Physical fall of the earth

[sarahmj]

Today in Sunday school we talked about the creation. I commented to a friend about the physical fall of the earth when Adam and Eve partook of the fruit and entered mortality, the earth was not created in this location in space but fell from near to God, to this far flung corner of the universe. She had never heard such a thing.
So am I making this up? I can't remember where I heard this doctrine before, I would be grateful for any references to material to show her.

[brrgilbert]

God Bless.

[lemuel]

Brigham Young taught that with the fall of Adam the earth also actually fell through space from its former location near the throne of God to its present orbit. (See JD 17:143.) Journal of Discourses: Volume 17, Page 143

This earth is our home, it was framed expressly for the habitation of those who are faithful to God, and who prove themselves worthy to inherit the earth when the Lord shall have sanctified, purified and glorified it and brought it back into his presence, from which it fell far into space. Ask the astronomer how far we are from the nearest of those heavenly bodies that are called the fixed stars. Can he count the miles? It would be a task for him to tell us the distance. When the earth was framed and brought into existence and man was placed upon it, it was near the throne of our Father in heaven. And when man fell—though that was designed in the economy, there was nothing about it mysterious or unknown to the Gods, they understood it all, it was all planned—but when man fell, the earth fell into space, and took up its abode in this planetary system, and the sun became our light. When the Lord said—"Let there be light," there was light, for the earth was brought near the sun that it might reflect upon it so as to give us light by day, and the moon to give us light by night. This is the glory the earth came from, and when it is glorified it will return again unto the presence of the Father, and it will dwell there, and these intelligent beings that I am looking at, if they live worthy of it, will dwell upon this earth.

Although we can't take something as truth just because Brigham Young said it.

[Elizabeth]

Why not?

[lemuel]

Why not?

Adam-God, polygamy necessary for salvation, he's been wrong before. I don't want to start an argument or anything, I'm just saying a statement from BY isn't always authoritative. BY was a great leader though. Ignore me if you disagree.

[sarahmj]

At least this theory makes more sense than some of his others

[Elizabeth]

Why not?

Adam-God... he's been wrong before. I don't want to start an argument or anything, I'm just saying a statement from BY isn't always authoritative. BY was a great leader though. Ignore me if you disagree.

It is concerning that misunderstandings are being used detrimentally against Brigham Young. As I posted in answer to a similar comment re "Adam God": Brigham Young did not enlarge on his reported thinking on this matter. One cannot say this was a teaching of his nor put forward as doctrine. He died before clarifying what remarks attributed to him in this regard actually meant. Many believe Brigham refered to our Heavenly Father's Father and other "Adams" on other earths. President Kimball stopped further speculation.

[BroJones]

J:

President Kimball stopped further speculation.

Could you give us the quote on that? just so I get it straight. Would appreciate.

[Elizabeth]

"We hope that you who teach in the various organizations, whether on the campuses or in our chapels, will always teach the orthodox truth. We warn you against the dissemination of doctrines which are not according to the scriptures and which are alleged to have been taught by some of the General Authorities of past generations. Such, for instance, is the Adam-God theory. We denounce that theory and hope that everyone will be cautioned against this and other kinds of false doctrine. http://www.lds.org/general-conference/1 ... god+theory" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Note "alleged" and "theory" certainly not one Prophet speaking ill of another and pronouncing his doctrine false, which is what the anti-Brigham movement wants all to believe. As per my previous post: "Brigham Young did not enlarge on his reported thinking on this matter. One cannot say this was a teaching of his nor put forward as doctrine. He died before clarifying what remarks attributed to him in this regard actually meant."

[AshleyB]

I beleive that statement from Brigham. There were other statements from other apostles as well which said similar things. I cant definitively state it at this point but If my memory is not too rusty I think Joseph taught some things like that too. I remember a particular quote possibly from Orson Pratt that said this earth once bathed in the light of other suns. I need to find those. I tried looking them up but they are kind of obscure. If your interested in this topic Anthony Larsen talks a lot about this kind of thing on his website mormon prophecy. I found some of the quotes I referenced through him.

http://www.mormonprophecy.com/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[Teankhum]

"...One cannot say this was a teaching of his nor put forward as doctrine..."

Nice backtracking after the fact to justify it, however...

"Now, let all who may hear these doctrines, pause before they make light of them, or treat them with indifference, for they will prove their salvation or damnation." (from Brigham Young in the 1852 sermon introducing Adam/God to the saints, taught from the pulpit).

Sounds like doctrine to me, and to claim that it was not a teaching of his is disingenuous in the extreme. The history is out there, and you can't put this genie back in the bottle. To simply swallow the official explanation without researching it is careless. To brush it off as private interpretation or as being of no consequence only discredits the institution.

Look, even the current leadership believes and has publicly stated that Brother Brigham erred doctrinally here. Does that mean that everything he said was false, or that he was not called of God? No, it doesn't. You cannot but read his discourses and feel the power and spirit of most of what he taught. But he was also a man, as prone to making mistakes and errors in judgment as the rest of us. As apt to receive revelation from "alternate sources" as was even the Prophet (if you don't know what I'm referring to, see Chapter 4 of David Whitmer's An Address to All Believers in Christ).http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/An_Addres ... _in_Christ

We live in a fallen world, and even the duly appointed mouthpiece of the Lord can err when not acting expressly for the Lord. The idea that he cannot, or that he cannot fall and lead his followers away, would remove his agency and goes against God's plan. It is upon the followers to not place blind faith in the arm of flesh just because they have been granted an office, but to prove ALL things and trust int the Lord alone.

[DragonSlayer]

Today in Sunday school we talked about the creation. I commented to a friend about the physical fall of the earth when Adam and Eve partook of the fruit and entered mortality, the earth was not created in this location in space but fell from near to God, to this far flung corner of the universe. She had never heard such a thing.
So am I making this up? I can't remember where I heard this doctrine before, I would be grateful for any references to material to show her.

this doctrine is not plausible from modern science. I do not believe that it happened at the time of the fall of Adam, because the earth, sun and planets of our solar system travel as a unit. They are all the same age. Meteorites fall to the earth that date to the same age of the earth. If the earth was created near kolob near the galactic center, then the whole solar system migrated outward and this would have taken millions of years to get here, contrary to Brigham Young's speculation. I do not believe that he was inspired in this statement. we have done multiple revolutions around the galactic center since that time. The earth does not travel independently of the sun. i'm not saying that priesthood intervention cannot do things differently,. I just don't see a need for it. I'm saying that there is no reason to doubt the natural order. There is no reason to doubt that the earth will be celestialized long before it gets back to the galactic center if it returns there. It will take millions of years to get back, just as it took millions of years to get here. There is priesthood intervention where there is a need. in my view, there is no need for priesthood intervention to speed the natural trajectory of the solar system up in its orbit around the galactic center.

[Elizabeth]

"Now, let all who may hear these doctrines, pause before they make light of them, or treat them with indifference, for they will prove their salvation or damnation." (from Brigham Young in the 1852 sermon introducing Adam/God to the saints, taught from the pulpit).

Who recorded the words? Did they accurately do so? Did Brigham Young put these exact words forward to be recorded and accepted by The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints as Doctrine ?

[Rick Grimes]

This theory also makes sense because you read in several revelations that the "stars will fall from the sky" as a description of something that will happen in the end. Is it really them that are moving or is it us that are being transported back to Kolob? Would all of those solar systems really end just because our probation has ended? I have my doubts. I think the prophets who were let seen a glimpse of this event did not understand that it wasn't the stars that were falling, but our Earth hurling back through space. :-B

[DragonSlayer]

This theory also makes sense because you read in several revelations that the "stars will fall from the sky" as a description of something that will happen in the end. Is it really them that are moving or is it us that are being transported back to Kolob? Would all of those solar systems really end just because our probation has ended? I have my doubts. I think the prophets who were let seen a glimpse of this event did not understand that it wasn't the stars that were falling, but our Earth hurling back through space. :-B

That assumption about streaking stars in faster than light travel is unsupported by science as well. We are 26000 light years from the galactic center, and assuming the galactic center as the abode of Kolob, we would have to be travelling significantly faster than light to get there in a short amount of time. We have let science fiction bleed into our scriptural interpretations.

http://www.space.com/19268-star-wars-hy ... ality.html

[SempiternalHarbinger]

This theory also makes sense because you read in several revelations that the "stars will fall from the sky" as a description of something that will happen in the end. Is it really them that are moving or is it us that are being transported back to Kolob? Would all of those solar systems really end just because our probation has ended? I have my doubts. I think the prophets who were let seen a glimpse of this event did not understand that it wasn't the stars that were falling, but our Earth hurling back through space. :-B

That assumption about streaking stars in faster than light travel is unsupported by science as well. We are 26000 light years from the galactic center, and assuming the galactic center as the abode of Kolob, we would have to be travelling significantly faster than light to get there in a short amount of time. We have let science fiction bleed into our scriptural interpretations.

http://www.space.com/19268-star-wars-hy ... ality.html

Your making my head hurt Ed.

"and assuming the galactic center as the abode of Kolob"

This is the main theme in your book correct?

" It is the Nail of Heaven, meaning the polestar, the geocentric symbol for the real nail of Heaven, which is God's throne in the Heavens, in the Galactic Center."

A lot of assumptions in there DS. If modern science is right, than Kolob (center of galactic core) is a super massive, invisible, black hole. Not an ideal location for Gods throne if you know what I mean.

(not intended for DS; food for thought)

IMHO, Brigham Young was right. That is, since man has been on Earth, the sun has not always been our light/sun. "man was placed upon it, it was near the throne of our Father in heaven. And when man fell … the earth fell into space and took up its abode in this planetary system and the sun became our light." Also, Brigham Young implies that the creation of the Earth and the placement of all creatures upon this world, including Man, took place before our world found its present place, orbiting this Sun. Brigham stated, “This is the glory the earth came from ….” That would mean that the early descendants of Adam first bathed in a different light, that they did not see our Sun as we see it now. And if that was the case, the other planets in our solar system may not have been where we see them today at all.

All Ancient cultures were in fact "sun" worshippers. But the sun they depicted can in no way be our sun today. It defies modern science.

Brigham Statement also expounds on the creation myth scattered throughout the ancient world. The Book of Genesis says the creation of Light happened on the first day...The creation accounts explain that light was created to dissipate the darkness on the first ‘day’ or event of creation. “Let there be light; and there was light.”

Genesis;
1 In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.

2 And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.

3 And God said, Let there be light: and there was light.

4 And God saw the light, that it was good: and God divided the light from the darkness.

5 And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day.

But it is not until the 4th day that the Sun, Moon, and the Stars come into the picture.

The Egyptian "sun disk/Flame of Re" (BOA facsimile #2) also confirms BY statement. BY statement fits perfectly with Egyptian myths, rituals and religious beliefs.

Stephen Ricks on the origins of kingship, Temples of the ancient world...

"A central feature of nearly every ancient culture and medieval society was kingship...Chronicles of kingship from Egypt, Mesopotamia, to Persia, to China, to Italy, to Northern Europe, to pre-Columbian, Mexico all trace the line of kings to the first king, a supreme deity who founded the kingship rites... The accounts [of the creation] speak of a creator, a first man, a first king- all referring to the same cosmic figure."

"A central ritual associated with kingship was the coronation ceremony: that series of acts, performed in a temple or sacred space, by means of which the king accedes to the throne and is endowed with the power and authority by which alone his rule is possible."

As above, so it is below. Here is David Talbott on this common ancient archetype.

Some of the particulars of this myth are remarkable. All of the well-preserved myths of the Golden Age, for example, say that this magical epoch was distinguished by the rule of a Universal Monarch, a celestial king of the world. Before a king ever ruled on earth, a prototype of kings arose in heaven, and it was this "best of kings" who founded the original paradise.

For the Egyptians it was the creator-king Ra, for the Sumerians it was the high god An, from whom kingship descended. Similarly, the Hindu Brahma, the Chinese Huang-ti, Mexican Quetzalcoatl, Mayan Itzam Na and numerous counterparts among other nations, all preside over a paradisal epoch, while establishing the ideals and principles of kingship.

In Egypt, Mesopotamia, Persia, China, Greece, Italy, northern Europe, pre-Columbian Mexico and Central America--in fact, wherever the institution of kingship arose--the general rule is that royal genealogies lead back to this exemplary ruler, celebrated as the first in a sacred line of kings. The different myths recount in rich detail how the god built a great temple or city in primeval times, invented the alphabet, or taught a new language to a pre-literate race. They say it was he who invented the wheel, introduced the science of agriculture, instituted laws, and taught the true religion--in short, brought to a barbarous race all of the arts of civilization. -David Talbott

There is a incredible explanation for why the “lights” of heaven did not appear in the scriptural scenario until the ‘fourth day’ — that is to say, until later in the sequence of events.

There is much evidence (ancient text and ancient creation myths) to back up this claim.

One vital piece of evidence that expounds on the Light that was the first creation comes from the Book of the Secrets of Enoch in which Hugh Nibley says is very reminiscent of the Book of Enoch penned by Joseph Smith. ("A Strange Thing in the Land", Return of the book Enoch)

But we will let Dwardu Cardona explain and make the connection for us. Cardona is one of the best comparative mythologist of our time and has some of the most amazing books. They are hard to come by. (God Star, Flare Star)

...."Enoch contains much that is of value in understanding the religio-cosmological beliefs of ancient times.

The "Book of the Secrets of Enoch", in fact, describes the "Creation" of the primordial light in a somewhat fuller version than does the Book of Genesis and it is from it's pages we learn of god's light being emitted by the "uncoiling" of Adoil.

Cardona further explains that "the name 'Adoil, also 'Idoil,' derives from the Hebrew 'hand of god,' that is the hand of El." Cardona indicates that 'El' was one of the ancient Hebrew names for Saturn. Saturn is singled out as the source of the first light of creation. And thus, Saturn was honored as the "Creator" in the myths and religious traditions of cultures around the world.

I believe Cardona has hit on some vital eternal truths. I believe that the Light that was first in the creation came not only from another orb, but from the planet Saturn. The same orb that the ancients MISTOOK for the creator and which catastrophist today recognize as the planet Saturn in it's earliest stage of development. In ancient times, Saturn was known by many names... best sun, sun star, the pole star, god star, light god, father god to name a few. Joseph calls it Kolob.

Here is a direct quote from Cardona’s great book God Star, which is most revealing. He quotes the first chapter of Genesis substituting English words with the original Hebrew at critical junctures:

“In the beginning Elohim create the shemayim and ‘eretz. And ‘eretz was tohu wa bohu, and darkness was on the surface of the tehom. And the ruach of Elohim moved upon the face of the mayim.”

“… Elohim was one of the ancient names of Saturn. Shemayim are “the heavens” — in the plural. Eretz is the word usually translated “Earth,” but it more properly means “land.” The words tohu wa bohu are traditionally translated as “without form and void” or “void and empty.” The tehom is understood as a watery abyss — the deep. Ruach means “spirit” or “soul,” but also “wind,” while the mayim are merely “the waters” — also in the plural.

“… the words of Genesis actually tell us … that, “in the beginning” — that is, as far back as man can remember — Saturn fashioned the “land” — which originally meant the land of the gods [Elohim] — which was formless and empty, while the “spirit,” or “wind,” of the same Saturn moved over the darkened waters.”

The prophetic symbolism of our scriptures retains the essence of all those ancient archetypes and subsequent elaborations. Of course, without a firm and thorough grasp of the origin of that symbolism and its proper use, we stumble around in the dark as we attempt to understand our own scripture. We are as blind men.

This same principle applies not only to the Bible, but to scripture revealed by Joseph Smith as well, since it all retains that same, time-honored symbolism. Moreover, it applies equally to modern temples, their architecture, adornments, rituals and furnishings.-Anthony Larson

[DragonSlayer]

Your making my head hurt Ed.

"and assuming the galactic center as the abode of Kolob"

This is the main theme in your book correct?

A lot of assumptions in there DS. If modern science is right, than Kolob (center of galactic core) is a super massive, invisible, black hole. Not an ideal location for Gods throne if you know what I mean.

SempiternalHarbinger, what should I call you? Does Sempi work for you? I need something shorter than your online name because its a mouth full.

Sempi, It seems we are both scientifically minded. I have to unpack a lot. You have a lot of assumptions about my assumptions. Please read my summary again carefully in the "Response/Apology to Kevin thread". I have thought these things through:

"The difference [between my theory and other Galactic Center theories] is that I have evidence that Kolob is not the central black hole, but a supergiant in its viscinity called IRS 7. http://adsabs.harvard.edu/full/1991ApJ...371L..59Y" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; The central supermassive black hole is just an anchor for the galaxy, and God's throne on a planet is somewhere in this vicinity, probably in the solar system of IRS 7".

According to Joseph Smith's Egyptian Alphabet and Grammar (Kirtland Egyptian Papers/KEP) Kolob is "swifter than the rest of the twelve fixed stars". The central supermassive compact entity does not move. It is the anchor. Therefore Kolob is not that, but a body in close proximity that is supermassive in its own right, but not the anchor. It moves swifter because of its proximity, like other central parsec objects, similar to S2 (Saggitarius 2/Source 2), the closest star (not supermassive) to SGR A* (Saggitarius A Star, The Black Hole) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/S2_(star) . The velocity of S2 is unbelievable. Only IRS 7 is a supermassive object next to SGR A* answering to the description of Kolob, both in the Book of Abraham and in the KEP. Therefore, all other LDS authors who believe in the Galactic Center Theory have misidentified the Central black hole as Kolob/God's throne. God's throne is a planet like a Urim and Thummim, logically like the earth will be in its exalted state (D&C 131). It is not supermassive, but in the vicinity, either as a satellite of Kolob, or as a satellite of the central black hole. The central black hole, God's throne planet, and Kolob are three separate objects. For all intents and purposes, the supermassive black hole is figuratively God's throne only because its the greatest massive object in the vicinity, but not literally the planet where he resides. There is a lot of things that have to be unpacked about that.

Again, I disagree with you about Saturn. Saturn is a geocentric symbol of God's throne just like the polestar and Sirius are for varying reasons.

Just like a successful Book of Mormon Geogrpahy, these things must answer to all of the criteria for their identification.

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v4 ... 21_F1.html

[DragonSlayer]

I believe Cardona has hit on some vital eternal truths. I believe that the Light that was first in the creation came not only from another orb, but from the planet Saturn. The same orb that the ancients MISTOOK for the creator and which catastrophist today recognize as the planet Saturn in it's earliest stage of development. In ancient times, Saturn was known by many names... best sun, sun star, the pole star, god star, light god, father god to name a few. Joseph calls it Kolob.

I disagree that Saturn was ever the pole star, but is just mythologically associated with it, like Sirius is.

I am not of the same ideology as catastrophists like Larson with the whole "earth shall reel to and fro" stuff. I lean far more towards conventional astrophysics. I'm not saying that the earth will not reel to and fro from disturbances in the solar system. Its just not going to do it because of Saturn or Venus as a comet or something. A Planet X scenario or some other disturbance to me is far more likely, not that I specifically subscribe to the Nemesis/Nibiru type of theory. I don't know what it will be. Saturn is not even a brown dwarf capable of giving off much of its own light. I has no nuclear fusion in it. I know, the electric universe theory doesn't integrate nuclear fusion, but in my worldview, both are part of the picture. Both the electric universe and the nuclear fusion are at play. They are both sources of energy. Saturn doesn't give light to other worlds to the degree that they could support life in a habitable zone, nor does it give off its own physical light. It may be possible that something dramatic changed in the past, but I don't believe it is likely.

[jwharton]

A good thing to bear in mind is all that we are shown in the creation account is presented in symbolic representation.

So, when you see the sun, planets, moons, stars, waters, lands, seas, plants, fishes, birds, animals and man, these are all symbolic representations of an actual reality behind the symbols. The process of being brought through the veil is the process by which all must eventually pass so that instead of seeing the symbols they can decipher the actual meaning and know the literal reality it all pertains to.

What you are talking about is on the level of taking the symbols as the reality itself. This is something that is done by the vast majority of people who are participating in religion. I think the most important key of decipherment is to come to understand when that decipherment is actually needed in order to bring things into a context that becomes personally meaningful and immediately relevant.

This poses a two-fold problem:
First of all, there are likely many fantasies that will have to be dispensed with.
Secondly, we will actually have to take things seriously and put them into practice.

If you get past those two issues, the benefits are that all of the promises given are now within your power to fulfill.

For example, I don't have to actually create my own physical planet out in the cosmos somewhere to be an Adam of.

Also, bear in mind, none of this is to say looking at things on a physical cosmos or galactic level is out of the question. We know that things do play out on that scale as well, but the important thing is to stay focused on the scale within which we have an ability to influence.

Let me give an example:
The seven thousand years for the temporal existence of the "earth" as spoken of in D&C 77:6-7 does not pertain to the physical planet upon which we reside. It symbolically speaks of something more distinct and personally relevant to us that does indeed have a duration of what we reckon to be about 7,000 years. This thing call "earth" that that passage is referring to is what the symbol for a planet or a world is representing. This seven thousand period also pertains to the duration of the "heavens" as well as the "earth". With each cycle of creation there is the birth, life, death, resurrection and redemption of the "heavens and the earth". In the period of the end of one, the foundation for the new is laid. The beginning of a new creation is when the alpha/omega stage of things is playing out. Knowing the end from the beginning pertains to knowing how this critical phase of things plays out. I highly recommend pursuing how this is all coming to pass in immediately relevant ways instead of trying to force it upon cosmic cycles that take billions if not trillions of years to play out.

[kentrogers]

These are deeper waters than I'm able to swim. However, I thought this article might be relevant to the topic. Planets traveling through space without an orbit:

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/scie ... 78141.html

Perhaps Brigham Young is right, after all?

[gardener4life]

To me this topic seems like reasoning how science and religion can explain and meet each other part way.

The idea of a 'Goldilocks Zone' in a star system and where a life giving planet is situated in that same Goldilocks zone is a very real rational explanation of how a planet's orbit alignment could account for a Fall of Adam.

But you won't necessarily find a smoking gun in the scriptures for it. But some passages suggest it could be done that way.