How literally do you take the creation story?

[BCSpace]

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)

No death to death. That literal. The fruit to me could be literal as in it actually caused the condition or literal in that by disobeying eating it caused the condition to be enacted by God. Or the fruit could be metaphorical for any number of actions that caused the condition.

[urroner]

Evolution as it applies to mans origins is mere conjecture. Next item.

With a mere flick of his wrist and a look of disdain on his face, Rob dismisses all arguments that disagrees with his as mere poppycock, hooey, balderdash, and utter tomfoolery from the dregs of the Earth, the derelicts, the ne'er-do-wells, and the loathsome.

Sadly, the breath of my mouth is solely the breath of a minor, whiny, undesirable bloviator. My best just wasn't good enough.

Oh, BTW Rob, your beliefs, as they apply to man's origins is mere conjecture also.

[Maidservant]

What is wrong with monkey love any way?

The falling angel and the rising ape . I love this saying.

Your mother was wrong. Not everything in the Temple is symbolic. Some of it is exactly what it appears to be.

It's possible . However, I haven't seen it yet. Nothing in the temple thus far has ever been what it appeared to be. And believe me I have tried to "rest" on a few basics even that I thought I was church-ly taught in my youth, but God, funny guy, is always going, "Wups. Not that one. That's symbolic too." (He grins sheepishly.)

However, I would not quibble with you about "everything" or "most everything". Having said I wouldn't quibble, I still would like to address the remainder of your comments.

According to the Temple Ceremony and the Prophets.

For example, the covenants we make in the Temple are not "symbolic". They are real, actual covenants that are supposed to mean something. The parts of the ceremony that "rehearse" those things which will take place at a future date are not "symbolic". That is supposed to be the actual process by which certain things are done.

Those "key words, signs and tokens" aren't "symbolic" those are the actual "key words, signs and tokens" that will be needed to pass by the angels.

So anyone who has internet access and knows how to use google can get past the heavenly guards. Good to know.

Seriously. I honestly didn't think that anyone believed those signs and symbols were literal, physical 'keys' to Exaltation. It still kind of blows my mind that some do. From the beginning, it was clear to me that they were heavily and profoundly symbolic.

I actually hope you're right. But it's still not what the Church teaches.

Then, we have an actual "key". This key can be inserted into a lock, and it operates to secure or release the locking mechanism. This "key" isn't symbolic. It actually functions as it is supposed to; it does what it says it will do. There is nothing more to understand about the context or meaning of this key.

The Church seems to teach that the Temple Ceremonies are like the second type of key. While there is symbolism in the ceremony, there are specific words and actions which are literally needed to "unlock" the hereafter. And that the story of Adam and Eve, while presented as a drama, is a reflection of actual people and events that actually took place thousands of years ago here on Earth.

I can't find any statements on the Church website that would suggest everything in the Temple is symbolic, with no literal or practically necessary elements. It's certainly a nice idea that everything in the Temple is a "symbol" for something more interesting and sensical, but I don't see that as being supported by anyone who would actually know such a thing (i.e. Prophets and Apostles).

I can only disagree with you or at least see it differently at this point of my temple-going career (and I realize you have one of those too). And agree with the insightful way nackhadlow stated it.

I have come to understand that our endowment is to be found IN LIFE, and it is in the temple we receive the keys to unlock our endowment FROM LIFE. To "pass by the angels" IS a symbolic phrase. This is again where I complain about the label of "literal" or "non-literal". It's so inadequate. Symbolism does not mean, "half true" "not really true" "doesn't mean what it says" "not operative" "not effective" "not reality". Symbolism involves a CONDENSATION OF REALITY. REALITY REALITY REALITY. It's a tesseract of reality. We have to really live our covenants, as you say. We actually have to really (not "symbolically", as you say) apply or employ IN THIS LIFE (not future per se) the keys we've been given in order to continue to enter further conditions of sanctification in this life and continuing into the next (so to speak; to me it's all one life). We have to ACTUALLY "pass by the angels", and as nackhadlow said, it must be done in a way that Satan cannot access. And one thing that Satan can never access is to REALLY MAKE THIS PASSAGE, he cannot REALLY LIVE, and if you will think of the parable of the ten virgins, it applies. And to me this is "what the church teaches" (as if there was such a thing, all of us on this forum should know there hardly is) since this is what I have come to learn from constantly partaking of the offerings of teaching, ritual and practice the church offers. Obviously, I don't need to convince you, I just hope you can see how it's possible to view it in other or expanded ways, without leaving the foundational scaffolding or structure of the temple and scriptural rubric (and that's what it is, a rubric . . . not all filled in at first glance).

Interestingly enough, one thing I agree with you in this general subject, but for probably very different reasons, is that I am not a fan of the "there were early hominid creatures" and later "children of God spirits entered them". I find this kind of idea extremely violative and ungodly. If there existed creatures, they ought to be able to live as they are without having HOSTS possess their specie and bodies. I don't see how that makes sense at all. But that's just me.

[cinepro]

I don't have a problem with a literal Adam and Eve. I don't have a problem with a figurative Adam and Eve. I don't even have a problem with a mix of the two. I do have a problem with people telling me that since I don't believe the way they do, that I am wrong. I have a problem with people demanding me to accept what they believe as the gospel truth when are going completely on their beliefs and feelings.

I feel the same way, and look how far it got me.

[Rob Osborn]

With a mere flick of his wrist and a look of disdain on his face, Rob dismisses all arguments that disagrees with his as mere poppycock, hooey, balderdash, and utter tomfoolery from the dregs of the Earth, the derelicts, the ne'er-do-wells, and the loathsome.

Sadly, the breath of my mouth is solely the breath of a minor, whiny, undesirable bloviator. My best just wasn't good enough.

Oh, BTW Rob, your beliefs, as they apply to man's origins is mere conjecture also.

I am fine with my beliefs being conjecture. I certainly can't prove that Adam and Eve were the first humans and from them sprang all of us. But, at the same time, neither can evolutionists prove we descended from this or that race of ancestors some 100+ million years ago.

What bothers me is how they run around claiming all these facts about human evolution when in "fact" their evidence is mere conjecture. You should know this.

[Rob Osborn]

And?????? Sedimentary?

Oh, you mean like the sandstone formations in Utah and Arizona. Oh, so this is the evidence that you are talking about?

That is solid evidence that that part of the land was underwater at one time, but that doesn't mean there was a global flood.

Is this the mountain of evidence that you are talking about?

I am speaking of the major mountain chains of the world like the Rocky Mountains, the Andes, etc.

[Rob Osborn]

Maybe we've reached the point in the thread where we should ask whether the literal story of Adam and Eve is the Official Doctrine of the Church?

Adam and Eve are extremely prominent figures in the Plan of Salvation, so the "literal" or "figurative" nature of the scriptural account of their lives would be very, very important to understand.

Let's break this down a bit because it strikes an interesting chord with me.

Is there doctrinal evidence that Adam and Eve were real literal beings? Was Adam indeed the first man of all men?

45 And so it is written, The first man Adam was made a living soul; the last Adam was made a quickening spirit.

(New Testament | 1 Corinthians 15:45)

16 And from Enoch to Abel, who was slain by the conspiracy of his brother, who received the priesthood by the commandments of God, by the hand of his father Adam, who was the first man

[Maidservant]

However, even after quoting all those scriptures, which I am not going to say what they MUST mean . . . nevertheless, as LDS we maintain that there is ONE GOD (which there is) by saying basically that the word "one" does not mean head count. So obviously we have an expanded, richly symbolic version of the definition of "one" which every one knows from the time they could count on their fingers that one means one . . . but does it?

Anyway, as LDS, we have no problem with this expanded understanding.

Adam as the first man may be understood in the same way. It's possible. What is the symbolism of calling "adam" the first man (as, say, oppposed to "the first man"? Especially after we know all the other symbolisms that we have to weave together to continue to understand the efficacy of the Genesis story/temple story. When we accept the possibility of what "first" could mean, even a passage such as the following sounds new and rich to the "ear". "For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive." (1 Cor. 15:22). Leaving the word/concept of "first" or of "Adam" outside of the symbols begging for symbolic interpretation may not be the way to go.

Not trying to convince you. I respect how anyone and everyone chooses to view these matters. We have to learn what we can for ourselves, so that is fine. But I just hope I make sense as to the possibilities of the information available in such a small word: "first". All things new arrive on the breaking and passing away of the old. It's not a pretty transition. It's messy and traumatic sometimes. The egg must be broken for the chick to hatch. The butterfly leaves the chrysalis only after a complete dissolution of identity. Resurrection follows crucificion. I think sometimes our knowledge and what we take from the elements of the teachings we are given, both preceptually and experientially, follow this pattern.

[Rob Osborn]

LDS doctrine teaches that Adam was the first man and that there were none before him. This literally means that there were not men upon the earth before Adam arrived on the scene. To say there were, and even to say they were dying for millions of years is contrary to what the church doctrine actually teaches. This is a sealed deal here. You may disagree with LDS doctrine and state it is false but nevertheless, the church does officially teach that Adam was the very first human upon the earth- the first one created and the and that no one died before he came about..

[Nathair/|\]

LDS doctrine teaches that Adam was the first man and that there were none before him. This literally means that there were not men upon the earth before Adam arrived on the scene. To say there were, and even to say they were dying for millions of years is contrary to what the church doctrine actually teaches. This is a sealed deal here. You may disagree with LDS doctrine and state it is false but nevertheless, the church does officially teach that Adam was the very first human upon the earth- the first one created and the and that no one died before he came about..

What does it mean to be "a man?"

Yours under the Socratic oaks,

Nathair /|\

(It is said that the Greeks got all their good ideas from the Druids.)

[urroner]

I am speaking of the major mountain chains of the world like the Rocky Mountains, the Andes, etc.

How do these mountain chains point to a global flood?

[semlogo]

I am fine with my beliefs being conjecture. I certainly can't prove that Adam and Eve were the first humans and from them sprang all of us. But, at the same time, neither can evolutionists prove we descended from this or that race of ancestors some 100+ million years ago.

What bothers me is how they run around claiming all these facts about human evolution when in "fact" their evidence is mere conjecture. You should know this.

Yes, they can. You'd know that if you cracked open a biology book.

[Brenda]

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.

I completely agree. Bravo.

It is amazing but most of our "prophets and seers" have been doing it continuously (judging from what they wrote on the topics of evolution, flood, Adam etc.).

Rob is no worse than Bruce R. McConkie, Joseph Fielding Smith or a host of other greater or lesser lights.

I'll stay with BRM and JFS.

The scriptures are the true standard. If science does not agree with the scriptures, then the flaw is in science. IMO one of the not-so-subtle messages of the temple endowment is that IT HAPPENED, hence the need for a Savior. I accept this on faith.

[semlogo]

The scriptures are the true standard. If science does not agree with the scriptures, then the flaw is in science.

There isn't a facepalm big enough.

[Ralph Man]

Whether or not we are animals is a categorical issue, not one of common descent. Phylogeny informs and ultimately determines taxonomy in modern biology, but it's unclear why humans wouldn't be animals in another system. We should be classified as animals even if we are the product of special creation due to extreme anatomical and physiological similarities. Even Lineaus classified us as animals. He believed in special creation at the genera level.

Setting aside the fact that animal behavior is incredibly diverse and varies from species t species, it simply does not follow from the fact that we are animals that we must behave like other animals. That's an is/ought fallacy if there ever was one.

[David T]

Two great articles from Dialogue: A Journal of Mormon Thought

EDIT: (links fixed)

Crawling Out of the Primordial Soup: A Step toward the Emergence of an LDS Theology Compatible with Organic Evolution

Creationism and Intelligent Design: Scientific and Theological Difficulties

[Rob Osborn]

How do these mountain chains point to a global flood?

It's called the sedimentary layers that we see exposed because of the upthrust.

[Rob Osborn]

Yes, they can. You'd know that if you cracked open a biology book.

I am pretty sure there is a big difference between "fact" and "belief". Scientists may "believe" that we descended from this or that fossil but that is all it is- a belief not a fact. Why do you have such a problem with this? Why do you insist we evolved from a lower order of species? Are you an atheist?

[Rob Osborn]

What does it mean to be "a man?"

Yours under the Socratic oaks,

Nathair /|\

(It is said that the Greeks got all their good ideas from the Druids.)

I am pretty sure that the last time I looked in the mirror I was a "man". It is as simple as that.

[SilverKnight]

I am pretty sure that the last time I looked in the mirror I was a "man". It is as simple as that.

Yes your large brain size, binocular vision, opposeable thumbs, omnivore dentition and bilateral symmetry clearly make you special and unique among God's creations.

[Rob Osborn]

Whether or not we are animals is a categorical issue, not one of common descent. Phylogeny informs and ultimately determines taxonomy in modern biology, but it's unclear why humans wouldn't be animals in another system. We should be classified as animals even if we are the product of special creation due to extreme anatomical and physiological similarities. Even Lineaus classified us as animals. He believed in special creation at the genera level.

Setting aside the fact that animal behavior is incredibly diverse and varies from species t species, it simply does not follow from the fact that we are animals that we must behave like other animals. That's an is/ought fallacy if there ever was one.

There is an issue here though and it all ties in with Darwinian evolution. If we are just evolved animals from a lower order of species than it would be easier for society, lawmakers, lawyers, etc. to justify our sinful acts as just the products of our evolved beings and environment. For instance- if a rapist claims that it is part of his evolved genetics and that he was just following his animal instincts he could thus justify himself. Lawyers and judges might also be persuaded to believe this standing also. It's a problm when we relegate ourselves down to the animal level- we aren't animals. There is a big difference here because eternally we as the sons of God are culpable for our every action whereas animals are not eternally culpable. If we cannot eternally hold a monkey accountable for murdering his brother, why would there be any difference with a human who did the same if we are all just "animals" anyway? I mean- what difference is there in the courts eyes if I can prove that I am just like a monkey and following some kind of eveolved genetic instinct to preserve my species?

There are thus major ramifications if we fall into the realm of allowing our explanation for origin as some evolved process over which we have no control over. It is like basically saying we cannot be held accountable for our actions because nature "made us this way". Major problems!

[Rob Osborn]

Yes your large brain size, binocular vision, opposeable thumbs, omnivore dentition and bilateral symmetry clearly make you special and unique among God's creations.

Generally you get that when you are the very seed of God himself and not some ancient monkey.

[semlogo]

I am pretty sure there is a big difference between "fact" and "belief". Scientists may "believe" that we descended from this or that fossil but that is all it is- a belief not a fact. Why do you have such a problem with this? Why do you insist we evolved from a lower order of species? Are you an atheist?

Yes, there is a difference between fact and belief. Scientists don't take evolution on faith - but rather on physical, factual evidence. Belief doesn't enter into it.

[thesometimesaint]

Rob Osborn:

Evolution does not claim that we are descendant from monkeys. Nice straw man though.

[thesometimesaint]

Brenda:

Please tell us all that Pi is equal to exactly 3 because it says so in the Scriptures.