Adam and Eve

[Guest tomk]

Some recent posts have got me thinking.

They have reminded me of one question I have always had about Adam and Eve "replenishing the earth." The question formed in my mind when I began to learn about genetics and when I first understood that serious physical and mental complications can flow from sisters marrying brothers (inbreeding). I have heard that some religious sects are running into this. The Amish. The FLDS. There are not enough peolpe in the gene pool.

If anyone needs links to understand where I am coming from in my thinking, I am happy to do more digging and find some links to back up what I am saying.

So -- what happened with Adam and Eve? How did their children find suitable mates? Did they marry each other? Was their DNA different than it is now? Somehow more pure and not impacted by inbreeding? And what about the "uuugh" factor of marrying your own sister or brother. Creepy!

Before responding to this....take a deep breath....and realize I am not trying to cast doubt or be "anti" in the least. I am genuinely curious. I can happily live the rest of my life not understanding this. I already realize it does not impact my salvation. Or does it? God says He wants us to understand His mysteries. So here I am.

I guess what I am trying to understand is -- have the Brethren responded to this question officially?

What do I tell people when they ask? I mean, if I don't even know the answer -- how can I respond to others? Do I just give them the "canned response" of "We don't fully understand this, but one day we'll find out" ?

What answer do missionaries give when asked this question?

[StallionMcBeastly]

I believe they had to multiply within their own family....sounds gross to us but maybe it was viewed differently to them?

[HiJolly]

Some recent posts have got me thinking.

(snip)

I guess what I am trying to understand is -- have the Brethren responded to this question officially?

To the best of my knowledge, no, not really. IMO.

What do I tell people when they ask? I mean, if I don't even know the answer -- how can I respond to others? Do I just give them the "canned response" of "We don't fully understand this, but one day we'll find out" ?

That's usually safest. My views on this questions have changed radically over the years, and I don't think I've arrived at the ultimate answer yet. Or maybe I'm just afraid of the real answer, though I *do* know it. Hmm...

What answer do missionaries give when asked this question?

I used to say "we don't know, but if our bodies were so close to perfect (being freshly created by God), then it'd probably be ok, genetically speaking." I really didn't know.

HiJolly

[Guest tomk]

HiJolly:

I appreciate your honest and measured response. Thank you very much.

Tom

[lilered]

Tom: Your question presumes that both Adam and Eve had the same DNA which may or may not be valid. God in his infinit wisdom, I would think, certaintly understood the genetic complications involved with his commandment to Adam and Eve to mulitply and replenish the earth. If true, then we have to make a further assumtion that he allowed for this condition in his plan. It further stands to reason, that as the earth began to be populated, that indeed a brother and a sister had to generate offspring until such time as the genetics did not affect the plan. I know of no other source where this issue has been debated within the church doctorine and additional information is found.

I would be suprised if Adam and Eve even give it a thought as to their sons and daughters intermarrying. After all, they were commanded to mulitply and replenish the earth and that would have been their goal.

[Guest tomk]

Tom: Your question presumes that both Adam and Eve had the same DNA which may or may not be valid. God in his infinit wisdom, I would think, certaintly understood the genetic complications involved with his commandment to Adam and Eve to mulitply and replenish the earth. If true, then we have to make a further assumtion that he allowed for this condition in his plan. It further stands to reason, that as the earth began to be populated, that indeed a brother and a sister had to generate offspring until such time as the genetics did not affect the plan. I know of no other source where this issue has been debated within the church doctorine and additional information is found.

I needed to hear this.

Yes, God is "in control"

He wasn't sitting up there in heaven scratching his head wondering "NOW WHAT DO I DO? I GUESS THEY'LL HAVE TO INBREED."

I am not suggesting such was the case.

So this was all planned for in advance. Got it.

The simplest explanation in my mind is -- Adam and Eve were a "TYPE".

Meaning -- There were MULTIPLE ADAMS and MULTIPLE EVES created "IN THE BEGINNING" but only ONE of those couples is "SHOWCASED" in the scriptures -- used as a way to teach us how we are EACH ADAM AND EVE RESPECTIVELY. Temple rites shed great light on some things in this regard.

Moses 1: 34 And the first man of all men have I called Adam, which is many.

Moses 4: 26 And Adam called his wife’s name Eve, because she was the mother of all living; for thus have I, the Lord God, called the first of all women, which are many.

Why the distinction here?

called the first of all women, which are many.

This is not saying Eve was the mother of all women which followed, per se, but rather could it be saying "Eve was the FIRST of many Eves that followed..."

Either you see it or you don't.

Just trying to comprehend it. :)

I want to say I appreciate the answers already given so far.

I can live with "there is no official answer." :) :)

[HiJolly]

Moses 1: 34 And the first man of all men have I called Adam, which is many.

Moses 4: 26 And Adam called his wife’s name Eve, because she was the mother of all living; for thus have I, the Lord God, called the first of all women, which are many.

Why the distinction here?

called the first of all women, which are many.

This is not saying Eve was the mother of all women which followed, per se, but rather could it be saying "Eve was the FIRST of many Eves that followed..."

...or it could be generational, one per creation...

HiJolly

[Guest tomk]

...or it could be generational, one per creation...

HiJolly

Agreed.

Help me understand this:

Moses 6: 9.

9 In the image of his own body, male and female, created he them, and blessed them, and called their name Adam, in the day when they were created and became living souls [PLURAL???] in the land upon the footstool of God.

What I expected was wording something like this:

Moses 6: 9.

9 In the image of his own body, male and female, created he him, and blessed them, and called his name Adam, in the day when he was created and became a living soul in the land upon the footstool of God.

[Guest tomk]

...or it could be generational, one per creation...

HiJolly

So each earth, when created, gets it's own "pair" of "Adam" and "Eve".

That is the pattern?

[THIRDpersonviewer]

Adam and Eve are ONE through marriage. Their names would also be each other's. Just as Jesus Christ and the Father are referred to by the same names. So, by designating one as Adam, the other or Eve, would also be Adam too, though she is not referred to in that regard. So in one sense there were two Adam's. Thus a plurality of names.

[HiJolly]

Agreed.

Help me understand this:

Moses 6: 9.

9 In the image of his own body, male and female, created he them, and blessed them, and called their name Adam, in the day when they were created and became living souls [PLURAL???] in the land upon the footstool of God.

What I expected was wording something like this:

Moses 6: 9.

9 In the image of his own body, male and female, created he him, and blessed them, and called his name Adam, in the day when he was created and became a living soul in the land upon the footstool of God.

Um...

You know, the Church is not really very mystical in its direction and/or teachings, and this kinda begs for a mystical interpretation, at least in my mind. Was Adam called Adam before, or after, Eve was 'created' from his rib? So, what does it really mean to say they are "one"? In my opinion, this can only be answered by personal contemplation and prayer. And don't expect the answer to never change, once you get it. We grow, line by line, etc.

Layers upon layers, that's what I'm sayin'. Down the rabbit hole we go!

HiJolly

[HiJolly]

So each earth, when created, gets it's own "pair" of "Adam" and "Eve".

That is the pattern?

Be careful, Tomk, I'm a self-avowed heretic, you know.

But yes, that is my current understanding.

HiJolly

[Guest tomk]

Um...

You know, the Church is not really very mystical in its direction and/or teachings, and this kinda begs for a mystical interpretation, at least in my mind. Was Adam called Adam before, or after, Eve was 'created' from his rib? So, what does it really mean to say they are "one"? In my opinion, this can only be answered by personal contemplation and prayer. And don't expect the answer to never change, once you get it. We grow, line by line, etc.

Layers upon layers, that's what I'm sayin'. Down the rabbit hole we go!

HiJolly

Message received. :)

[Guest tomk]

Be careful, Tomk, I'm a self-avowed heretic, you know.

But yes, that is my current understanding.

HiJolly

LOL. Your ... uh ..... secret .... is safe with me. :)

[DigitalShadow]

I've pondered that question myself a few times and questions like those are what led to my skepticism when I was young. I think that it comes down to either you accept it as factual, you accept it as metaphorical or you just don't accept it at all. In any of those cases, trying to rationalize the "extra-rational" (your word, I believe) parts of religion is a fruitless effort.

[HiJolly]

I've pondered that question myself a few times and questions like those are what led to my skepticism when I was young. I think that it comes down to either you accept it as factual, you accept it as metaphorical or you just don't accept it at all.

LoL. Or somewhere inbetween those 3, no?

In any of those cases, trying to rationalize the "extra-rational" (your word, I believe) parts of religion is a fruitless effort.

Are you equating 'rationalize' with 'understand'? Otherwise I'd suppose your comment is irrefutable, and fairly meaningless, all at the same time. Now THAT's good mileage.

HiJolly

[Guest tomk]

I've pondered that question myself a few times and questions like those are what led to my skepticism when I was young. I think that it comes down to either you accept it as factual, you accept it as metaphorical or you just don't accept it at all. In any of those cases, trying to rationalize the "extra-rational" (your word, I believe) parts of religion is a fruitless effort.

Fruitless, or challenging? :)

I smiled as I read your post just now (quoted above in this post).

DigitalShadow is always pondering and questioning :)

[MaidservantX]

The presentation in Genesis is not a historical presentation and was never meant to be. That said, it will align perfectly with what history is (eventually) discovered or revealed to have been in ancient times.

I, as well, have been thinking about the things you bring up, tomk. It is interesting the places my mind has been going with it. I have no conclusions. I need more information. :)

[Guest tomk]

The presentation in Genesis is not a historical presentation and was never meant to be. That said, it will align perfectly with what history is (eventually) discovered or revealed to have been in ancient times.

I, as well, have been thinking about the things you bring up, tomk. It is interesting the places my mind has been going with it. I have no conclusions. I need more information. :)

I give this advice to you -- keeping in mind that I need to follow the same advice -- James 1:5 :)

I appreciate you taking a few minutes to post on this. It comforts me to know that others are having the same questions at times.

[VisionOfLehi]

I just never thought about it too hard. I always assumed that God had made more humans than JUST Adam and Eve. And when they fell, well, all men fell, and so there's a whole populace of "genetic material."

Adam and Eve, however, were the ones with access to the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil, and the ones the Lord spoke to.

[WillowTheWhisp]

Given that we have a Bible story which tells us Eve was made from Adam's rib why would it be surprising if they both had the same DNA? It would be more surprising if they didn't.

But DNA must change somehow. We may not know how and it may seem to our limited understanding that it doesn't - but something must happen.

[VisionOfLehi]

Given that we have a Bible story which tells us Eve was made from Adam's rib why would it be surprising if they both had the same DNA? It would be more surprising if they didn't.

But DNA must change somehow. We may not know how and it may seem to our limited understanding that it doesn't - but something must happen.

Actually... There was no blood before the fall. I'm skeptical as to whether or not "DNA" as we know it really existed, either.

Once the fall happened... *shrug*

[WillowTheWhisp]

Good point.

[lilered]

A commentary:

The fall was necessary for "men to be", or in order forr Adam and Eve to have childen.

Note in the scriptures below, key words such as "they", 'their", children.

Bottom Line: I am bettin that Adam and Eve sired all children after their creation and fall.

2 Nephi

20.And they have brought forth children; yea even the family of all earth.

21. And the days of the children of men were prolonged, according to the will of God, that they might repent while in the flesh; wherefore, their state became a state of probabtion, and their time as lengthened, according to the commandments which the Lord God gave unto the children of men.....

[Moksha]

The simplest explanation in my mind is -- Adam and Eve were a "TYPE".

Meaning -- There were MULTIPLE ADAMS and MULTIPLE EVES created "IN THE BEGINNING" but only ONE of those couples is "SHOWCASED" in the scriptures

Moses 1: 34 And the first man of all men have I called Adam, which is many.

Moses 4: 26 And Adam called his wife’s name Eve, because she was the mother of all living; for thus have I, the Lord God, called the first of all women, which are many.

:) :)

The original tribe of Modern Man on the Serengeti, eh? Sure sounds good.