Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
theplains

Adam and Eve - the rib

Recommended Posts

2 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

One could even toy with the notion that it is all a simulation -- no harm, no foul -- and we all get home safely.  :pirate:

“Do We Live in a Computer Simulation Run by Our Descendants? Researchers Say Idea Can Be Tested,” ScienceDaily, Dec 10, 2012, online at http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/12/121210132752.htm .

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I_KJKEYoaoo  (5 Reasons You May Be Living In A Simulation | Answers With Joe Scott, 2016) Are you living in The Matrix? New scientific theories are suggesting that you may be.

Social constructivists like me have known this for at least a hundred years, though I'm not quite that old yet. ;)

Anything we know about the world is a human created simulation of the world. We don't see things as they are we see things as humans see them. How could it be otherwise? ;)

 

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
9 hours ago, cinepro said:

If Nelson considered the story to be figurative and without a historical, physical basis, then how is the part about humans having 12 pairs of ribs compared to other animals having 13 relevant to the talk?

If I told you that I believed that God had cursed dachshund dogs with elongated bodies because they were disobedient in the pre-existence, and by the way, dachshunds really do have elongated bodies, but then back-pedaled and said I just meant it figuratively, would that make any sense?  The fact that dachshunds actually have elongated bodies is only relevant if the previous statement is meant to be taken literally.

If Nelson had thought it the rib story was figurative, he wouldn't have mentioned the fact (or "fact") about humans having fewer ribs.  Or he would have said

 

I’ve been listening to Allen Watts a lot recently.  He has a line where he says that, (and I’m loosely quoting here) “A loving God would not allow his children’s brains to atrophy and rot by way of giving them a step by step handbook of everything to think, do, and believe”.

I’m starting to see it (more like realize it) in a few other threads where people who have left the church or have become disillusioned are really the ones who have to be “commanded in all things”.  They aren’t the “free thinkers” that they pride themselves to be.  In reality, they just cannot bear the idea of a world where God is not literally speaking through a prophet.  They can’t bear a reality where the onus is on them to go and “study it out in their minds”, and then go pay the price to receive personal revelation—because they really don’t believe God will speak to them.  Far better, far easier to have someone else tell them what to think, do, and believe.

Which is why, when leadership so often inevitably errs, they can’t deal with it.  They can’t deal with Jospeh Smith going back to review the revelations and editing them.  They can’t deal with his character flaws, or with any of the flaws of the succeeding prophets.  It’s all or nothing.  Either God is micromanaging the church up to and including how every red cent of tithing is to be used, or this is all a fraud with well intentioned people claiming to speak for God.

Not saying that’s you, but I do think you’re reaching too far to try and find an error where there is none.  When I give a lesson on the creation and fall, I’m going to give it as stated in Genesis.  I’m going to give it as stated in the books of Abraham and Moses.  I’m going to extrapolate while still referring to the creation period as “7 days”.  I’m going to speak of Satan as a “serpent”.  I’ll probably even throw in the Midrash commenting on how the serpent was cursed by being made to crawl on his belly, allowing him easy access to his prey, and thus the real curse being in the “easiness” of acquiring his food.

Now, does Brother Steve really believe in all that being “literal”?  I haven’t said, after each instance, “hey guys, you know scientists actually theorize the universe began 13.5 billion years ago and that life on Earth probably started out in the oceans as simple, single celled bacteria...hey guys, I really don’t believe Satan was a talking snake in the garden...etc, etc”.  Do I really need to say that?  Really?  Or do I understand that people are at different stages of learning.  That there may be some spiritually immature listeners in my audience who still take the biblical stories as literal, and may not be able to step outside that way of thinking just yet.  Meanwhile, Brother Bukowski and Brother Robert are sitting in the back still nodding their heads in agreement, even though they’re doing so for completely different reasons than the spiritually immature sitting in the front row, also nodding their heads.

I just don’t see President Nelson being literal on the rib thing.  He’s expanding on the metaphor.  The church for the longest time has taught that Adam was “placed here”.  It’s even alluded to in the endowment.  The prophet knows this.  So why would he take the number of human and animal ribs literal, when he knows the act of creating woman from a rib is metaphorical?  I don’t think you’re a guy who would appreciate a stop in the narrative each and every time with a “this is literal, and this is metaphorical” to precede a speaker’s commentary on scripture.  Heck, even Jesus didn’t do that at the Last Supper when his listeners were absolutely confused out of their minds when he was giving them his flesh and blood to drink.  The onus is on the listener to mature spiritually, and sometimes it’s confusing, and takes some thinking and study, sometimes takes life experience, and prayer, and on and on.  

It’s why we walk by faith during those times.  And now we can talk about faith and hope, etc, etc...see how it’s all connected?

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Posted (edited)

Jim @theplains, I'm curious what your opinion on the literalness or figurativeness of the rib story. Not to argue or throw it back at you, just which you take it to be.

As for me, I'm dead certain it was figurative, and I don't care if Pres. Nelson thinks it was literal (which I don't believe he does).  If Eve were to be created out of Adam's rib, then a problem arises as to whether Eve had XX or XY sex chromosomes.  If the story were literal, then she had XY sex chromosomes and was a man who had had a sex change, or in other words, she would be Steve, not Eve.  And that's where the story would end.  And taking a rib from Adam would leave him minus ONE rib, from either the left or right side, a physical injury which could not be passed along to his descendants, even assuming Steve could actually bear children.  

Something else convinces me that the story is figurative.  God created the Earth from scratch, the Moon and the Sun as well, and he likewise created Adam's body from scratch, too.  So why did He need a rib from Adam to create Eve?  What stopped him from creating Eve from scratch?  With the proper XX sex chromosomes.  The whole rib story is a teaching parable.  

If one day a human skeleton should be discovered that has one rib missing, perhaps we could say we had found Adam's remains.  Assuming the remains had been a male.

 

Edited by Stargazer

Share this post


Link to post
4 hours ago, SteveO said:

Now, does Brother Steve really believe in all that being “literal”?  I haven’t said, after each instance, “hey guys, you know scientists actually theorize the universe began 13.5 billion years ago and that life on Earth probably started out in the oceans as simple, single celled bacteria...hey guys, I really don’t believe Satan was a talking snake in the garden...etc, etc”.  Do I really need to say that?  Really?  Or do I understand that people are at different stages of learning.  That there may be some spiritually immature listeners in my audience who still take the biblical stories as literal, and may not be able to step outside that way of thinking just yet.  Meanwhile, Brother Bukowski and Brother Robert are sitting in the back still nodding their heads in agreement, even though they’re doing so for completely different reasons than the spiritually immature sitting in the front row, also nodding their heads.

I just don’t see President Nelson being literal on the rib thing.  He’s expanding on the metaphor.  The church for the longest time has taught that Adam was “placed here”.  It’s even alluded to in the endowment.  The prophet knows this.  So why would he take the number of human and animal ribs literal, when he knows the act of creating woman from a rib is metaphorical?  I don’t think you’re a guy who would appreciate a stop in the narrative each and every time with a “this is literal, and this is metaphorical” to precede a speaker’s commentary on scripture.  Heck, even Jesus didn’t do that at the Last Supper when his listeners were absolutely confused out of their minds when he was giving them his flesh and blood to drink.  The onus is on the listener to mature spiritually, and sometimes it’s confusing, and takes some thinking and study, sometimes takes life experience, and prayer, and on and on.  

It’s why we walk by faith during those times.  And now we can talk about faith and hope, etc, etc...see how it’s all connected?

While I agree with this and think it's a great approach, I think you are using faulty logic with this conclusion:

4 hours ago, SteveO said:

I’m starting to see it (more like realize it) in a few other threads where people who have left the church or have become disillusioned are really the ones who have to be “commanded in all things”.  They aren’t the “free thinkers” that they pride themselves to be.  In reality, they just cannot bear the idea of a world where God is not literally speaking through a prophet.  They can’t bear a reality where the onus is on them to go and “study it out in their minds”, and then go pay the price to receive personal revelation—because they really don’t believe God will speak to them.  Far better, far easier to have someone else tell them what to think, do, and believe.

While we certainly can't paint all who have left the church with the same broad brush, your premise doesn't really make sense:  The Church teaches that God does speak through the prophet.  So, if someone arrives at the belief, through study or personal revelation, that God is not speaking through the prophet and this leads them to leave the church they are choosing to NOT be commanded in all things.  They are choosing to take what they have studied out in their minds and to follow their personal revelation.

However, this should not be extrapolated to mean that those who do stay in the church or who do believe that God is speaking through our prophet are somehow being "commanded in all things".  I don't believe that either.  Nor does logic lead to that conclusion.

Share this post


Link to post
On 6/15/2019 at 2:13 PM, Doctrine 612 said:

in another note.

adam and eve where not created in the garden, they were placed there after.

Is that correct?

The biblical account is clear that Adam was placed in the garden after he was created (that part I totally agree with), but it wasn't until after he was set to tend the garden that God determines to make a help meet for him.

The deep sleep which besets him takes place within the garden, does it not? 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Posted (edited)
8 hours ago, rockpond said:

While we certainly can't paint all who have left the church with the same broad brush, your premise doesn't really make sense:  The Church teaches that God does speak through the prophet.  So, if someone arrives at the belief, through study or personal revelation, that God is not speaking through the prophet and this leads them to leave the church they are choosing to NOT be commanded in all things.  They are choosing to take what they have studied out in their minds and to follow their personal revelation.

However, this should not be extrapolated to mean that those who do stay in the church or who do believe that God is speaking through our prophet are somehow being "commanded in all things".  I don't believe that either.  Nor does logic lead to that conclusion.

Huh?  Looks like equivocation to me.  You are going both ways 

Ever occur to you we need personal revelation to know WHEN the prophet/authority is right and when he is not??

Is that some kind of contradiction to you?  That we can follow the prophet AND receive our own revelation on the matter??

Edited by mfbukowski
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, mfbukowski said:

Huh?  Looks like equivocation to me.  You are going both ways 

No - it's just not a binary equation.

Quote

Ever occur to you we need personal revelation to know WHEN the prophet/authority is right and when he is not??

Of course - I didn't say otherwise.  We have certainly been counseled to seek personal confirmation of teachings in the church and I firmly believe in the necessity of that.  However, I think Church teachings often lean a bit more towards the idea that while a personal spiritual confirmation is good "We can always trust the living prophets. Their teachings reflect the will of the Lord..." (Gospel Topics section on Prophets)

 

Quote

Is that some kind of contradiction to you?  That we can follow the prophet AND receive our own revelation on the matter??

Nope, not a contradiction.  It's a principle I live daily.

Let's return to what @SteveO stated in his post this morning:

Quote

I’m starting to see it (more like realize it) in a few other threads where people who have left the church or have become disillusioned are really the ones who have to be “commanded in all things”.  They aren’t the “free thinkers” that they pride themselves to be.  In reality, they just cannot bear the idea of a world where God is not literally speaking through a prophet.  They can’t bear a reality where the onus is on them to go and “study it out in their minds”, and then go pay the price to receive personal revelation—because they really don’t believe God will speak to them.  Far better, far easier to have someone else tell them what to think, do, and believe.

He theorizes that individuals who leave the church are those that "cannot bear the idea of a world where God is not literally speaking through a prophet".

The first problem with this is that many faithful church members would suggest that a foundational principle of the Restored Gospel is that God does literally speak through his prophet.

He then suggests that those who leave are those who don't wish to study it out in their minds and pay the price to receive personal revelation because the don't really believe God will speak to them.

The logic of this doesn't follow.  If someone studies, prays, and receives an answer the that they should no longer be an active member of the church they aren't seeking to be "commanded in all things" as @SteveO claims.  Instead, they have studied and prayed and let God lead them personally.

 

I'll conclude with a relevant teaching from President Uchtdorf in October 2013:  "In this Church that honors personal agency so strongly, that was restored by a young man who asked questions and sought answers, we respect those who honestly search for truth. It may break our hearts when their journey takes them away from the Church we love and the truth we have found, but we honor their right to worship Almighty God according to the dictates of their own conscience, just as we claim that privilege for ourselves."

Edited by rockpond

Share this post


Link to post
43 minutes ago, rockpond said:

No - it's just not a binary equation.

Of course - I didn't say otherwise.  We have certainly been counseled to seek personal confirmation of teachings in the church and I firmly believe in the necessity of that.  However, I think Church teachings often lean a bit more towards the idea that while a personal spiritual confirmation is good "We can always trust the living prophets. Their teachings reflect the will of the Lord..." (Gospel Topics section on Prophets)

 

Nope, not a contradiction.  It's a principle I live daily.

Let's return to what @SteveO stated in his post this morning:

He theorizes that individuals who leave the church are those that "cannot bear the idea of a world where God is not literally speaking through a prophet".

The first problem with this is that many faithful church members would suggest that a foundational principle of the Restored Gospel is that God does literally speak through his prophet.

He then suggests that those who leave are those who don't wish to study it out in their minds and pay the price to receive personal revelation because the don't really believe God will speak to them.

The logic of this doesn't follow.  If someone studies, prays, and receives an answer the that they should no longer be an active member of the church they aren't seeking to be "commanded in all things" as @SteveO claims.  Instead, they have studied and prayed and let God lead them personally.

 

I'll conclude with a relevant teaching from President Uchtdorf in October 2013:  "In this Church that honors personal agency so strongly, that was restored by a young man who asked questions and sought answers, we respect those who honestly search for truth. It may break our hearts when their journey takes them away from the Church we love and the truth we have found, but we honor their right to worship Almighty God according to the dictates of their own conscience, just as we claim that privilege for ourselves."

When someone becomes disillusioned by church leadership, is it not because that leadership is at odds with their expectations of what divinely inspired leadership should look like?  I’m saying their expectations for how a prophet should be are at odds with the reality.

At the root of nearly every contention with the church is, I believe, the idea that the leadership is not divinely inspired.  Whether the examples are of moral failings, failure to discern, factually incorrect or disproven theories, or just things that conflict with personally held beliefs—the common theme is that God isn’t guiding the leadership.  And people become disillusioned because they can’t handle it.  

Now you’re saying they’re going off and doing their own thing—well yeah, because now they no longer believe God speaks through anyone on behalf of anyone.  There’s no longer any need to know what the mind of God is—God is whatever they want him to be.  It’s safe.  I think if God isn’t offering uncomfortable suggestions from time to time—you’re doing it wrong.

As for literally speaking through a prophet, I stand by my statement.  The Lord reveals his will and mind through a prophet—but even a prophet has to be able to communicate that perfection in an imperfect manner, imperfect language, inadequate articulation, etc, etc.  When President Nelson is speaking, he’s communicating the will of the Lord, but that doesn’t mean he does so without error.  

Anyways I’m on a sleeping pill, if the flow of logic is bad, I’m not taking responsibility till I can correct it tomorrow 

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, rockpond said:

He theorizes that individuals who leave the church are those that "cannot bear the idea of a world where God is not literally speaking through a prophet".

The first problem with this is that many faithful church members would suggest that a foundational principle of the Restored Gospel is that God does literally speak through his prophet.

He then suggests that those who leave are those who don't wish to study it out in their minds and pay the price to receive personal revelation because the don't really believe God will speak to them.

 

At some point we need to put off childish things.  That is scriptural of course.

In the first sentence above you appear to be adding yourself to the list of those who believe in prophetic infallibility

Of course God speaks to us through the prophet.  That is not the issue.  The issue is whether or not we need our own testimonies of the prophet or if we should be robots, salute and march along in unison. 

Obviously that is not the church I joined.  If that's how you all learned it as babies then perhaps it is time to grow up and actually read the scriptures that repeatedly say "ASK GOD who provides liberally".... not "rely unquestioningly on the prophet." 

To me THAT is the foundational principle!  How many talks have you heard saying that we should not rely on the testimonies of others, but get our own?  What does that mean?  Get our own testimonies of human perfection of prophets?   I think not.

 For get the primary song and become adults.  You have worlds to create, you are not in primary.  Human beings make mistakes, forgive and forget, they WE are still the best hands God has on earth working for HIM!

And yes I think in the last sentence- as you are characterizing it-  he is right as well.  Precisely right.  God helps me find keys- how about you?  Is that too trivial a thing to trouble the King of Heaven with?  He is my Father with infinite intelligence and tutors me in the gospel line by line IF I let Him!   And if that means helping me with some trivial little problem - I learn VOLUMES in those tiny tender mercies!

If they do not or cannot study it out and get an answer-   were that ME -  I would walk in 5 minutes.  Why would you stay in a church that demands personal revelation that simply does not exist to you?  That is a general statement- not addressed to anyone in particular.

I guess the cultural factors, family involvement and tradition of being "6th Generation Mormon" is just too strong for some to actually leave.  Just sit in the back row and spend your life griping about the church.   I see a lot of that here.

Weak.

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, SteveO said:

When someone becomes disillusioned by church leadership, is it not because that leadership is at odds with their expectations of what divinely inspired leadership should look like?

I would say, yes, that leadership is either at odds with their expectations or with what they feel church teachings claim.

1 hour ago, SteveO said:

I’m saying their expectations for how a prophet should be are at odds with the reality.

But I disagree with this.  My experience is that for many who leave the church, they have accepted the reality of what a prophet is and that becomes part of why they leave.

1 hour ago, SteveO said:

At the root of nearly every contention with the church is, I believe, the idea that the leadership is not divinely inspired.  Whether the examples are of moral failings, failure to discern, factually incorrect or disproven theories, or just things that conflict with personally held beliefs—the common theme is that God isn’t guiding the leadership.

Probably a reasonable (though broad) conclusion.

1 hour ago, SteveO said:

And people become disillusioned because they can’t handle it.

But I"m back to disagreeing.  Strongly disagreeing.  This ignores the reality that many leave for spiritual reasons.  It also disregards President Uchtdorf's teaching I quoted above.

1 hour ago, SteveO said:

Now you’re saying they’re going off and doing their own thing—well yeah, because now they no longer believe God speaks through anyone on behalf of anyone.

That an insane conclusion to make and a horrible over-generalization.  How do you know that those who leave don't believe that God still speaks to them.  Or others.

1 hour ago, SteveO said:

There’s no longer any need to know what the mind of God is—God is whatever they want him to be.

And how do you know this about those who have left the church?

1 hour ago, SteveO said:

It’s safe.  I think if God isn’t offering uncomfortable suggestions from time to time—you’re doing it wrong.

And for each of these individuals, you know that it is about their level of comfort and not about personal revelation they have received?

1 hour ago, SteveO said:

As for literally speaking through a prophet, I stand by my statement.  The Lord reveals his will and mind through a prophet—but even a prophet has to be able to communicate that perfection in an imperfect manner, imperfect language, inadequate articulation, etc, etc.  When President Nelson is speaking, he’s communicating the will of the Lord, but that doesn’t mean he does so without error.  

Anyways I’m on a sleeping pill, if the flow of logic is bad, I’m not taking responsibility till I can correct it tomorrow 

Your flow of logic was bad in your earlier post.  In this post you are just coming across as mean and overly judgmental.

Share this post


Link to post
45 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

At some point we need to put off childish things.  That is scriptural of course.

In the first sentence above you appear to be adding yourself to the list of those who believe in prophetic infallibility

Nope.

45 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

Of course God speaks to us through the prophet.  That is not the issue.  The issue is whether or not we need our own testimonies of the prophet or if we should be robots, salute and march along in unison. 

Obviously that is not the church I joined.  If that's how you all learned it as babies then perhaps it is time to grow up and actually read the scriptures that repeatedly say "ASK GOD who provides liberally".... not "rely unquestioningly on the prophet." 

To me THAT is the foundational principle!  How many talks have you heard saying that we should not rely on the testimonies of others, but get our own?  What does that mean?  Get our own testimonies of human perfection of prophets?   I think not.

 For get the primary song and become adults.  You have worlds to create, you are not in primary.  Human beings make mistakes, forgive and forget, they WE are still the best hands God has on earth working for HIM!

And yes I think in the last sentence- as you are characterizing it-  he is right as well.  Precisely right.  God helps me find keys- how about you?  Is that too trivial a thing to trouble the King of Heaven with?  He is my Father with infinite intelligence and tutors me in the gospel line by line IF I let Him!   And if that means helping me with some trivial little problem - I learn VOLUMES in those tiny tender mercies!

If they do not or cannot study it out and get an answer-   were that ME -  I would walk in 5 minutes.  Why would you stay in a church that demands personal revelation that simply does not exist to you?  That is a general statement- not addressed to anyone in particular.

I guess the cultural factors, family involvement and tradition of being "6th Generation Mormon" is just too strong for some to actually leave.  Just sit in the back row and spend your life griping about the church.   I see a lot of that here.

Weak.

 

I'm not even sure what your point is here.  People leave the church for a variety of reasons.  To suggest that they leave because they need to be "commanded in all things" and can't handle the reality of a prophet that doesn't literally speak with God is short-sighted and reflects an extreme bias.

 

Share this post


Link to post
On 6/17/2019 at 9:24 AM, Stargazer said:

Jim @theplains, I'm curious what your opinion on the literalness or figurativeness of the rib story. Not to argue or throw it back at you, just which you take it to be.

Based on the language, I believe it was literal.  Adam was formed of the dust of the earth as the
scripture says too. I also believe God created literal food for them to eat.

Thanks,
Jim

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post

"Rib" is short for Ribonucleic Acid (RNA)... :)

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
On 6/15/2019 at 8:07 PM, Robert F. Smith said:

Both the Scripture and Nelson are speaking figuratively when they say that Eve was formed from man's rib.

How was Eve figuratively taken out of Adam?   What is God's actions of causing a deep sleep to come
upon Adam and closing his flesh to form Eve figurative of?

Thanks,
Jim

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, theplains said:

How was Eve figuratively taken out of Adam?   What is God's actions of causing a deep sleep to come
upon Adam and closing his flesh to form Eve figurative of?.................

To say something is meant to be taken figuratively or metaphorically, means that one does not take it literally.

Thus, in Gen 2:23, when it says "This is now bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh: she shall be called Woman, because she was taken out of Man," it is no more meant to be taken literally than say Laban declaring in Gen 29:14 that ""You are indeed my own flesh and blood," or that Jesus meant it literally when "he brake it, and said, 'Take, eat: this is my body, which is broken for you'," etc. (Matt 26:26-28, 1 Cor 11:24-25).  When the priest says in Latin hoc est corpus meus, or in Aramaic den bisri "This is my body," that is declaring a sacrificial emblem, not the real thing.  Of course tthose who take it literally may make a huge theological error, such as believing that the host actually becomes Jesus' body, which is absurd.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
On 6/17/2019 at 5:00 AM, SteveO said:

I’ve been listening to Allen Watts a lot recently.  He has a line where he says that, (and I’m loosely quoting here) “A loving God would not allow his children’s brains to atrophy and rot by way of giving them a step by step handbook of everything to think, do, and believe”.

I’m starting to see it (more like realize it) in a few other threads where people who have left the church or have become disillusioned are really the ones who have to be “commanded in all things”.  They aren’t the “free thinkers” that they pride themselves to be.  In reality, they just cannot bear the idea of a world where God is not literally speaking through a prophet.  They can’t bear a reality where the onus is on them to go and “study it out in their minds”, and then go pay the price to receive personal revelation—because they really don’t believe God will speak to them.  Far better, far easier to have someone else tell them what to think, do, and believe.

Which is why, when leadership so often inevitably errs, they can’t deal with it.  They can’t deal with Jospeh Smith going back to review the revelations and editing them.  They can’t deal with his character flaws, or with any of the flaws of the succeeding prophets.  It’s all or nothing.  Either God is micromanaging the church up to and including how every red cent of tithing is to be used, or this is all a fraud with well intentioned people claiming to speak for God.

Not saying that’s you, but I do think you’re reaching too far to try and find an error where there is none.  When I give a lesson on the creation and fall, I’m going to give it as stated in Genesis.  I’m going to give it as stated in the books of Abraham and Moses.  I’m going to extrapolate while still referring to the creation period as “7 days”.  I’m going to speak of Satan as a “serpent”.  I’ll probably even throw in the Midrash commenting on how the serpent was cursed by being made to crawl on his belly, allowing him easy access to his prey, and thus the real curse being in the “easiness” of acquiring his food.

Now, does Brother Steve really believe in all that being “literal”?  I haven’t said, after each instance, “hey guys, you know scientists actually theorize the universe began 13.5 billion years ago and that life on Earth probably started out in the oceans as simple, single celled bacteria...hey guys, I really don’t believe Satan was a talking snake in the garden...etc, etc”.  Do I really need to say that?  Really?  Or do I understand that people are at different stages of learning.  That there may be some spiritually immature listeners in my audience who still take the biblical stories as literal, and may not be able to step outside that way of thinking just yet.  Meanwhile, Brother Bukowski and Brother Robert are sitting in the back still nodding their heads in agreement, even though they’re doing so for completely different reasons than the spiritually immature sitting in the front row, also nodding their heads.

I just don’t see President Nelson being literal on the rib thing.  He’s expanding on the metaphor.  The church for the longest time has taught that Adam was “placed here”.  It’s even alluded to in the endowment.  The prophet knows this.  So why would he take the number of human and animal ribs literal, when he knows the act of creating woman from a rib is metaphorical?  I don’t think you’re a guy who would appreciate a stop in the narrative each and every time with a “this is literal, and this is metaphorical” to precede a speaker’s commentary on scripture.  Heck, even Jesus didn’t do that at the Last Supper when his listeners were absolutely confused out of their minds when he was giving them his flesh and blood to drink.  The onus is on the listener to mature spiritually, and sometimes it’s confusing, and takes some thinking and study, sometimes takes life experience, and prayer, and on and on.  

It’s why we walk by faith during those times.  And now we can talk about faith and hope, etc, etc...see how it’s all connected?

Just re-read this.

REALLY good post!!

Share this post


Link to post
8 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

To say something is meant to be taken figuratively or metaphorically, means that one does not take it literally.

Thus, in Gen 2:23, when it says "This is now bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh: she shall be called Woman, because she was taken out of Man," it is no more meant to be taken literally than say Laban declaring in Gen 29:14 that ""You are indeed my own flesh and blood," or that Jesus meant it literally when "he brake it, and said, 'Take, eat: this is my body, which is broken for you'," etc. (Matt 26:26-28, 1 Cor 11:24-25).  When the priest says in Latin hoc est corpus meus, or in Aramaic den bisri "This is my body," that is declaring a sacrificial emblem, not the real thing.  Of course tthose who take it literally may make a huge theological error, such as believing that the host actually becomes Jesus' body, which is absurd.

At least definitely "hocus pocus" which is the derivation of the term. ;)

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
On 6/15/2019 at 4:26 PM, JAHS said:

 

So some say it happened on another planet the scriptures seem to say it happened here in the garden of Eden. Therefore it must be figurative. 

According to the prophets and correlated church curriculum, prior to the fall, the earth was very close to Kolob, and we don't know how much the earth changed while/coming to its current location after the fall.  So, perhaps both statements are correct about another planet and the garden of eden...

Share this post


Link to post
52 minutes ago, Sevenbak said:
On 6/15/2019 at 3:26 PM, JAHS said:

So some say it happened on another planet the scriptures seem to say it happened here in the garden of Eden. Therefore it must be figurative. 

According to the prophets and correlated church curriculum, prior to the fall, the earth was very close to Kolob, and we don't know how much the earth changed while/coming to its current location after the fall.  So, perhaps both statements are correct about another planet and the garden of eden...

Scriptures tell us that God made Adam's body from dust of this earth(Morm. 9: 17, D&C 77: 12, Moses 3: 7), and placed him in the Garden of Eden as an immortal being with flesh and bone. The book of Moses states that Adam's children were also created from the dust of the earth (see Moses 6:59).

God said to Adam:
"Therefore I give unto you a commandment, to teach these things freely unto your children, saying:
That by reason of transgression cometh the fall, which fall bringeth death, and inasmuch as ye were born into the world by water, and blood, and the spirit,
which I have made, and so became of dust a living soul, even so ye must be born again into the kingdom of heaven, of water, and of the Spirit,
and be cleansed by blood, even the blood of mine Only Begotten; 

The same expression used to describe the bodily creation of Adam's children was used to describe the creation of Adam's body. Adam is also spoken of as being the "son of God" (Moses 6:22). So is it possible that Adam's immortal body was formed somewhere by immortal heavenly parents in a similar fashion that Adam and Eve created their own children? Or perhaps was Adam brought here in some embryonic form, using the dust or substance of this earth to grow to maturity? 

Share this post


Link to post
On 6/22/2019 at 3:14 PM, Robert F. Smith said:

To say something is meant to be taken figuratively or metaphorically, means that one does not take it literally.

Since you don't believe Eve was formed out of Adam's rib literally or that God caused a deep sleep to come
upon Adam literally or He closed his flesh afterwards literally, then what do those actions symbolize to you?

Thanks,
Jim

Share this post


Link to post
15 minutes ago, theplains said:

Since you don't believe Eve was formed out of Adam's rib literally or that God caused a deep sleep to come upon Adam literally or He closed his flesh afterwards literally, then what do those actions symbolize to you?....................

We have a surfeit of legendary or folk etiologies in the Bible, so that is a strong possibility.  Ordinary folk often come up with less than scientific explanations or "just so" stories.  And the Bible is not a science text.  Take the notion that new babies are delivered by a stork.  We all smile knowingly.

aHR0cDovL3d3dy5saXZlc2NpZW5jZS5jb20vaW1hZ2VzL2kvMDAwLzEwMC8yMDcvb3JpZ2luYWwvc3RvcmstZGVsaXZlcnMtYmFieS1OTy1SRVVTRS5qcGc=

Share this post


Link to post

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...