I believe Adam was the first prophet. I don’t believe Adam and Eve were the sole ancestors of the human race, or that we’re the product of their children’s incest.

LDS teaching links the fall of Adam with salvation through Jesus very strongly, that “even as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive.” Embracing a figurative Adam and a figurative fall raises the question of a figurative Christ and figurative salvation. Some are fine with that, and others aren’t.

Latter-day Saints during the 1850s-70s heard sermons, were given lessons, and sung hymns about a very different Adam and Eve. In Brigham Young’s theology Adam and Eve were exalted beings who were the progenitors of all human life. Under this belief the Adam and Eve of Genesis were symbolic – representing every man and woman since, which is still implied in what remains of the Endowment ceremony. So the concept of a figurative Adam is not new to Mormonism, although getting rid of a literal Adam altogether – whether divine or mortal – is a challenge to Christian concepts of the fall or the Mormon concept of the divine procreation of the human race.

6 – Reginald – why does getting rid of a literal Adam cause challenges for Christianity or Mormonism? Seems like we could hand wave our way around that in multiple ways.

D,

Interesting post. I believe that faith traditions that get to “figurative” with the stories of the scriptures tend to wither away. See Protestantism: Mainline for example.

Its hard to teach to folks that the scriptures are the word of God if you don’t really believe that the stories are really true. Gospel teachers and denominations seem dishonest when things are taught that way. How do you tell a teenager that the scriptures are the word of god while at the same time telling the teeenager that the stories are made up and Adam and Eve did not exist and by the way neither did Nephi?

I am cool with Adam and Eve being real people.

9. NJensen – I kind of like the Lillith story..

10. bbell – interesting view on those that go figurative. Is that inevitable though? I think it might be as a religion matures. If you look at where our religion is going, there is certainly a cohort (albeit a minority) that is already moving this way. Does the rest of the Church follow or do we split into a couple of entities or does there always remain an underlying tension?

11. bbell – that is a fair point.

This actually touches on a topic that I’ve been considering developing as a post, but I’ll just put a summary of it down here as a comment as it is relevant.

The last few times I’ve been to the temple the lines that have really struck me are along the lines of “each of you consider yourselves as if you are Adam and Eve.”

Hope that snippet isn’t offensive to anyone. To me the message is that the experience of the Fall and of Adam and Eve occurs in each of our lives. We all fall. We all make those same fateful decisions. We might not eat of a particular forbidden fruit but we knowingly disobey the dictates of God of our own volition.

Regardless of the historicity of the various accounts of Adam and Eve, the story has enormous power. It is the founding story of our civilization and explains a process that each of us goes through. If any of us is so foolish to think they would have done things differently my response is no you wouldn’t, and you prove it every day as we each fall a little and are redeemed a little.

14. a random John – Thanks ARJ. I like that view a lot – I have been trying to find the “principle” in stories from the scriptures, particularly since I view them as parables. I really like your interpretation and personalization of the Fall story

17 Anne – I love the “prisoners in a cave” statement – where did that come from? I am always struck by folks whose faith is tied to a detail (e.g, Adam and Eve story is literal). I am like you – my faith is broad and flexible to adapt to the world around me.

bbell,

Brigham Young himself dismissed the idea that Eve came from Adam’s rib.

Personally, I know too much about biology too accept certain things. I don’t have any problem with accepting Noah was a prophet, but there’s no way he gathered each animal on to his ark and then released them in the exact same place he picked them up–there’s too much conflict with what I know about how biology works. I can accept that Adam existed, but there’s too much conflict with what I know about how biology works for me to accept that Adam was the first life on this planet.

Of course, if we insist that the church takes the anti-science stance, as many of my Sunday School and seminary teachers did, we risk losing those who, as Henry Eyring Sr. says, “throw the baby out with the bathwater” once they learn a little bit about science. I’m betting the activity rate for the children of “literals” who go on to learn about biology and/or geology isn’t that great either.

Several people seem to be saying variations on this argument: “If the Adam and Eve story is not literally true, then that calls into question the literalness of the Savior’s atonement.”

My response: No it doesn’t. In fact, this doesn’t follow at all. The Adam and Eve story could be a very powerful parable about how sin has been around as long as people have been around because people have always chosen to sin. Whether or not a literal being Eve (beguiled by Satan, who appeared to her in the form of snake) convinced a literal Adam to violate the will of God by biting into a fruit tree, the Savior’s atonement is necessary as a matter of doctrine. It doesn’t really change anything.

bbell, your assertions about who will go inactive and who will accept what are silly. People want the truth. If it’s not possible for some stories in the bible to be literally true in the face of scientific evidence, then continuing to insist that they are literal is going to eventually make you look like a braying jackass.

This doesn’t mean we call all scripture figurative just because some stories obviously are. We just accept truth where we find it and we don’t shy away from it just because we think people might have a hard time accepting it. The catholic church spent a lot of years burning people at the stake as heretics because they thought people couldn’t accept scientific truth and continue to have faith. But the fact is that science and the scriptures are not at war. They complement each other. We just have to be willing to accept the truth when we find it.

bbell,

What does “really true” even mean? When you start to go down that road you end up on thin ice. Was the Book of Abraham a “really true” translation of the papyri that Joseph had? I’m sure you can see where that leads and how that sort of belief can lead to broken testimonies and leaving the Church just as easily as the attitudes that you presume to criticize.

19. bbell – wow some pretty blatant assertions. Do you have data to support that? Sounds like me – small family, figurative thinking… I am not quite as liberal on Christ as DKL, but certainly see room for some flexibility in the story. “I would be unsure of your faith in the scriptures and basic church teachings.” Yep, that is me… probably why I am in Nursery… We also have to have space in the Church for all views – I think that we are all pushing toward a common goal even if our views on the exact path may differ slightly.

20. Tim – agreed entirely.

21. Ed – well DNA is pretty powerful evidence… just sayin’

22. BTD Greg – very nicely said and I agree

24. MCQ – very well stated. We must embrace truth wherever it is…

26. a random John – good points

Comments #1 and #5:

No, we don’t have to alter our views based on “the science.” “Science” has often reversed positions on things that were “demonstrated beyond a reasonable doubt.” The true resolution or synthesis of the _seeming_ contradictions between faith and science will come from _God_, not from scientists.

The Lord will eventually give us “the rest of the story” which will correct whatever false notions we have about creation, and eventually all things, even science-related things will be known by the inhabitants of the Celestial Kingdom, so at least they will be able to resolve all seeming conflicts of science/religion.

The Garden of Eden, the Fall, Noah*, Job, Jonah, who (all) really shot JFK and why, could Nephi have just tied up Laban and gagged him, and did he really do a complete decapitation or was it just a fatal head wound, are among the things I want to know about. But I realize we won’t get the REAL answers in this life. Maybe in the Millennium. Maybe in the Spirit World. Maybe post resurrection. Who knows. But I sincerely believe the scriptures that say that all hidden things and all mysteries will eventually be made known.

*BTW, Noah was an even more recent common ancestor than Adam. So all us guys should be desecended from Noah’s Y-chromosome.

*BTW #2, I think the Lord could have resurrected (re-animated, back into mortality that is, like the widow’s son) dead animals of the species that could not fit on the ark. Noah did what he could, and the Lord made up the rest, which seems to fit in with a gospel principle. And If the Lord can bring people back to life, bringing animals back to life shouldn’t be any harder.

BTW #3, I think the “In the beginning” of Genesis 1:1 is a _relative_ beginning point, not an absolute beginning point. We don’t know what happened prior to Genesis 1:1. We don’t know what the then-current organizational state of “these materials” was in Abraham 3:24. We could be on a “recycled” planet that had previous creations, and Abraham 3:24/Genesis 1;1 could have been a “do over” point, giving us “our” beginning, but leaving the fossil record of previous “creations” buried beneath a formless void surface.

I don’t see how it matters that we will know all things in the celestial kingdom or whatever. The questions people have are about what to believe now. If our religion can’t answer those questions it’s not worth much.

But thankfully, it can. We have the scriptures, but we also have prophets and more importantly we have personal revelation. We can find out the answers to these questions in the here and now. We don’t have to wait until the celestial k or just close our eyes and pretend every Bible story is to be taken literally.

Interpreting shadows on the wall may be all we have, but we can get a lot of mileage out of that with well-applied technique. It’s not so bad. For example: (link).

I think very few things in the church are “doctrinally binding” upon the members. Is there anything that’s doctrinally binding other than what’s in the baptismal interview and temple-recommend interview?

Devin: “doctrinally binding” means doctrines we are required to believe. Bookslinger is right that there are certain subjects in the interviews that are requirements for baptism and for temple ordinances. Other than those things, though, there are no doctrinal purity tests. We don’t kick people out for being heretics just because they disagree with part of the Family Proclamation or because they think polygamy was a mistake. You are free to explore and create your own doctrinal boundaries for the most part.

So who were Joseph Smith and Zebedee Coltrin looking at in their vision of Adam and Eve?

Well, there really aren’t a lot of doctrinal questions in the TR interview questions:

1.Do you have faith in and a testimony of God the Eternal Father, His Son Christ, and the Holy Ghost?
2.Do you have a testimony of the Atonement of Christ and of His role as Savior and Redeemer?
3.Do you have a testimony of the restoration of the gospel in these the latter days?
4.Do you sustain the President of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints as the Prophet, Seer, and Revelator and as the only person on the earth who possesses and is authorized to exercise all priesthood keys? Do you sustain members of the First Presidency and the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles as prophets, seers, and revelators? Do you sustain the other General Authorities and local authorities of the Church?
5.Do you live the law of chastity?
6.Is there anything in your conduct relating to members of your family that is not in harmony with the teachings of the Church?
7.Do you support, affiliate with, or agree with any group or individual whose teachings or practices are contrary to or oppose those accepted by the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints?
8.Do you strive to keep the covenants you have made, to attend your sacrament and other meetings, and to keep your life in harmony with the laws and commandments of the gospel?
9.Are you honest in your dealings with your fellowmen?
10.Are you a full-tithe payer?
11.Do your keep the Word of Wisdom?
12.Do you have financial or other obligations to a former spouse or children? If yes, are you current in meeting those obligations?
13.If you have previously received your temple endowment: Do you keep the covenants that you made in the temple?
Do you wear the garment both night and day as instructed in the endowment and in accordance with the covenant you made in the temple?
14.Have there been any sins or misdeeds in your life that should have been resolved with priesthood authorities but have not been?
15.Do you consider yourself worthy to enter the Lord’s house and participate in temple ordinances?

Of those questions, only the first three are purely doctrinal. The fourth is somewhat doctrinal and the rest are pretty much dealing with worthiness issues.

So you can see that of the doctrines of the gospel, only the existence of the Godhead, the reality of the Atonement, and the restoration are the ones that are really required beliefs. The fourth question is somewhat doctrinal, but really relates to sustaining the leaders of the Church.