rejection of the LDS Bible Dictionary, but notice that Guide to the Scriptures contains no disclaimer.

Stephens and Meldrum

In their 2001 book, Trent D. Stephens and D. Jeffrey Meldrum set forth an interpretation of 2 Ne. 2:22 that is more compatible with their view of earth's history.  They propose that the Garden of Eden was an island of deathless life in an otherwise death-filled world:

"The prevailing conditions would have continued indefinitely, as they had for millennia.  On the other hand, Adam and Eve would have continued in a state of immortality as long as they had access to the Tree of Life." (Trent D. Stephens and D. Jeffrey Meldrum, Evolution and Mormonism: A Quest for Understanding, Salt Lake City: Signature Books, 2001, p.135.)

According to this interpretation, the Fall brought mortality and death to Adam and Eve, but those conditions were not new outside the Garden of Eden.

Conclusion

The Stephens and Meldrum theory contradicts the Church's interpretation of 2 Ne. 2:22, which is that "the Fall brought mortality and death to the earth"—not just to Adam and Eve, and not just to the Garden of Eden, but "to the earth."

(read more...)

The earth was completely covered with water

For the benefit of my friends at BCC, what follows is not my own interpretation of anything. It is, rather, what the Church currently teaches about the worldwide Flood, as loaded to your screen just now from the Church's own web site.

.

(read more...)