Jump to content

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

elguanteloko

How literally do you take the creation story?

Recommended Posts

Adam and Eve were real historical figures who walked the earth some 6-7 thousand years ago. I believe them to be the parents of our human race. I believe there were two literal trees in an actual garden both bearing fruit that had entirely different consequences if eaten.

One of the problems facing mormonism as a whole is the efforts in science to discount and reject the Adam and Eve story as a type of mythology. Evolutionary teachings run contrary to the church's doctrine of the creation and the fall of Adam and Eve. The world would have us believe that we evolved over many millions of years from animals and that death has been occurring for hundreds of millions of years. Both of these theories run counter to LDS doctrine and as such must be examined for actual merit. For instance- if there really has been death occurring on the earth and that we evolved from animals then the account of the creation must be wrong and that the fall did not really effect the whole of creation. The impacts to our religion would be very substancial if the creation and fall were not literal historical events.

Not that I am opposed to searching out all avenues, just that it places such a large amount of mormonism in peril to travel down this road.

There is no other reason to reject the Adam and Eve story unless one is a strict adherent to the modern philosophies of man. There are those LDS though that have discounted the literalness of Adam and Eve and have tried in vain to still gather something of relevence from the story. In the end we either have mythologies to adhere to or real history. When all truth is revealed, there will exist no more mythology- only truth. If we place our trust in mythology then we too will fade into nothing becoming that which we believe.

Share this post


Link to post
For instance- if there really has been death occurring on the earth and that we evolved from animals then the account of the creation must be wrong and that the fall did not really effect the whole of creation. The impacts to our religion would be very substancial if the creation and fall were not literal historical events.

In what way? Would you no longer be fallen? Would your spirit have not chosen to enter into a mortal body? Would would you have not chosen to sin sometime down the road? Would both of those falls still not necessitate a Redeemer?

Share this post


Link to post

In what way? Would you no longer be fallen? Would your spirit have not chosen to enter into a mortal body? Would would you have not chosen to sin sometime down the road? Would both of those falls still not necessitate a Redeemer?

?

Share this post


Link to post

?

I see no reason why the method by which our bodies got here has to do with our personal fallen conditions, and our personal need for a Redeemer. I don't need a redeemer because an individual thousands of years ago did. I need a Redeemer because I chose to enter into a mortal body that would die, and I chose to break a commandment of God somewhere down the line.

Share this post


Link to post

I see no reason why the method by which our bodies got here has to do with our personal fallen conditions, and our personal need for a Redeemer. I don't need a redeemer because an individual thousands of years ago did. I need a Redeemer because I chose to enter into a mortal body that would die, and I chose to break a commandment of God somewhere down the line.

Do you accept Adam and Eve as literal people who are the parents of the whole human race?

Share this post


Link to post

So what nack is saying is that it is to be understood that our spirits entered bodies of creatures that had no "spirit" in them and had been living and breeding for 10s of thousands of years and had finally evolved to the point where they could be"inhabited" by intelligent spirits.Or maybe the creatures had a more primitive spirit that somehow agreed to either move out or slide over so that a more advanced spirit could enter.Sounds like a premise for a new "religion" to me.

Share this post


Link to post

Do you accept Adam and Eve as literal people who are the parents of the whole human race?

I accept that there must have been two individuals who were the first male and female spirits to be born into mortal bodies, and the first to enter into Covenant with God as such. We might as well call them Adam and Eve for tradition and convenience only.

Share this post


Link to post

If the story of Genesis is to be taken literally, then what were Adam and Eve doing with Hebrew names before there was a Hebrew language?

Share this post


Link to post

If the story of Genesis is to be taken literally, then what were Adam and Eve doing with Hebrew names before there was a Hebrew language?

I could say those names derive from an unknown divine language from which we have no knowledge of and from which the Hebrew got them.

Share this post


Link to post

I accept that there must have been two individuals who were the first male and female spirits to be born into mortal bodies, and the first to enter into Covenant with God as such. We might as well call them Adam and Eve for tradition and convenience only.

So you don't believe that Adam and Eve were the first humans to live on this earth?

Share this post


Link to post
I think there are some things you have to take literally else the Church/Christianity isn't true. Adam and Eve must be historical persons, for example. One could certainly take the fruit metaphorically, but there has to be some historical truth or the story is worthless in terms of spiritual progression simply because it is taught as history.
Do you think the "fall" is something more symbolic than literal? and, what's the "fall" from which Christ had to save us through his sacrifice?

I take the Fall to be literal.

Share this post


Link to post

I take the Fall to be literal.

How did it happen and how literal do you take those events?(example: the fruit was in reality a symbol and not an actual fruit from a tree, etc)

Share this post


Link to post

So you don't believe that Adam and Eve were the first humans to live on this earth?

It is my belief that when immortal spirits who were covenant offspring of God were first combined with a mortal homo-sapien body (in the words of the First Presidency Statement, "the original man, the first of our race, [did not begin] life as anything less than a man, or less than the human germ or embryo that becomes a man."), that's where Man's (our) lineage in the scriptural and religious sense begins.

Share this post


Link to post

The idea that any active, supposedly believing LDS could view Adam and Eve and "The Fall" as anything but literal is mystifying to me. If the Church is wrong about this, then something is very, very wrong with the ability of our leaders to distinguish between fact and symbolism/fiction.

Share this post


Link to post

It is my belief that when immortal spirits who were covenant offspring of God were first combined with a mortal homo-sapien body (in the words of the First Presidency Statement, "the original man, the first of our race, [did not begin] life as anything less than a man, or less than the human germ or embryo that becomes a man."), that's where Man's (our) lineage in the scriptural and religious sense begins.

Yes or no- Do you believe that Adam and Eve were the first humans on this planet?

Share this post


Link to post

The idea that any active, supposedly believing LDS could view Adam and Eve and "The Fall" as anything but literal is mystifying to me. If the Church is wrong about this, then something is very, very wrong with the ability of our leaders to distinguish between fact and symbolism/fiction.

I agree. There are other issues also like the Flood and the tower of Babel that should also be literal.

Share this post


Link to post

The generations of flesh and time are as endless backwards and forwards as the generations of spirit and Gods. There is no beginning and end to the generation of human bodies AS HUMANS, whether in this world, another world or this planet, another planet.

Thinking that the adam and eve story is a symbolism does not necessitate supporting any organic evolution theory as the only alternative. The idea that the "human" wheel, or any organism shape, would be re-invented every time there needed to be a mortal cycle either on this planet or another, is ludicrous to me. If I was a God, why would I waste my time for 4.5 billion years? I wouldn't, that's what. Not to mention that everything can be assigned either a 0 or 1 and be brought into and out of (material) existence instantaneously in that manner and by that method. And not to mention that mommy and daddy human beings continue to love each other and establish families and have babies IN MORTAL TIME ad infinitum.

"We lived in heaven a long time ago, it is true. Lived there and loved there with people I know, so did you." So what does this mean? It means we were fine where we were before we came here. Fine, but not finished. There was no requirement per se to come here to this plane. It was completely volitional, and we risk losing what we once enjoyed by coming here (a fall). But the reason we came is because it's what we do. We come to experience and gain knowledge and testing and thereby grow spiritually (and gain a body) and reach our full potential as children of God. Partaking of the fruit IS the choice to come to earth and take the risk and consequences and the rewards of such. We REALLY need a Savior to be redeemed from the major consequences and still come away with our knowledge.

Non-literal does NOT mean non-true. As I said "non-literal" is an inappropriate label to choose. You can find all truth in the "story" and that's why we have it. It will never get worn out, and it works for all paradigm levels.

Share this post


Link to post

Yes or no- Do you believe that Adam and Eve were the first humans on this planet?

No.

Share this post


Link to post

The idea that any active, supposedly believing LDS could view Adam and Eve and "The Fall" as anything but literal is mystifying to me. If the Church is wrong about this, then something is very, very wrong with the ability of our leaders to distinguish between fact and symbolism/fiction.

Why do you think that holding a position that the Adam and Eve story would be in opposition to the church's position? I would say that I have learned what I understand about the creation, fall, etc from the church. I have been taught from the very beginning by my mother that I should go to the temple with the idea that everything is in symbolism, so from the very beginning I have done that.

I have held in suspension that Adam and Eve could be historical figures versus my "Adam is many" understanding. Sometimes I think yes, sometimes no; and sometimes my "yes" and my "no" would not look like other peoples yes and no, since the way my mind works.

Hopefully whatever we each understand about the story will support us in keeping God's commandments and becoming clean and full of charity. If it doesn't do that, then it doesn't matter what details we believe.

Share this post


Link to post

Yes, I believe that some of the creation story is figurative, but that Adam and Eve were the first humans on earth, and the first to experience death.

I also believe in the literal deluge of the earth during the time of Noah.

I also believe the continents separated shortly afterwards (during Peleg) and will return together again at the 2nd coming (D&C 133: 24)

Share this post


Link to post

I believe that my acceptance or rejection of the existence of Adam and Eve, the occurrence of a global flood, or whether or not there really was a Tower of Babel will not affect my salvation.

I do believe that without Christ and his Atonement, I would not be able to return to my Father's presence.

I also believe that evolution occurred and that the Earth has been around for 4 billion years. I also believe that our universe was created about 13/14 billion years ago from the Big Bang. I also don't think that either of those beliefs will affect my salvation and that believing them doesn't make me a better nor a worse member of the Church than one who doesn't believe them.

I totally reject the policy of some that the acceptance/non-acceptance of evolution should be the litmus test of being a true child of God. IT'S NO BIG DEAL!!!!!!

Share this post


Link to post

I believe that my acceptance or rejection of the existence of Adam and Eve, the occurrence of a global flood, or whether or not there really was a Tower of Babel will not affect my salvation.

I do believe that without Christ and his Atonement, I would not be able to return to my Father's presence.

I also believe that evolution occurred and that the Earth has been around for 4 billion years. I also believe that our universe was created about 13/14 billion years ago from the Big Bang. I also don't think that either of those beliefs will affect my salvation and that believing them doesn't make me a better nor a worse member of the Church than one who doesn't believe them.

I totally reject the policy of some that the acceptance/non-acceptance of evolution should be the litmus test of being a true child of God. IT'S NO BIG DEAL!!!!!!

Personally I do believe it is a big deal. Believing in evolution leads one naturally to discount the creation and the fall and other core doctrines of the church regarding God and his actions. I have been in dialogue with BYU professors who espouse evolution to the point that they believe God had no visible role in the creation. Matters with the fall borderline on the ridiculous and things like the flood are completely laughable to them. The problem is that these philosophies of man are heavily entrenched in atheism. Believeing in Darwinian evolution, one is naturally drawn tot he conclusions that God is not needed in nature and even perhaps that God himself is just the mere product of random nature.

Paramount to all of this is the principle of the human status. We are either the sons and daughters of monkeys and as such are mere animals or we are the sons and daughters of God having a direct lineal line through Gods literal seed. LDS doctrine teaches we are in fact the literal offspring of God and not the result of monkey love. It thus places our status above and beyond that of the animals.

Believing in evolution will naturally lead one to disbelieve the Creator and in turn allow ourselves to justify animalistic behavior in our actions. Are we animals who can't control ourselves? Are we the sons of God who can?

The answer should be obvious.

Share this post


Link to post

Interesting answer, semlogo. So, if you take these things more like a symbol to teach us something, why did Christ had to die?

Regardless of whether or not there ever was a garden of Eden or a forbidden fruit, we all sin and come short of the glory of God. In fact, I think that's the point of the story - a parable about sin and consequences.

Share this post


Link to post

Yes or no- Do you believe that Adam and Eve were the first humans on this planet?

If take Genesis literally, you have to believe that they were probably not the first.

Share this post


Link to post
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×