Adam and Eve's story

[Emmanuel Goldstein]

Our understanding of the story of what happened in the garden is incomplete. Could this be because their kids did not fully understand what they were told? Could it be because they were under covenant to keep it sacred or secret? Or could it because the meaning of the stories have just been lost over the centuries? Just some thinking today.

[mikbone]

https://www.lds.org/scriptures/gs/book-of-remembrance?lang=eng

I would rather have the Book of Remembrance then the record from the lost tribes...

Maybe Nelson has a copy  

[Guest Scott]

47 minutes ago, Emmanuel Goldstein said:

Our understanding of the story of what happened in the garden is incomplete. Could this be because their kids did not fully understand what they were told? Could it be because they were under covenant to keep it sacred or secret? Or could it because the meaning of the stories have just been lost over the centuries? Just some thinking today.

Pick up your copy of the Bible and turn to Genesis 25.   Time wise (if Biblical scholars are correct), this is the half way point of the Bible.   Genesis 1 through 25 covers approximately 2000 years.  Time wise, half of the history of the Bible is within the first few pages of the Bible.   Things get more detailed as time goes on.  

[Just_A_Guy]

1 hour ago, Emmanuel Goldstein said:

Our understanding of the story of what happened in the garden is incomplete. Could this be because their kids did not fully understand what they were told? Could it be because they were under covenant to keep it sacred or secret? Or could it because the meaning of the stories have just been lost over the centuries? Just some thinking today.

Define “incomplete”.

[Anddenex]

Thoughts:

1) Adam, Eve, and others did not properly write down the words given to them by the Lord. Similar to Samuel the Lamanite and Jesus commanding them to write his words down.

2) What better way to reduce the "plainness" of the gospel, then by removing parts of the creation and Adam and Eve's experience?  Just read past comments on here and how many individuals do not believe the experience occurred because it doesn't fit with the theories of humans pertaining to our creation.

 

[Rob Osborn]

I think the saddest stories I hear from LDS is when they start talking Adam and Eve as allegorical fictional characters. What a travesty!

[MarginOfError]

1 hour ago, Rob Osborn said:

I think the saddest stories I hear from LDS is when they start talking Adam and Eve as allegorical fictional characters. What a travesty!

You mean like the temple ceremony does?

[MrShorty]

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".

[Just_A_Guy]

19 minutes ago, MarginOfError said:

You mean like the temple ceremony does?

It’s unfortunate that I can’t cite directly to sacred things in order to make textualist/pedantic counter-arguments.  So, suffice it to say (in my most erudite, hifalutin’ tone of voice):

NUH-UHHHHHH!!!!

I think Joseph Smith’s revelations make clear that there was a historical Adam and Eve around 6-7000 years ago who were cognitively/spiritually distinct from any precursor life forms and who may properly be regarded as the grand patriarch and matriarch of humanity—or in other words, whose can be found in the ancestry of every human now living.  That parts of the temple ceremony may be allegorical—and even just plain don’t work, if we take it as a historical recitation of interactions between the mortal Adam and certain other historical figures—I don’t dispute; but to say that the temple ceremony portrays Adam and Eve as fictional characters strikes me as a massive overstatement. 

Edited January 8, 2019 by Just_A_Guy

[mikbone]

Where Justice, Love, and Mercy Meet - Holland April 2015

 

In our increasingly secular society, it is as uncommon as it is unfashionable to speak of Adam and Eve or the Garden of Eden or of a “fortunate fall” into mortality. Nevertheless, the simple truth is that we cannot fully comprehend the Atonement and Resurrection of Christ and we will not adequately appreciate the unique purpose of His birth or His death--in other words, there is no way to truly celebrate Christmas or Easter--without understanding that there was an actual Adam and Eve who fell from an actual Eden, with all the consequences that fall carried with it.
I do not know the details of what happened on this planet before that, but I do know these two were created under the divine hand of God, that for a time they lived alone in a paradisiacal setting where there was neither human death nor future family, and that through a sequence of choices they transgressed a commandment of God which required that they leave their garden setting but which allowed them to have children before facing physical death.

Edited January 8, 2019 by mikbone

[Rob Osborn]

1 hour ago, MarginOfError said:

You mean like the temple ceremony does?

Huh...what are you smoking?

[MarginOfError]

7 hours ago, Just_A_Guy said:

It’s unfortunate that I can’t cite directly to sacred things in order to make textualist/pedantic counter-arguments.  So, suffice it to say (in my most erudite, hifalutin’ tone of voice):

NUH-UHHHHHH!!!!

I think Joseph Smith’s revelations make clear that there was a historical Adam and Eve around 6-7000 years ago who were cognitively/spiritually distinct from any precursor life forms and who may properly be regarded as the grand patriarch and matriarch of humanity—or in other words, whose can be found in the ancestry of every human now living.  That parts of the temple ceremony may be allegorical—and even just plain don’t work, if we take it as a historical recitation of interactions between the mortal Adam and certain other historical figures—I don’t dispute; but to say that the temple ceremony portrays Adam and Eve as fictional characters strikes me as a massive overstatement. 

The endowment ceremony is, at best, ambiguous on the point.  Within the ceremony, Adam and Eve are portrayed as both distinct individuals alone on the earth, as well as a collective being assaulted by the teachings of men. 

Beyond that, there's a very plausible argument to be made that Moses himself didn't consider Adam to be a single individual, as the word Adam translates to the collective mankind. 

That there existed a man and a woman that had reached a phase of cognitive function that God was ready to assign them the task of first prophets/teachers/whatever is completely believable.  

That there existed a man and a woman that are genetic ancestors to every human being is less likely, but not completely out of the question (Heck, most human beings are genetic ancestors of Genghis Khan).

That there existed a man and a woman that are genetic ancestors to every human being and had reached the phase of cognitive function that God was ready to assign them the task of first prophet/teacher/whatever strains credibility (at least for me). And that both of those conditions are met only 6,000 - 7,000 years ago strikes me as, well, NUH-UHHHHH.

(I will concede that "fictional" characters is an overstatement, but will also note that that particular descriptor originated from Rob. I'm perfectly content to write that off as one of his strawmen)

Edited January 8, 2019 by MarginOfError

[Rob Osborn]

2 hours ago, MarginOfError said:

The endowment ceremony is, at best, ambiguous on the point.  Within the ceremony, Adam and Eve are portrayed as both distinct individuals alone on the earth, as well as a collective being assaulted by the teachings of men. 

Beyond that, there's a very plausible argument to be made that Moses himself didn't consider Adam to be a single individual, as the word Adam translates to the collective mankind. 

That there existed a man and a woman that had reached a phase of cognitive function that God was ready to assign them the task of first prophets/teachers/whatever is completely believable.  

That there existed a man and a woman that are genetic ancestors to every human being is less likely, but not completely out of the question (Heck, most human beings are genetic ancestors of Genghis Khan).

That there existed a man and a woman that are genetic ancestors to every human being and had reached the phase of cognitive function that God was ready to assign them the task of first prophet/teacher/whatever strains credibility (at least for me). And that both of those conditions are met only 6,000 - 7,000 years ago strikes me as, well, NUH-UHHHHH.

(I will concede that "fictional" characters is an overstatement, but will also note that that particular descriptor originated from Rob. I'm perfectly content to write that off as one of his strawmen)

Your beliefs are rooted entirely in secularism. You do know that, correct? 

[CV75]

14 hours ago, Emmanuel Goldstein said:

Our understanding of the story of what happened in the garden is incomplete. Could this be because their kids did not fully understand what they were told? Could it be because they were under covenant to keep it sacred or secret? Or could it because the meaning of the stories have just been lost over the centuries? Just some thinking today.

I think it is because we are incomplete! I think as we apply the covenants to ourselves we can see in our own lives what happened in the Garden of Eden in much the same way as what we see happen when we apply the scriptures to ourselves.

[MarginOfError]

44 minutes ago, Rob Osborn said:

Your beliefs are rooted entirely in secularism. You do know that, correct? 

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

[Rob Osborn]

6 minutes ago, MarginOfError said:

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

We do have modern scriptures that state Adam and Eve we're literal and we're the first humans.

[Just_A_Guy]

3 hours ago, MarginOfError said:

[1.] The endowment ceremony is, at best, ambiguous on the point.  Within the ceremony, Adam and Eve are portrayed as both distinct individuals alone on the earth, as well as a collective being assaulted by the teachings of men. 

[2.]  Beyond that, there's a very plausible argument to be made that Moses himself didn't consider Adam to be a single individual, as the word Adam translates to the collective mankind. 

[3.]  That there existed a man and a woman that had reached a phase of cognitive function that God was ready to assign them the task of first prophets/teachers/whatever is completely believable.  

[4.]  That there existed a man and a woman that are genetic ancestors to every human being is less likely, but not completely out of the question (Heck, most human beings are genetic ancestors of Genghis Khan).

[5.]  That there existed a man and a woman that are genetic ancestors to every human being and had reached the phase of cognitive function that God was ready to assign them the task of first prophet/teacher/whatever strains credibility (at least for me). And that both of those conditions are met only 6,000 - 7,000 years ago strikes me as, well, NUH-UHHHHH.

1.  I don’t think it’s quite *that* ambiguous.  At some point, Adam and Eve’s posterity start being directly referenced.  And “we are as Adam” is logically/semantically distinct from “Adam is as us”.  

And at any rate, as we’ve just been reminded—the temple liturgy is not fixed in stone.  It can be, and repeatedly been, changed if/when the Church leadership disapproves of the theology that the liturgy is being used to justify.  

2.  Given the state of OT scholarship, I’m a little surprised you consider Moses to be a literal figure—let alone that you appeal to his authority for the proposition that Adam was an ahistorical figure. But suffice it to say that the Bible—both Old and New Testaments—and maybe even the Book of Mormon as well—often gets cute with wordplay by assigning characters names whose meanings fit the theme of the story being told.  That doesn’t mean that any particular Biblical luminary just plain didn’t exist.

3.  Agreed.  

4.  The gods at Wikipedia say that the “most common recent ancestor” (*NOT* “mitochondrial Eve”) of all modern humanity may have lived as recently as 300 BCE.  So, moving in into point 5, 4000 BCE-ish seems like plenty of time.  Even from a purely evolutionist point of view, a question we still have to wrestle with is:  at what point did humanity become “human enough” for God to reveal Himself to mankind and for the Plan of Salvation (including visions, covenants, and the promise of deification and eternal families to come into play?  

53 minutes ago, MarginOfError said:

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

The quibbles I have there, are:  a) even the most die-hard allegorist day some point have to concede that not *all* of the OT is purely allegorical/fictional; and b) it’s not just the ancient documents we’re trying to understand—Joseph Smith and Joseph F. Smith were both crystal clear that they saw the literal Adam. If Joseph Smith falsely claimed to have seen *one* being who didn’t really exist, who *else* did he claim to have seen that, as a matter of truth, didn’t really exist?

Moroni?

John the Baptist?

Jesus?

God?

Edited January 8, 2019 by Just_A_Guy

[Anddenex]

10 hours ago, Rob Osborn said:

Huh...what are you smoking?

I am sure @MarginOfError voted for, or will vote for, a certain hallucinogen (aka pain killer)  

I worked with juveniles who testified this hallucinogen made them smarter and became better artists because of it. This is truly the miracle hallucinogen: removes pain, makes you smarter, and many other things I was told -- emphasis on "I was told."

Edited January 8, 2019 by Anddenex

[Guest MormonGator]

2 minutes ago, Anddenex said:

This is truly the miracle hallucinogen: removes pain, makes you smarter, and many other things I was told -- emphasis on "I was told."

So....you are saying it works better than essential oils? 

[Anddenex]

2 minutes ago, MormonGator said:

So....you are saying it works better than essential oils? 

Emphasis on so "I was told."

[JohnsonJones]

Maybe we should talk about the Pearl of Great Price instead.  It has an account that I would think is more appropriate to discuss in Moses 1-6.

In this we could see it as symbolic to us and a representation of mankind, but also see that Moses is also discussing something that literally occurred.  Just like much of the Old Testament (for example David's story is both literal and allegorical), it may be that the writings of Moses are bothor literal and allegorical.

[Rob Osborn]

54 minutes ago, JohnsonJones said:

Maybe we should talk about the Pearl of Great Price instead.  It has an account that I would think is more appropriate to discuss in Moses 1-6.

In this we could see it as symbolic to us and a representation of mankind, but also see that Moses is also discussing something that literally occurred.  Just like much of the Old Testament (for example David's story is both literal and allegorical), it may be that the writings of Moses are bothor literal and allegorical.

I think anytime you introduce "allegorical" into a historical context it ends up conflating it into something fictional.

[MarginOfError]

7 hours ago, Just_A_Guy said:

1.  I don’t think it’s quite *that* ambiguous.  At some point, Adam and Eve’s posterity start being directly referenced.  And “we are as Adam” is logically/semantically distinct from “Adam is as us”.  

And at any rate, as we’ve just been reminded—the temple liturgy is not fixed in stone.  It can be, and repeatedly been, changed if/when the Church leadership disapproves of the theology that the liturgy is being used to justify.  

2.  Given the state of OT scholarship, I’m a little surprised you consider Moses to be a literal figure—let alone that you appeal to his authority for the proposition that Adam was an ahistorical figure. But suffice it to say that the Bible—both Old and New Testaments—and maybe even the Book of Mormon as well—often gets cute with wordplay by assigning characters names whose meanings fit the theme of the story being told.  That doesn’t mean that any particular Biblical luminary just plain didn’t exist.

3.  Agreed.  

4.  The gods at Wikipedia say that the “most common recent ancestor” (*NOT* “mitochondrial Eve”) of all modern humanity may have lived as recently as 300 BCE.  So, moving in into point 5, 4000 BCE-ish seems like plenty of time.  Even from a purely evolutionist point of view, a question we still have to wrestle with is:  at what point did humanity become “human enough” for God to reveal Himself to mankind and for the Plan of Salvation (including visions, covenants, and the promise of deification and eternal families to come into play?  

The quibbles I have there, are:  a) even the most die-hard allegorist day some point have to concede that not *all* of the OT is purely allegorical/fictional; and b) it’s not just the ancient documents we’re trying to understand—Joseph Smith and Joseph F. Smith were both crystal clear that they saw the literal Adam. If Joseph Smith falsely claimed to have seen *one* being who didn’t really exist, who *else* did he claim to have seen that, as a matter of truth, didn’t really exist?

Moroni?

John the Baptist?

Jesus?

God?

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.

[Just_A_Guy]

24 minutes ago, MarginOfError said:

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.

I suspect we are pretty closely aligned in our thoughts in Moses.  But as for the above, I would reply:

Including . . . Jesus?

Why or why not?

Edited January 8, 2019 by Just_A_Guy

[MarginOfError]

1 hour ago, Just_A_Guy said:

I suspect we are pretty closely aligned in our thoughts in Moses.  But as for the above, I would reply:

Including . . . Jesus?

Why or why not?

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.