The Mormon Church recently released an updated edition of its scriptures. One of the resources that underwent some change is the Bible Dictionary, found in the back of the LDS edition of the KJV Bible (print editions). In reviewing some of the changes made to the new digital edition I found one of particular interest in the entry titled “Fall of Adam and Eve.”
The entry previous to the new changes said (in part),
“Before the fall, Adam and Eve had physical bodies but no blood. There was no sin, no death, and no children among any of the earthly creations. With the eating of the ‘forbidden fruit,’ Adam and Eve became mortal, sin entered, blood formed in their bodies, and death became a part of life. Adam became the ‘first flesh’ upon the earth (Moses 3: 7), meaning that he and Eve were the first to become mortal. After Adam fell, the whole creation fell and became mortal.” (Bible Dictionary, “Fall of Adam,” 670)
This doctrine, blood forming as a direct result of the Fall, is consistent with the teachings of other Mormon authorities. Joseph Fielding Smith, who became the tenth President of the Mormon Church, was firmly convicted of this doctrine. He wrote,
“We are also taught that, not being subject to death, Adam had no blood in his veins before the fall. Blood is the life of the mortal body…There is no blood in an immortal body, and when Adam transgressed the law and ate the fruit that had been forbidden there came a drastic change in his body and it was transformed from the condition where there was no death to a condition where it became subject to death, or mortality, and from that time forth blood was the life-giving fluid.” (Man, His Origin and Destiny, 362-364)
“We know that when Adam was placed on the earth it was pronounced ‘good,’ and he, as well as the earth, was not subject to death. There was no ‘curse’ on the earth. There was no blood in his body, but he had a spiritual body until it was changed by the fall. A spiritual body is one which is not quickened by blood, but by spirit. Before the fall Adam had a physical, tangible body of flesh and bones, but it was not quickened by blood. The partaking of the forbidden fruit caused blood to exist in his body and thus the seeds of mortality were sown and his body then became temporal, or mortal, subject to the vicissitudes of mortal change. The Lord created all things upon this earth physically and immortal, or free from the seeds of death. The fall of Adam brought the change upon the earth and all things upon its face partook of the conditions imposed upon Adam in the fall.” (Church History and Modern Revelation, 2:5-6)
“Now when Adam was in the Garden of Eden, he was not subject to death. There was no blood in his body and he could have remained there forever. This is true of all the other creations… After the fall, which came by a transgression of the law under which Adam was living, the forbidden fruit had the power to create blood and change his nature and mortality took the place of immortality, and all things, partaking of the change, became mortal.” (Doctrines of Salvation, 1:77)
“Since it was by the creation of blood that mortality came, it is by the sacrifice of blood that the redemption from death was accomplished, and all creatures freed from Satan’s grasp. In no other way could the sacrifice for redemption of the world from death be accomplished. Blood being the agent of mortality, it had to be returned to Satan and to death, whence it came… Jesus obtained his blood from his mother Mary; he obtained his power over death from his Father. Therefore he could and did voluntarily surrender himself to his enemies who crucified him by the shedding of his blood. When he arose from the tomb, he was free from blood, and his body had become subject to eternal law henceforth and forever.” (Answers to Gospel Questions, 3:109)
Mormon Apostle Bruce R. McConkie supported Joseph Fielding Smith in this doctrine, as he included the teaching in several of his own books. For example, in Mormon Doctrine, he wrote,
“Adam, our first parent (1 Ne. 5:11), a ‘son of God’ (Moses 6:22), was first placed on earth as an immortal being. His coming was the crowning event of the creation; and as with him, so with every department of creation — immortality reigned supreme. (2 Ne. 2:22.) There was no death, no mortality, no corruption, no procreation. Blood did not flow in Adam’s veins, for he was not yet mortal, and blood is an element that pertains exclusively to mortality…
“In conformity with the will of the Lord, Adam fell both spiritually and temporally. Spiritual death entered the world,… Temporal death also entered the world, meaning that man and all created things became mortal, and blood became the life preserving element in the natural body.” (“Fall of Adam,” 268-269)
Mormon Apostle Alvin R. Dyer also jumped on this doctrinal bandwagon. In his book, Who Am I?, he wrote,
“By their own act of transgression, Adam and Eve brought mortality upon themselves. This imposed conditions causing blood to flow in their natural bodies. But it also rendered them capable to fulfill the greater commandment they had received from God to ‘multiply and replenish the earth.’” (247-248)
That blood formed in the bodies of Adam and Eve at the time that they became mortal seems like a pretty solid doctrine in Mormonism. Perhaps it remains so, but the new edition of the Bible Dictionary contains no reference to it. The new entry states (in part),
“Before the Fall, there were no sin, no death, and no children. 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 (Moses 3:7), meaning that he and Eve were the first to become mortal.” (Bible Dictionary, “Fall of Adam and Eve,” new online edition)
Interestingly, a similar change was made in the Bible Dictionary entry titled “Resurrection.” Compare the previous edition and the new edition:
“Others had been brought back from death, but were restored to mortality (Mark 5: 22-43; Luke 7: 11-17; John 11: 1-45), whereas a resurrection means to become immortal, without blood, yet with a body of flesh and bone.” (Bible Dictionary, “Resurrection,” 761, emphasis added to aid comparison.)
“Others had been brought back from death but were restored to mortality (Mark 5:22–43; Luke 7:11–17; John 11:1–45), whereas a resurrection means to become immortal, with a body of flesh and bone.” (Bible Dictionary, “Resurrection,” new online edition)
The Mormon Church explains that the Bible Dictionary “is not intended as an official statement of Church doctrine” though it is “based primarily on the biblical text, supplemented by information from the other standard works” and “the work of Bible scholars.” Nevertheless, the Church says the Dictionary is “subject to reevaluation as new research or revelation comes to light.” I wonder whether it was research or revelation that precipitated the changes to the Bible Dictionary that I’ve discussed here. Either way, one usually thinks that research or revelation will add information, rather than having it taken away.
Shem,
I can see us arguing around and around for a long time. So, I’ll ask this question: is the apostasy a fact? If it is a full-on-fact, then it must be able to be proven. It must have ascertainable pieces of evidence that can be verified and compared.
You say the Bible does not prove the apostasy. If that is the case, then something must prove it. That something must therefore be outside of the Bible.
Now, if you say that the apostasy is not a fact, then it ends up something based on faith. It has to be this way, since it is not a fact and is therefore subject to interpretation and debate.
Your faith requires an apostasy, and I do not expect you to deny that here and now. But it is worth acknowledging the simple logical reality of the discussion.
Thank you for pointing this change in the LDS Church’s Bible Dictionary. I wonder if this was done to soften the definitions and make them more ‘milk-like,’ with the ‘meatier’ no-blood-before-the-Fall doctrine being presented later. For instance, I find this is the case as seen in the LDS Church’s Doctrines of the Gospel Student Manual, “Chapter 8 – The Fall,” which quotes Mormon President Joseph Fielding Smith (http://www.lds.org/manual/doctrines-of-the-gospel-student-manual/chapter-8-the-fall?lang=eng):
It is also taught in the LDS Church’s Ensign magazine in the following articles by Mormon Apostle Russell M. Nelson: “Constancy amid Change,” November 1993 issue, page 33 and “The Atonement,” November 1996 issue, page 33.
I also appreciate your concluding observation that research or revelation should add information, rather than take it away.
Edit: Thank you for pointing out this change in the LDS Church’s Bible Dictionary.
MJP
“is the apostasy a fact? If it is a full-on-fact, then it must be able to be proven. It must have ascertainable pieces of evidence that can be verified and compared.”
First, let me ask by what standards are we calling it fact? This is am important point. After all, what science claimed as proven fact has been disproved by later discovery. So let us look at some definitions of the word fact, taken from http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/fact?s=t.
1. something that actually exists; reality; truth: Your fears have no basis in fact.
2. something known to exist or to have happened: Space travel is now a fact.
3. a truth known by actual experience or observation; something known to be true: Scientists gather facts about plant growth.
4. something said to be true or supposed to have happened: The facts given by the witness are highly questionable.
So, what definition are we using? If we use definition one than what you say is true.
However, if we use definition two than we are getting into a more subject understanding. Thus if I accept that the evidence shows that the apostasy occurred I could call it a fact; while you, who thinks that evidence does not show this would disagree.
Using definition three we get the same result, as all my experience with other religions has led me to the conclusion that the apostasy is fact, while your experience hasn’t.
Using definition four then I can claim the witness of a number of biblical prophets that the apostasy would happen, as well as modern prophets witness that it did, and, calling these facts, accept the reality of the apostasy (and actually thus bring definition one onto my side as well).
So, I remain with my previous answer. I cannot prove the apostasy by any objective measure; but I can accept the reality of it based on subjective evidence.
Fifth Monarch
I understand what you are saying, but I still have to disagree. I have no real desire to keep arguing the point as it is clear that it will lead nowhere.
I do not think your interpretation is correct, and so I see nothing in these verses that disproves the apostasy. Think what you want about Daniel and all the rest, but as it is all subjective interpretation it does not amount to proof of anything.
“I cannot prove the apostasy by any objective measure; but I can accept the reality of it based on subjective evidence.”
And there we have it. And what a round of logic to get there! Going through various definitions of the word “fact.” It almost sounds like Clinton’s question on the word “Is”. For fun, here is another definition that is closer to what I mean, and what most people mean when they use the word “fact”. Its from Black’s Legal Dictionar, 8th ed.:
1. Something that actually exists; an aspect of reality ., –Facts include not just tangible things, actual occurrences, and relationships, but also states of mind such as intentions and opinions.
2. An actual or alleged event or circumstance, as distinguished from its legal effect, consequence, or interpretation .
3. An evil deed; a crime .
The third you can toss out as irrelevant here, but the first two get to things that simply are, not interpretations or subjective measures. Facts are truths, not guesses. And even in your list from dictionary.com, facts are things that can be quantitatively observed. We all can see that space travel has occurred. Scientists observe and notate observations about plant growth.
Yet, you just told me this: “I cannot prove the apostasy by any objective measure; but I can accept the reality of it based on subjective evidence.” You just admitted that the apostasy is not fact. At best, it is an interpretation of the evidence, and it is subjective.
shem says,
I have no real desire to keep arguing the point as it is clear that it will lead nowhere.
I say,
I completely agree. I do appreciate the opportunity to defend the faithfulness of my Lord to his word and his Bride.
You say,
and so I see nothing in these verses that disproves the apostasy.
I say,
Again I understand.
You must have to open your eyes before you will be able to see. (Matthew 13:15)
You say,
Think what you want about Daniel and all the rest, but as it is all subjective interpretation it does not amount to proof of anything.
I say,
Of course the clear Word of the Lord appears to be nothing but subjective interpretation to one in your position.
Those determined to disobey will always be able to convince themselves that “did God really say” is something that they must judge for themselves.
I’ll pray that God will cause use our conversation to his glory none the less.
I’m completely confident that he will do so.
peace
MJP
I still don’t think that you fully grasp this, but that is fine. Technically, everything you believe concerning Christ is subjective interpretation, which is what I was getting at in the first place.
Now, I will add a new depth to this however, which I rarely do as it is generally pointless and meaningless in these kind of discussions.
I will say that the apostasy is proven fact, or at least that I have seen the tangible and quantitative proof of it. The problem is that it is proof that cannot be directly shared, for I speak to spiritual proof, or witness. You can never know what experience I have had, especially when it comes to the spirit. I can never know what you have experienced. Thus these statements, as I said, become pointless in a discussion based on sharable measures.
I can state that I know, without any doubt, that the apostasy did in fact occur. Just as I know that I ate chicken two days ago, I know that the apostasy occurred. However, my knowledge of this in no way proves it, in either case, which is why I have maintained the stand that I have.
Oh, and just a note, your first definition actually is very subjective, because it accepts opinions as fact, and thus it allows for the altering of facts as opinions change. This is especially true of expert opinions, and particularly in such things as psychology. Thus, using this definition, what was considered fact thirty years ago is no longer fact, as opinions have changed.
Ah, Shem. There you go. Falcon has done a good job of explaining the Mormon operandi, which you have done here. When pushed into a corner, you say, “Well, I know this is true because I have felt it.”
Well, gosh, I know you are wrong. Why? Because I have felt it, and you can’t challenge me. Now where are we?
I actually fully acknowledge my beliefs are subjective. I fully acknowledge that I cannot prove my faith to be true using concrete evidence alone. I have to go where you went eventually. However, I have a lot more evidence to back up my faith. And I have far more evidence that no apostasy occurred than you have that it did.
Before we go too far down the road of who’s is better, the challenge I have for you is to leave your witness behind and check it all out. This was an early challenge I had for you. If your evidence is strong enough to come back to it, then your faith should be all the stronger. But you have to leave it all behind.
Is this tough? Yes, it is. It is scary. It was for me.