Garden of Eden: FIGURATIVE OR LITERAL?

[Hemidakota]

In continuing our learning from the scriptures, one that is most misused throughout our time, was the Garden Eden story in Genesis.' Let me start with one scholar that is well known - Joseph Fielding McConkie. In the book, 'Man Adam', co-authored by Robert Millet, the question raised some eyebrows, was Eden, Figurative or Literal? Here is McConkie's statement (p. 26-29):

The scriptural account of the birth of Adam is a sacred metaphor, as is the account of the birth of his eternal companion, Eve. Indeed, it is Adam and the Lord who are quoted in the discourse by Enoch in which we are told that all mankind are born of the dust of the earth (see Moses 6:49-59). Thus the promise to Adam that in death his body would return to the dust from whence it was taken (Moses 4:25) is extended to all his posterity. "All are of the dust, and all turn to dust again" (Eccl. 3:20; see also Mosiah 2:25).

The imagery used to veil the account of Eve's birth is most beautiful, particularly so in a day when there is so much confusion about the role of women. Symbolically, she was not taken from the bones of Adam's head nor from the bones of his heel, for it is not the place of woman to be either above the man or beneath him. Her place is at his side, and so she is taken, in the figurative sense, from his rib-the bone that girds the side and rests closest to the heart. Thus we find Adam declaring: "This I know now is bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh; she shall be called Woman, because she was taken out of man" (Moses 3:23). Eve, unlike the rest of God's creations, was of Adam's bone and of his flesh, meaning that she was equal to him in powers, faculties, and rights.

"Therefore," the divine word attests, "shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife; and they shall be one flesh" (Moses 3:24). Thus, because Eve was of his flesh and of his bone-because she was his equal in creation and in divine endowment-Adam was to leave his father and his mother, as all men were to do after him, and cleave unto his wife and none else (see Matt. 19:5-6). All men and women are commanded to do likewise; that is, they (the newly formed couple), like their first earthly parents, are to be "one flesh"; they are to be as if they had one body, thus suggesting that they cannot properly have separate cares or concerns, different rights or varied privileges. The phrase also suggests that as Adam and Eve were in the image and likeness of their parents, so their posterity would be in their image and likeness.

How literally do we take the story of the Garden of Eden? This we know: Adam was real. He was as real as Christ. For if Adam was not real the Fall was not real; and if the Fall was not real the Atonement was not real; and if the Atonement was not real Jesus the Christ is not and was not necessary. Of some parts of the Eden story it matters little if we choose to view them as figurative or literal, but of others it is not so. The testimony of Christ, of necessity, embraces the testimony of Adam. Had there been no Eden there could be no Gethsemane; had there been no Eve there could be no Mary; if we have not inherited death from Adam, we have no claim on everlasting life through Christ.

What then became of Eden? This we know: it constituted sacred space when mother earth resided in her paradisiacal state, for it was here that Adam and Eve walked and talked with God, and it was from the confines of Eden that they were cast following their transgression. Further, we know that it existed after the Fall for a period of time and that God continued to instruct Adam and Eve from its sacred groves. (Moses 5:4; 6:4.) In likening Tyrus to Eden, Ezekiel made use of the term "mountain of God" (Ezek. 28:13-14), a phrase used throughout the scriptures to depict a place where one went to commune with God, to worship, to make sacrifices, and to enter into sacred covenants. Mountains were most suited for such purposes and thus became symbols for the temple, the place where heaven and earth meet. Perhaps Ezekiel was implying that Eden was a mountain or at least had a high place suited for worship.

As to what became of Eden, the scriptures are silent. Perhaps, after Adam and his righteous posterity had built the city of Adam-ondi-Ahman-which undoubtedly would have had a temple-Eden was no longer needed as a place of God's presence. A place of sacrifice and of covenant, Eden thus could either be taken into heaven or be allowed to be assimilated into the earth.

What of the trees of Eden? Was there actually a tree whose fruit would make one wise, and another whose fruit would assure everlasting life? The scriptural account, for instance, tells us that the Lord planted "the tree of knowledge of good and evil" in the midst of the garden (Moses 3:9). He then gave Adam and Eve the command: "Of every tree of the garden thou mayest freely eat, but of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it, nevertheless, thou mayest choose for thyself, for it is given unto thee; but, remember that I forbid it, for in the day thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die" (Moses 3:16-17). "Again," wrote Elder Bruce R. McConkie, "the account is speaking figuratively. What is meant by partaking of the fruit of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil is that our first parents complied with whatever laws were involved so that their bodies would change from their state of paradisiacal immortality to a state of natural mortality." 2 Elder McConkie also wrote elsewhere: "We do not know how the fall was accomplished any more than we know how the Lord caused the earth to come into being and to spin through the heavens in its paradisiacal state." 3

If we were to reason that it was the fruit itself that brought about this change in the bodies of Adam and Eve, we would then have to suppose that our first parents fed some of the fruit to all the other living things upon the whole earth. Had they not done so, "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; see also Moses 3:9). Every plant and animal, including all sea life and the fowls of the air, would have been required to eat some of this fruit (and must also have been precluded from partaking of it either by design or accident before this point of time).

What of the serpent that beguiled Eve into partaking of the forbidden fruit? Did animals in Eden have the capacity to converse in the language of men, as some ancient traditions suggest? Was it then a natural thing for Eve to have a conversation with a serpent? And what of the curse which consigned the serpent to crawl upon its belly and eat of the dust of the earth? Does this suggest that snakes once stood upright, having legs and arms, as they are so commonly depicted in ancient Egyptian drawings? The key question is, Did Satan actually possess the body of a serpent and speak to Eve through that medium, or did Moses choose to describe Eve's confrontation with the father of lies as a discussion with a snake because a snake is such a vivid metaphor to dramatize the subtle, crafty, and dangerous nature of the devil?

Whether a serpent was actually the agent of deception in the Eden story or merely a metaphorical representation of the devil, it matters little. Neither point of view changes or tampers with the integrity of the story. If, however, we assume the partaking of the fruit to have been a figurative representation of what actually brought about the transformation of the earth from a paradisiacal to a natural or mortal sphere, then it might follow that the speaking serpent would also have been figurative.

What, then, do we conclude of the Eden story? Was it figurative or literal? We answer by way of comparison. It, like the temple ceremony, combines a rich blend of both. Our temples are real, the priesthood is real, the covenants we enter into are real, and the blessings we are promised by obedience are real; yet the teaching device may be metaphorical. We are as actors on a stage. We role-play and imagine. We do not actually advance from one world to another in the temple, but rather are taught with figurative representations of what can and will be. "Man Adam by Robert Millet and Joseph Fielding McConkie"

Reference Notes:

1. Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, comp. Joseph Fielding Smith (Salt Lake City: Deseret Book Co., 1976), pp. 167-68.

2. Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, comp. Joseph Fielding Smith (Salt Lake City: Deseret Book Co., 1976), pp. 157-58.

3. Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, comp. Joseph Fielding Smith (Salt Lake City: Deseret Book Co., 1976), p. 169.

What are your thoughts concerning the Garden story - is it figurative or literal and why?

[mikbone]

I took a class from Joseph Fielding McConkie while I was at BYU in 1993. I was quite a devoted fan of his father's work at that time and was so excited to get into his class. Boy was I disappointed...

I graduated with a degree in Nutrition / Pre-med from BYU and of all the classes that I took, I believe that I felt the spirit least in his class. The day he started teaching on the Garden of Eden and stated that the entire story was Allegorical myself and over half the class totally disagreed with him and he was obviously irritated.

I have had personal revelation about the Garden of Eden and from my perspective it is NOT allegorical. There are portions of the story that are obviously symbolic. E.g. I don't think that God molded a figure out of dirt and then breathed life into him making Adam... But I think that Adam and Eve lived in the Garden and were reared by God. The Fall is just as real as the Atonement.

[Hemidakota]

This is the input makes my day...thanks.

[deseretgov]

Yeah, I agree with Mi[l]kbone. It is both figurative and literal.

[Seminarysnoozer]

Even modern day prophets share stories with us that are real but specifically use the parts of the story that have figurative meaning. So, what ends up happening is that we get part of the story, not everything that happened. I think that Adam and Eve were real and they were the first 'man' on Earth and that there was a Garden of Eden and they fell from their originally created immortal state. All the mundane, real life parts of the story have been left out because of there lack of figurative importance though.

[Traveler]

Eden was and still is very real - however, I believe our understanding and perspectives of it are entirely allegorical. So also is our understanding of heaven and living with G-d.

The Traveler

[Hemidakota]

Even Joseph Smith stated, the Garden of Eden was located in Jackson County when visiting the area. A seer versus a scholar.

The ultimate spiritual significance of Independence as Zion's center place came when it was identified as the site of the primordial Garden of Eden and as the spot to which Enoch's Zion would descend from heaven at the end of time (see JD 4:105; 10:235).

[Justice]

I read the content of the original post many times today (I copied it and e-mailed it to work). I don't think he is saying it is totally allegorical. I think some of his arguments are saying some of it was real.

Maybe in his class he presented it differently, or maybe Robert Millet had some influence on this text.

The one point he makes that can't be explained away is that if the fruit itself is what caused their bodies to change, then that fruit would have had to be given to all living things that fell.

I believe they ate a fruit, but I don't think the physical properties of the fruit is what caused them to change. Adam realized his destiny when he stated that a man must leave his father and mother...

That's one of the most profound statements in all of scripture. Adam had a mother and father to leave, spiritually and physically.

[mikbone]

I remember JFM clearly stating in class that the whole Garden of Eden scene was allegorical. I asked in disbelief then why would God need to place Cheribum with a Flaming Sword to guard the symbolic Tree of Life. I remember the class murmuring assent with my question. Remember this is a class full of returned missionaries not a bunch of people in early morning seminary.

He shook his head and stated that we didnt understand, yet he gave no interpretation as to what the symbolism of the Garden represented. As I recall, I walked out of the class.

I wish I would have been able to take a class with Truman Madsen instead...

Is Alma 42 totally allegorical too?

That's one of the most profound statements in all of scripture. Adam had a mother and father to leave, spiritually and physically.

Moses 3:24 Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife; and they shall be one flesh.

I agree. This scripture is undeniable. Adam had a mother and father.

Edited June 2, 2010 by mikbone

[Moksha]

This we know: Adam was real. He was as real as Christ. For if Adam was not real the Fall was not real; and if the Fall was not real the Atonement was not real; and if the Atonement was not real Jesus the Christ is not and was not necessary.

He should have added, "Therefor these are real cards and thus made into a real house". In truth the creation story can be allegory and not affect the message of Jesus.

[Elgama]

would kind of mess up the atonement if the fall wasn't real wouldn't it? Plus how can Michael be Adam if Adam didn't exist? I am not sure how accurate the description of creation is it will have been written to our understanding, but if the characters involved aren't real and the fall didn't happen kind of messes up a lot of LDS doctrine

[Seminarysnoozer]

The one point he makes that can't be explained away is that if the fruit itself is what caused their bodies to change, then that fruit would have had to be given to all living things that fell.

I believe they ate a fruit, but I don't think the physical properties of the fruit is what caused them to change. Adam realized his destiny when he stated that a man must leave his father and mother...

That's one of the most profound statements in all of scripture. Adam had a mother and father to leave, spiritually and physically.

I think the fruit itself is symbolic just as much as "fruit" is symbolic in many other stories.

How do you know it is not Moses speaking when it says "Therefore shall a man ..."? He at that point hadn't committed to making other men. Can't have it both ways, either he is not the one who said that or he knew for sure at that point he was going to eat the fruit and have children. And for a man that many on this forum see as an "infant" that needed rearing he certainly had a lot of knowledge about men and women and becoming "one flesh." And yet the next sentence he somehow doesn't even know that he is naked. I don't think it was Adam who said that.

[Hemidakota]

What I can add with this Genesis story, it is still a GEM. It reveals hummanity ancient past. If we look closer, we can see alot more than just a story.

[mcconkie]

What a great explanation by Joseph McConkie! I just wish people on this post would read it before commenting on it. :)

Mikbone, I honestly can't imagine Joseph McConkie EVER saying that there is nothing literal to the story. I have taken every class he offered (twice!) and I have read all of his books and I have ALWAYS heard him state that the story is both literal and figurative (which is his point in the chapter quoted above, if you bothered to read it). You are misrepresenting Joseph McConkie, pitting the McConkie you think you remember with the one quoted above and, strangely, there are some that believe your version over the actual statement (I am talking about you, Hemidakota).

Hemidakota, McConkie is NOT saying that the garden wasn't a literal place, read the quote again. He is saying that there are figurative elements to the story. Do you really think Jospeh McConkie doesn't know about Jackson Missouri?!

Moksha, theologically Adam and Christ are inseparabely tied. To make Adam a myth is to make Christ a myth. This is something Joseph McConkie, his father Bruce R McConkie, and his grandfather Joseph Fielding Smith have all passionately defended.

Sorry, if my post sounds angry, I just really love this man and consider him the greatest teacher I have ever had. I don't mind people disagreeing with him but I do not appreciate people misrepresenting him.

Brother McConkie is teaching that that the garden of Eden was a temple for Adam and Eve and therefore, like the temple, there are elements of the story that are meant to teach us symbolically.

Edited June 3, 2010 by mcconkie

[mikbone]

What a great explanation by Joseph McConkie! I just wish people on this post would read it before commenting on it. :)

Mikbone, I honestly can't imagine Joseph McConkie EVER saying that there is nothing literal to the story. I have taken every class he offered (twice!) and I have read all of his books and I have ALWAYS heard him state that the story is both literal and figurative (which is his point in the chapter quoted above, if you bothered to read it). You are misrepresenting Joseph McConkie, pitting the McConkie you think you remember with the one quoted above and, strangely, there are some that believe your version over the actual statement.

I only took a single class of his and only read a single book that he wrote. I never spent time in his office or with him outside of class. But my impression is my impression, and I stand by it. And I did bother to read the original post.

I believe that the tree of knowledge of good and evil as well as the tree of life exist. I disagree with him. I don't demand that you disagree with him. If you like his work then enjoy. I did not write that he said there is nothing literal to the story. I clearly wrote that he stated the entire story was allegorical.

I guess I can give him the benefit of being in an awkward position of teaching a class on LDS theology wherein grades have to be given out. And for this reason he may have not felt it proper to teach with the spirit or bear testimony... It is possible that many people in my class did feel the spirit or did feel that he bore testimony. I just didn't.

I have no intention of slandering him as a person either. And I don't want to get into a sparing match with you. But after a cursory search I found this:

Joseph Fielding McConkie and the Lens of Literalism at Mormon Matters

Edited June 3, 2010 by mikbone

[mcconkie]

The tree of life and the tree of knowledge of good and evil can be both literal AND figurative. Obviously, it is not simply eating a fruit that gives us eternal life but rather, as Nephi learned, the tree of life is a symbol of Christ (1 Nephi 11:9-21). Likewise, it was not simply eating a bad apple that changed the whole earth to a fallen state but rather the fruit represented a choice with certain consequences. But, and this is important, just because it is figurative doesn't mean it can't also be literal. For example, think of the Sacrament. We take literal bread and water but partaking of it has a symbolic meaning beyond simply eating some food and having a drink. If taken properly, those emblems represent Christ, signify a covenant we are making, and bring a remission of sins. The trees of the garden of Eden could be viewed the same way. Perhaps there were literal trees, but obviously partaking of them symbolized something much bigger than having a bite to eat.

As for the Mormon Matters link, if you don't want to spar then why the jab, Mikbone? I have read the book they are attacking and I loved the chapter referred to there. Again, I do not like the fact that McConkies are so viciously maligned and attacked by church members on the internet.

Edited June 3, 2010 by mcconkie

[Hemidakota]

What is the symbol meaning when a person could lift himself to the very top [flight] of the Tree of Life? Not just once but a few times?

Edited June 3, 2010 by Hemidakota

[Elgama]

Joseph McConkie was actually the first Latter Day Saint apart from my missionaries I ever met. It was at a fireside in Invergordon. I certainly don't remember him teaching it as anything other than literal, but then it was a fireside at a small branch in Scotland. I do know the guy had a strong spirit and have difficulty believing anything he believes and teaches is that far removed from what we are able to believe and ruminate upon, the man was part of my conversion in a big way

Edited June 3, 2010 by Elgama

[mikbone]

Did animals in Eden have the capacity to converse in the language of men, as some ancient traditions suggest?

I don't know what kind of statement JFM is trying to make with this question? Is he asking a rethorical question in order to make us wonder at the absurdity of animals speaking?

I actually agree with some writers like Josephus, Cleon Skousen - The First 2000 years p. 41-42, that it is entirely possible that the animals including the serpent spoke with Adam and Eve.

Take for example:

Revelations 4:6-8, D&C 77:3-4

[Justice]

I think the fruit itself is symbolic just as much as "fruit" is symbolic in many other stories.

How do you know it is not Moses speaking when it says "Therefore shall a man ..."? He at that point hadn't committed to making other men. Can't have it both ways, either he is not the one who said that or he knew for sure at that point he was going to eat the fruit and have children. And for a man that many on this forum see as an "infant" that needed rearing he certainly had a lot of knowledge about men and women and becoming "one flesh." And yet the next sentence he somehow doesn't even know that he is naked. I don't think it was Adam who said that.

Just because he knew at that point he would have children, or "Seed," doesn't mean he knew how it was going to happen. :)

[bytor2112]

The tree of life and the tree of knowledge of good and evil can be both literal AND figurative. Obviously, it is not simply eating a fruit that gives us eternal life but rather, as Nephi learned, the tree of life is a symbol of Christ (1 Nephi 11:9-21). Likewise, it was not simply eating a bad apple that changed the whole earth to a fallen state but rather the fruit represented a choice with certain consequences. But, and this is important, just because it is figurative doesn't mean it can't also be literal. For example, think of the Sacrament. We take literal bread and water but partaking of it has a symbolic meaning beyond simply eating some food and having a drink. If taken properly, those emblems represent Christ, signify a covenant we are making, and bring a remission of sins. The trees of the garden of Eden could be viewed the same way. Perhaps there were literal trees, but obviously partaking of them symbolized something much bigger than having a bite to eat.

As for the Mormon Matters link, if you don't want to spar then why the jab, Mikbone? I have read the book they are attacking and I loved the chapter referred to there. Again, I do not like the fact that McConkies are so viciously maligned and attacked by church members on the internet.

I too am a huge McConkie fan and I am distressed as well by the unfair and inaccurate attacks on a late Apostle whose shoes are far to big for any of us to fill....both literally and figuratively.

Joseph Fielding McConkie wrote a very warm biography..."The Bruce R McConkie Story"....what a truly touching look at a very great man. A favorite quote of the late Elder McConkie seems to still apply, " Tell them to warm up the tar, I'm coming to speak"

[bytor2112]

Did animals in Eden have the capacity to converse in the language of men, as some ancient traditions suggest?

I don't know what kind of statement JFM is trying to make with this question? Is he asking a rethorical question in order to make us wonder at the absurdity of animals speaking?

I actually agree with some writers like Josephus, Cleon Skousen - The First 2000 years p. 41-42, that it is entirely possible that the animals including the serpent spoke with Adam and Eve.

Take for example:

Revelations 4:6-8, D&C 77:3-4

OOH....better hide the talking animal comment from Snow. That always seems to get him riled up!

[mikbone]

I too am a huge McConkie fan and I am distressed as well by the unfair and inaccurate attacks on a late Apostle whose shoes are far to big for any of us to fill....both literally and figuratively.

Don't get me wrong. I love the work of the late Apostle Bruce R. McConkie. Unfortunately, I never had the opportunity to be in his presence. I have a second edition Mormon Doctrine that I have read and marked up many times over. The cover is taped and falling apart. I read the Messiah series as well. And his final testimony... amazing. The man was a giant.

Perhaps I had unfair expectations for his son.

[bytor2112]

Don't get me wrong. I love the work of the late Apostle Bruce R. McConkie. Unfortunately, I never had the opportunity to be in his presence. I have a second edition Mormon Doctrine that I have read and marked up many times over. The cover is taped and falling apart. I read the Messiah series as well. And his final testimony... amazing. The man was a giant.

Perhaps I had unfair expectations for his son.

Cool and I didn't mean to sound like I was pointing at you. :) I am currently reading the Messiah series......

[Moksha]

What is the symbol meaning when a person could lift himself to the very top [flight] of the Tree of Life? Not just once but a few times?

It means that in another life he will be able to do the recommended number of pull-ups in gym class.

Edited June 4, 2010 by Moksha
refining dream analysis and spelling