MrShorty

The mere fact that it's a matter of debate tells me that there's enough variety in points of view that it really doesn't make sense to try to rally people one way or the other.  If what the President did was wrong, it wasn't very egregious.  If it wasn't, it isn't a huge moral stand.
Either way, this is an utter non-issue.  I'll waste no more ti

An art studio in Utah?

I see that, I just don’t want another voice saying “pray the gay away”.
We can’t have this idea being the go-to response to people struggling with homosexual tendencies 

But we don’t decide what God does.
Im sure he could remove all suffering, mental illness and evil spirits. But he doesn’t. Why would healing homosexual tendencies be any different?

Hello. I’m formerly LDS (Utah-raised, mission, temple marriage, etc.) and now a Roman Catholic. I am also a chrismated Eastern Orthodox Christian, though I have returned to communion with the pope in Rome. Both comprise the ancient Catholic Church of the Nicene Creed, along with the Copts, the Syrian Orthodox churches, Armenians, and the Nestorian Church of the East. 
Anyway, to the OP: a few comments.
When you say the Bible is an LDS book, which Bible do you mean? The truncated KJV used by LDS and some Protestants? The original KJV that included the deuterocanonicals (Apocrypha)? The Greek Bible (with the Septuagint for the OT) used by Catholic churches of the Byzantine Rite, both those who are and aren’t in communion with Rome? The Syriac Peshitta? The Coptic Bible, whose OT is the Septuagint plus the Book of Enoch? Since you’re LDS, I assume you’re only referring to the Bible in your quad and saying the LDS KJV is an LDS book.
When you say the Catholic Church took control of the scriptures and regulated them, it sounds like you’re not aware of this variety of Bibles in the Catholic tradition. Which Catholic Church are you referring to? It sounds like you’re referring to the Roman branch only.
Your essay will benefit from some historical nuance. The various Catholic Churches I’ve mentioned have different Old Testaments, but all share the same New Testament, originally agreed to and canonized by Catholic Bishop representatives from all traditions (Latin, Greek, Syriac, Persian), meeting in a series of regional councils in the 4th century (centuries before the Latin, Roman Catholic branch of Catholicism was the monolithic institution it is today, by the way). When non-Catholics discuss the Apostasy and things like the Catholic Church “controlling the Bible” (or the Crusades, inquisitions, bad popes, indulgences, unmarried priests, the Reformation, etc), many aren’t aware that all of that applies ONLY to the Latin-Rite church, the Roman Catholic Church (out of which ALL Protestants came), which is just one branch of the ancient Catholic Church - the church of the Nicene Creed that established the New Testament canon (e.g., made the decision to put Matthew, Mark, Luke and John in your Bible and exclude the Gospel of Thomas). 
Regarding the Holy Trinity. Anatess is spot on. Three persons, one ousia, one being, one God. Jesus did not pray to Himself in the garden. He prayed to His Father and our Father. This is all human concepts and language, rooted in matter, time and space, that can only fallibly describe a God who dwells outside/beyond time and space and made matter/time/space out of nothing.
 Regarding the apostasy, Anatess is spot on here, too. It’s a matter of faith. We Catholics use the exact same verses you cite and interpret them differently. After all, the only reason the KJV contains the books it contains is because King James’s Anglican translators stuck with the Roman Catholic canon established centuries before. In short, your essay will only convince those already convinced or those who are cast adrift and seeking.
just my 2 cents.
 

I haven't read this article yet (I may get to it), but I will throw out that one of my pet peeves is when people treat C.S. Lewis as if he was a prophet.

You misspelled "ain't".

I'll use a different Bible account to explain my thinking on this. God used Joseph to save both Egypt and Israel from starvation. Part of Joseph's journey involved time as a slave, and then 10-15 years in prison (labeled as a sex offender, btw). Most Christians of all stripes believe that God used Joseph's hardships to place him where he needed to be to interpret dreams and gain Pharaoh's attention. I wonder though. Joseph received two dreams in which the brothers who despised him were bowing down to him. He could have done like Mary, and treasured these revelations in his heart. Instead, he tells both to his brothers. Was he naïve? Perhaps prideful? Given his father's reaction to the second dream, and again contrasting his actions with Mary's, I suspect Joseph was bragging. "Hey, I'm not only dad's favorite, I'm God's too!" Of course, I cannot prove this, and would not make doctrine out of it. However, I suspect that Joseph did not have to go through all the hardships he did. God could have brought him to Pharaoh without all that slave/jail time. The difficult path was one of his own making (plus, of course, the much greater sinfulness and blame his brothers bore).
Did Adam & Eve have to disobey God in order for us to gain free will? I suspect not. However, there's no proving my view, and really not much point. They did sin and God knew it was coming. Given God's foreknowledge, it could be argued that the Fall was God's first plan. However, care should be taken along this road. There are too many voices arguing that sinners, and even the Devil himself, are only fulfilling God's purposes, and so bare no personal culpability. That notion I soundly reject. Likewise, without LDS revelations, I am left believing that Adam & Eve flat-out sinned.
At least we all get to the same conclusion. I have sinned. I sin. I will sin. So, I need Jesus to forgive me "70 X 7," and I need the Holy Spirit to guide me in the path of righteousness, so my life may glorify God, rather than leading many to the wide and easy road to destruction.

Your challenge is in explaining to everyone - LDS and Trinitarians both - that Divine Nature is exactly synonymous to ousia. 
For LDS it is.  You're gonna have to explain how it can be that we have God ousia but not God.  It would pose the same challenge as pro-choicers explaining to a pregnant mother how her fetus is human but not a person. 
For Trinitarians, it is not.  Because, if it is, then right now, right this very minute, we are God.
(Pro tip:  The divergence is not found in the Holy Bible but in Joseph Smith's First Vision and the restored gospel - something Trinitarians don't accept as true - and is focused on what makes God God.  So the only way you can convince a Trinitarian of the Godhead is through a testimony of the truthfulness of the restored gospel and nothing else).

Lets walk through this and examine the paradoxes we get due to our limited understanding. Paradoxes caused our limited understanding of two of God's characteristics.  God's ability to plan, and God's respect for Agency (aka our ability to make our own choices)
The standard Biblical Christian Idea is that God's plan was for us all to be in paradise (like Adam and Eve in the Garden).  But if that was the plan.. why put the Tree of Knowledge in the Garden in the first place?  If that was God's plan. Then Adam and Eve wrecked it like Ralph.  That would make Christ and his Atonement a Plan B.  There are some clear problem with God's ability to plan under this understanding of events.  Basically God sucked at planning and was forced into a plan of suffering because Adam and Eve did something he did not account for.  This is clearly paradoxical based on what we are told about God.  With this limited Biblical Christianity understanding one should be angry at God for the crappy plan, but God can't be a crappy planner so the anger displaces to Adam and Eve.  If they had not screwed up we would all be in Paradise right now.
The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saint claim additional light and knowledge beyond the standard Biblical Christianity. *We do not however claim Total Light and Knowledge. Just more.*  Our additional light and knowledge clears up the paradox.  A lot of this is done through Lehi in the Book of Mormon. Lehi makes it clear that Adam and Eve did not rob us of our chance to live in the Garden, that was never an option.  That God's plan required Adam and Eve to fall to put things into motion.  Christ and his Atonement was not Plan B but rather the First and only plan.
This handled the old paradox that was caused by limited understanding, but it raises some other questions.  Since we do not have Total Light and Knowledge we still have a limited understanding and this can make for some apparent paradoxes.  We know that God's initial plan is still working, and was in no danger of failing.  However it is one thing to say that God's plan can Handle Sin.  No plan would be effective if it could not.  But it is another thing entirely to say that God's plan Required Sin.  Saying that God's plan would have been frustrated by a lack of sin is just as problematic as saying it would have been frustrated by sin.
We are limited because we are only told what happened, what Adam and Eve did. And it appears that Sin was "required" which has issues.  Many resolve this by stating that it wasn't really a sin.  That Eve lacked the fundamentals needed to have Agency and thus Sin. (Aka she was an innocent child) There is a lot of support for this idea.  A smaller group thinks its a bit problematic to try to weasel ones way out of disobedience.  
Maybe one does consider it a Sin, maybe one does not.  However the idea that God's plan required Adam and Eve to make one and only one choice for the plan to work is problematic no matter how much Light and Knowledge one might have. 

The short answer is: Yes, Adam and Eve really and truly fell. The longer answer is: If you do not understand and believe LDS doctrine, you have a false concept of what the Fall is.
Non-Latter-day Saint Christians think that the difference is that Latter-day Saints believe that Adam and Eve acted heroically in disobeying God and hearkening to the voice of Satan. And indeed, some Latter-day Saints (including some LDS leaders) do indeed appear to believe exactly this. But that is not the actual root of the disagreement.
Rather, the root of the disagreement is this: Latter-day Saints believe that the Fall of Adam was a necessary and indispensable part of the plan of salvation of our Father in heaven. In contrast, non-LDS Christians in the main believe that the Fall of Adam was some sort of tragic mistake, a horrifying gaffe in the perfection of God's works.
This disagreement in turn gives rise to a complete contrast in how various people view Adam and Eve. Traditional Christianity views Adam and Eve, our first parents, as evil people who disobeyed God and brought his wrath upon themselves and all their descendants, opening the way for eternal misery for all who do not follow (what they believe to be) Christian precepts. Adam seems to be viewed as not just a wicked man, but a soft-headed fool who apparently thought with his gonads instead of his brain. Eve is treated even worse in larger Christian thought, the vile temptress who so easily was seduced by Satan's lies and who then dragged her husband down with her into condemnation.

In stark contrast, Latter-day Saints view Adam and Eve as noble, righteous people, our first parents to whom we owe a great debt of gratitude. Many consider Eve's disobedience to have been a noble choice for which we should be grateful. (Our current Church president and prophet appears to subscribe more or less to this view.) Those of us who do not go that far nevertheless view Eve as a great, intelligent, wonderful woman who, despite being deceived by the wicked one, gracefully fulfilled her part in the plan of salvation. Adam is one of the greatest prophets of all time, the very Ancient of Days to whom we look back on and forward to (and the same personage as Michael, called the "archangel" and apparently one of the greatest and noblest of God's premortal sons, perhaps second only to the premortal Jehovah in righteouness and valiance.)
Hope that helps, @prisonchaplain.

If you haven't read the foxnews article linked in Vort's OP, you might do so. Part of the controversy over this is because there is nothing in the geologic record that suggests an extinction event 100k to 200k years ago.
Giving a quick outsider (I have nothing to do with the research, and only an undergrad level understanding of DNA and genetics from 20 years ago) explanation. By sequencing Y chromosome (only passed from father to son) and mitochondrial DNA (only passed from mother to child), and comparing samples from multiple people around the world, they observe that everyone seems to be descended from a single man (~200k years ago) and woman (~100k years) ago. They claim similar observations for 90% of species that they sequenced. Vort's point (if I understand it correctly) is that this observation should be true (everyone will appear to share common genetic ancestors if you go back far enough) whether there is an extinction event (or other population bottle neck) or not.
Dating is done by counting mutations (differences within samples) and then estimating how long since DNA lines separated using established mutation rates.
I don't know enough to argue whether the overall evidence is good or bad. It certainly seems like there is room to argue for insufficient evidence without something from geology to back up the claim.

@MrShorty Yeah good point.  I agree that it definitely helps a lot to demonstrate that yes, you get where your audience is coming from.  If nothing else, it will at least show the author knows what he's talking about, and it's harder to dismiss him as just being ignorant of the "better" explanations.
I once read a really great book I got from the local LDS bookstore called "Understanding these Other Christians."  It does kind of the reverse of the OP's essay in that it is meant to help a Latter-Day Saint to understand the perspective Protestants are coming from, as a way of facilitating these kinds of conversations.  The part I thought was most helpful to me when talking with Protestants was the section where it has a sort of "LDS-Protestant translator" because there are a lot of terms that we share, but have different meanings for.  Trying to have a discussion without being aware of that can lead to some real frustration.

My honest reaction (so it's not going to be all good). If I want something that will speak into my echo chamber and reinforce the things I as a member of the Church already believe, it all sounds good. However, I suspect that most of this is a non-starter in other Christian echo chambers. Your treatment of the apostasy, for example, is right in line with how we LDS have always talked about it -- and other Christians have never found those proof-texts at all compelling.
It is your project and you decide exactly what kinds of purposes you want your project to have. For me, I find myself looking more for something that will not only echo well in my echo chamber, but something that will tell me what the other echo chambers are saying. You can speak the normal stuff on why the Trinity/Godhead are separate persons/personalities/beings, but then I would like to see a follow up on how traditional Trinitarians see it and then how Modalists see it and then how Jews and Muslims (who like to accuse all of us Christians as polytheists) see the discussion.
Members of the Church have been using these kinds of proof-texts and arguments to defend our faith for a long time, and the rest of Christianity is not breaking down our doors to join us. I find myself looking for explanations for why broader Christianity is not convinced by our "excellent" arguments like these.

Just a very slight correction.  It's a bit out of context the way you stated that Trinitarians don't understand how three separate and distinct individuals can be one God while Latter-Day Saints do.  The one small thing missing from your great explanation is that Trinitarians believe that God is One in Substance (ousia) while LDS believe that God is One in Will.  The source of the mystery is not that the Trinitarians don't understand how God is One - they understand it as One in ousia (there's really no perfect English translation for that word, substance doesn't quite cut it).  But that ousia is unknowable because there is only one entity in the universe that has it - and that is God - and since we cannot behold the physical nature of God outside of the personages of God, and there's no other entity that has that ousia, then we don't know exactly what that ousia is.  Just like the modern man may know what a T-Rex is supposed to be but nobody really knows - or can know - the exact reality of that entity as there is nobody who has ever beheld one outside of its fossilized remains so the reality of a T-Rex is a mystery.
As far as unity in Will - we all know what that is because it exists in us.  So it's not as mysterious.  The fact still remains that what a perfected body is (the body of God) in reality - is a mystery to even the LDS.
So, this divergence reverberates through the understanding of scripture especially in the understanding of Jesus prayer in Gethsemane where Jesus prayed that we may be Gods.  As a Trinitarian who believes that the ousia of God is different from the ousia of man, man becoming God does not mean man can BE God because the man-ousia is not God-ousia and it is that ousia that is God.  It is blasphemy to think otherwise.  Whereas, an LDS understanding of that prayer is more straightforward and literal because "man created in God's image and likeness" is not just spiritual characteristics but also in physical characteristics (ousia).

If the target audience is mainstream Christianity (which I understand to mainly refer to Protestants) I think you'll find the essay, however complete and well-researched, will be ineffective at changing minds.    
Protestants read the Bible.  They read it a LOT.  They read it more than we do because they don't have to divide their scripture study time between it and 3 other volumes.  Many of them know it backward and forward, and a Latter-Day Saint going against a Protestant in a straight-up "here's what this means" Biblical debate over interpretation and doctrine is likely to get his butt kicked up between his shoulder blades.  They have two distinct advantages over us:
Protestants have 5 centuries of study and theology behind their interpretation of the Bible, as well as drawing from an additional 1500 years of (apostate) theology that supports many of their beliefs, like the Trinity for example. Protestants only have to know the Bible.  We need to know the Bible as well as three other books, which reveal the truth in combination.  Their perspective is built on a worldview where those other resources are not a factor. They have a pretty well-entrenched worldview.  Take the Godhead v Trinity example.  I've debated this one with Protestant friends and no matter how clearly the Scriptures show us that the Savior and Heavenly Father are distinct personages, even without additional scriptural sources, Protestants already have their own perspective which accounts for the way the text in the Bible discusses this.  We may find it baffling (I do, anyway) but it isn't baffling to them and they won't be persuaded.  Yes, I even pointed out that not only does Jesus pray to Heavenly Father in the Garden of Gethsemane, He outright discusses how his own desire is in conflict with Heavenly Father's plan, before submitting to His will.  To me, there's just no way that makes any sense at all if the Trinity doctrine were true, and yet that argument gained zero traction.  Like I said, centuries of scholarly writings have ways to account for this, at least to their own satisfaction.
We view our interpretations to be more accurate because we believe the Holy Spirit helps us to understand, but that's not an argument in a debate.  
Now, if your intent is just to inform, then yeah by all means go for it, but it's hard to imagine people reading it and not wanting to present counterpoints.
 

The doctrinal issue that immediately jumped off the page for me is the incorrect notion many Latter-Day Saints have that the Father, Son and Holy Ghost of the non-LDS Christian Trinity are not understood to be three separate and distinct personages (individuals). The fact of the matter is that the Catholics, the Eastern Orthodox, and quite nearly every Protestant denomination have always believed the Father, Son and Holy Ghost are three distinct personages who communicate with one another. In fact, I’ve witnesses with my own eyes and ears mainstream Christian ministers in debate with non-mainstream Christian “modalistists” (modaliststs are the very small minority of Christians who believe in a one-personage Godhead), and marveled as the mainstream Christian representatives employed the very same verses of scripturewe Latter-Day Saints use to prove the Godhead is composed of three separate and distinct persons, not one person.
So then, in what way do the Latter-Day Saints differ from the Trinitarians with regard to the Godhead? First, the advocates of the historical Christian Trinity assert that though the Godhead is composed of three separate and distinct personages, to them it’s also true that in some mysterious and undefined way they also assert that somehow these three separate individuals comprise one God. Meanwhile, the Latter-Day Saints differ from their historical Christian counterparts because we have dared to demystify how the three separate and distinct persons within the Godhead comprise one God, and do so by asserting that the Father, Son and Holy Ghost are one in heart, mind, spirit, intelligence, purpose, and in the possession of all the divine attributes of perfection.
In addition, the Father, Son and Holy Ghost also comprise one God because each member of the Godhead could not function in his specific divine office and specific duties without first being perfectly united with and supportive of the other members of the Godhead in the performance of their own individual offices and specific responsibilities. In other words, it’s impossible for God the Father to be able to function in his divine Fatherly role unless he performs he the specific duties of his office in conjunction with the Son and the Holy Ghost as they perform their own unique, specifically assigned duties. This means there can be no God who is able to bring to pass the immortality and eternal life of man without there being three divine individuals functioning within a presidency, each of whom have there own unique but indispensable roles to perform. Just as a man cannot become a God without first being everlasting bound to a wife who is a perfected eternal queen and priestess, so also no member of the Godhead can perform his calling without there first being a presidency of God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Ghost who each perform their own unique and specifically assigned responsibilities in perfect union.
The strange irony in the LDS Church vs historical Christian debate on the true nature of the Godhead is that the Trinitarians admit they don’t understand how three separate and distinct individuals can be one God, but the day will come when the mystery will be disclosed and they will discover the Latter-Day Saints had it right all along.

My honest reaction (so it's not going to be all good). If I want something that will speak into my echo chamber and reinforce the things I as a member of the Church already believe, it all sounds good. However, I suspect that most of this is a non-starter in other Christian echo chambers. Your treatment of the apostasy, for example, is right in line with how we LDS have always talked about it -- and other Christians have never found those proof-texts at all compelling.
It is your project and you decide exactly what kinds of purposes you want your project to have. For me, I find myself looking more for something that will not only echo well in my echo chamber, but something that will tell me what the other echo chambers are saying. You can speak the normal stuff on why the Trinity/Godhead are separate persons/personalities/beings, but then I would like to see a follow up on how traditional Trinitarians see it and then how Modalists see it and then how Jews and Muslims (who like to accuse all of us Christians as polytheists) see the discussion.
Members of the Church have been using these kinds of proof-texts and arguments to defend our faith for a long time, and the rest of Christianity is not breaking down our doors to join us. I find myself looking for explanations for why broader Christianity is not convinced by our "excellent" arguments like these.

My honest reaction (so it's not going to be all good). If I want something that will speak into my echo chamber and reinforce the things I as a member of the Church already believe, it all sounds good. However, I suspect that most of this is a non-starter in other Christian echo chambers. Your treatment of the apostasy, for example, is right in line with how we LDS have always talked about it -- and other Christians have never found those proof-texts at all compelling.
It is your project and you decide exactly what kinds of purposes you want your project to have. For me, I find myself looking more for something that will not only echo well in my echo chamber, but something that will tell me what the other echo chambers are saying. You can speak the normal stuff on why the Trinity/Godhead are separate persons/personalities/beings, but then I would like to see a follow up on how traditional Trinitarians see it and then how Modalists see it and then how Jews and Muslims (who like to accuse all of us Christians as polytheists) see the discussion.
Members of the Church have been using these kinds of proof-texts and arguments to defend our faith for a long time, and the rest of Christianity is not breaking down our doors to join us. I find myself looking for explanations for why broader Christianity is not convinced by our "excellent" arguments like these.

Honestly I don't how the first two are  "temptations" other than the plain fact that it came from Satan. Hunger isn't as sin. Being hungry isn't a temptation. So the temptation clearly wasn't to eat (considering the fast over).  And, what, exactly, would have been wrong about turning stone into bread, in and of itself? He turned wine into water. It seems to me the temptation here was simply to do as Satan suggested. Same thing with the second. If Jesus so commanded the angels to lift Him up so he flew, why is that a sin? Seems pretty analogous to walking on water, actually, which Jesus did. Once again, seems like it was the following Satan part that was the problem. I'm not honestly sure.
The third is clearly a temptation: Worship Satan for riches. But the other two seem sort of the same thing. Do as Satan tells you to do.

Something can actually be both.  David is a prime example of this, being a type and shadow in representation of the Savior as being a literal King and Savior of Israel from it's enemies.
Another thing that probably can be taken as literal and yet is deeply symbolic is the story if Abraham and Issac.  Issac was Abraham's only begotten son via Sarah (though he had another, it was not his chosen son...one may even be able to see a symbolism in that via Adam...but that's another story) and Abraham was ordered to sacrifice Issac.  This story can be also seen as allegory in regards to the coming Lord and his sacrifice and atonement for us.
However, perhaps an easier item to see literally and yet allegorical would be that of animal sacrifice.  On it's face, animal sacrifice occurred in ancient Israel.  Historically it literally happened.  However, there is also a deeper meaning behind it than just a mere ancient ritual.  Christianity knows that the real meaning behind animal sacrifice was as an allegorical representation of the Lord.  It is full of symbolism and meaning that means a great deal.
Allegory is deeply imbedded in the scriptures and the ability to see it is very important for one to understand why the stories are told in the way they are and how many are fulfilled in the New Testament, as well as how prophecy has shown our latter days as well as the millennium to come.
In regards to Native Americans, DNA evidence is not yet perfect, and MUCH of it is very questionable.
The majority of DNA they are basing their evidence on regarding the Hebrews are the Jews...but the Jews are NOT the ONLY Hebrews.  They are Hebrew, but not all Hebrews are Jews. 
What science has correlated are the similar DNA between the Jewish Hebrews and what we may call the Caananites.  For all we know, they are correlating the Caananite or other tribal blood of the region which has NOTHING to do with the genetics of the actual Hebrew tribes. 
Much of the correlation between the Jews and the majority of the Lost tribes was several thousand years ago, and a correlation that far back is a lot tougher to predict.  In fact, much of their statements in regards to where DNA came from is reliant on what is basically guesses on anything over 500 years ago. 
Various ideas about where the Lost tribes went or where the remnants are cover a vast arena, including several tribal groups that are located in Asia.  Thus, if there was a connecting DNA between groups in Asia and North America it would make a LOT MORE SENSE that perhaps these may be the actual Hebrew DNA and related to the actual original DNA of the Hebrews rather than the DNA connected to groups in the Middle East.
In essence, we do NOT know what DNA really represents past the 500 year mark except for guesses regarding evidence we have from various sites we have found (and as DNA from the Middle East in some instances they would use would date PRIOR to the Hebrew arrival to that area...one could wonder if it represents those who originally inhabited the area of Canaan or if it represents the Hebrew tribes...science right now COUNTERS the bible and claims that they both were there originally and there was no Abraham, Issac, Jacob, Joseph or even Moses.
Right now, scientific ideas are that there is no Hebrew blood with Native American DNA.  If we have any evidence (though it is still pretty scarce on this point to be honest) it points that the Native Americans are not related to those from Ancient Israel, but in fact are more closely related to what we have thought in the past with them being DISTANTLY connected to those from Asia.  In some ways, the experiments done in this were made with these expectations.  However, science is always changing and what is false today could become true tomorrow and what is true today could become false tomorrow.  It is a relatively new science, and pinpointing exact items is getting better but there is still a LOT we do not know. 
Currently what I believe and what I do professionally DO NOT MESH.  They cannot intermingle as they conflict with each other.  The evidence we possess does not correlate with what my belief is. 
I CANNOT be a bible literalist as a Historian.  Professionally, the evidence does not support such a thing.
However, outside of my professional life, I feel that the Bible is literal and that what it tells us occurred in Genesis actually DID happen.

It's hard to know. I'm not claiming that everything in every vision is figurative. All I have to work with are the things they claim to have seen, their interpretation of what it means, and my own intellect and spiritual searching. Those all have to be processed into a body of What I Believe (TM).
I won't claim those are internally consistent or even correct. Funnily enough, much of scripture is in the same condition.

I'll admit, I have a pretty complicated relationship with Moses. I think he existed, and I'm comfortable with the idea that he may be the originator of many of the ideas that turned into the Old Testament, but I don't really think much of what he taught or said survived to the compilation of what we consider the old Testament.
More likely, the Old Testament represents a compilation of ideas that had multiple goals. Some were religious and some were sociopolitical. So it would probably be more accurate for me to say, "the Hebrews didn't consider Adam to be a single distinct individual " but, I'm lazy.
Ultimately, I don't subscribe to biblical literalism, which many of the early revelations did. Joseph Smith, for example, was a firm believer that those with black skin were descendants of Ham, which has largely fallen out of favor. Early prophets were also convinced that the Lamanites were the principal ancestors of Native Americans. But now we claim they are only "among" the principal ancestors. It doesn't bother me that a prophet could see a vision of a figurative man and assume that he was literal, having adopted a literalist point of view.

Could it be the simple logistics of transmitting stories through hundreds and thousands of years with the technologies available to them? According to scholars (I know I shouldn't because we tend to disdain the work of scholars on our holy texts -- or because it contributes to the travesty Rob speaks of), the oldest texts we have for the creation and fall narratives date only to the 6th or 7th century BC. Tracing the texts beyond that has suggested to some a few different sources for the narratives (enter the much maligned documentary hypothesis, if you like) -- none of which points to "Adam or his immediate descendants." I'm not sure how much of the creation narrative is allegory, but, considering the vast distance between the texts we have and events described, I am beginning to have a harder time accepting it as "history".

Oh, the horror of trying to understand ancient documents in the context of which they were written!