inquiringmind Posted September 5, 2011 Posted September 5, 2011 The Book of Moses (like Genesis) speaks of God creating Eve from one of Adam's ribs, but I seem to remember BY saying this is not how Eve was created (or that Adam wasn't created from the dust of the earth, can't remember.)This statement was probably made in the context of the Adam/God thing, but one reasonable explanation of that (supported by at least one of BY's recorded statements) is the Adam Sr/Adam Jr interpretation.My question is whether this latter interpretation of BY's view is compatible with scripture, and whether his statements can still be reconciled with Adam Jr's tabernnacle being created from the dust of the earth (and Eve being created from one of his ribs)?Anyone?
Questing Beast Posted September 5, 2011 Posted September 5, 2011 ["It's] figurative, so far as the man and the woman are concerned." That is literally what we were once taught in the temple.The "Adam's rib" metaphor had some significance that even Joseph Smith's "Inspired Version of the Scriptures" did not pick up on. During my life, I've heard it "explained" a variety of ways: how the rib taken was over Adam's heart, thus pointing out how closely related he was to the resulting woman, etc. It is all speculation on a lost metaphor. Imho, of course....
thesometimesaint Posted September 5, 2011 Posted September 5, 2011 inquiringmind:It's not literal, but I do like as a metaphore for how close we should be to our spouse.
BCSpace Posted September 5, 2011 Posted September 5, 2011 (edited) The doctrine is indeed that the rib account is figurative:Even so, some events related in Genesis 1–3 may be figurative in nature. For example, President Spencer W. Kimball taught: “‘And I, God, created man in mine own image, in the image of mine Only Begotten created I him; male and female created I them.’ [The story of the rib, of course, is figurative.]” (The Blessings and Responsibilities of Womanhood,” Ensign, Mar. 1976, 71.)“In the Beginning”: A Latter-day Perspective", Ensign, Jan. 1998My question is whether this latter interpretation of BY's view is compatible with scripture, and whether his statements can still be reconciled with Adam Jr's tabernnacle being created from the dust of the earth (and Eve being created from one of his ribs)?Relative to the Church, the rib account in scripture is interpreted (official doctrine) as figurative as noted above. I personally see the "dust of the earth" (which as we know now, was created in the nuclear furnaces of stars) as a figure representing Big Bang/Evolution. Edited September 5, 2011 by BCSpace
orion88 Posted September 5, 2011 Posted September 5, 2011 Would you comment on on Genesis 2:21-23."And the Lord God caused a deep sleep to fall upon Adam, and he slept: and he took one of his ribs, and closed up the flesh instead thereof. And the rib, which the Lord God had taken from man, made he a woman, and brought her unto the man. And Adam said, This is now bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh: she shall be called Woman, because she was taken out of Man."Why did the Lord cause a deep sleep to fall upon Adam and thenclose up his flesh if He didn't take out a literal rib?
Cobalt-70 Posted September 5, 2011 Posted September 5, 2011 The Book of Moses (like Genesis) speaks of God creating Eve from one of Adam's ribs, but I seem to remember BY saying this is not how Eve was created (or that Adam wasn't created from the dust of the earth, can't remember.)This statement was probably made in the context of the Adam/God thing, but one reasonable explanation of that (supported by at least one of BY's recorded statements) is the Adam Sr/Adam Jr interpretation.My question is whether this latter interpretation of BY's view is compatible with scripture, and whether his statements can still be reconciled with Adam Jr's tabernnacle being created from the dust of the earth (and Eve being created from one of his ribs)?Brigham Young's statement that the rib story was figurative used to be in the temple ceremony, prior to 1990. But the statement was removed, possibly because the reason why Young thought the story was figurative is because Young believed in the Adam-God doctrine. Thus, removing the "rib story is figurative" statement represented the last remnant of the Adam-God doctrine in the temple ceremony.The fact is, though, it is figurative, but not because the Adam-God doctrine has any validity. It is figurative because the entire story of the creation of Adam and Eve is figurative.
inquiringmind Posted September 5, 2011 Author Posted September 5, 2011 (edited) Brigham Young's statement that the rib story was figurative used to be in the temple ceremony, prior to 1990. But the statement was removed, possibly because the reason why Young thought the story was figurative is because Young believed in the Adam-God doctrine. Thus, removing the "rib story is figurative" statement represented the last remnant of the Adam-God doctrine in the temple ceremony.The fact is, though, it is figurative, but not because the Adam-God doctrine has any validity. It is figurative because the entire story of the creation of Adam and Eve is figurative.What if the Adam Sr/Adam Jr theory is correct?Adam Sr (God) comes to earth with one of His celestial wives, they eat the fruits of the earth until their able to procreate physical children, and then return to a higher realm.Could they have had only two children?Was there really a first couple--an Adam and Eve-- who gave birth to the whole human family?And getting back to the rib thing.Could Eve have been cloned from Adam (with a little genetic engineering to change the gender)? Edited September 5, 2011 by inquiringmind
K-2 Posted September 5, 2011 Posted September 5, 2011 I believe that the rib made Eve as much as I can make a baby out of that dais (pointing to one).--Brigham Young (in a council meeting in SLC November 25, 1855) The Complete Discourses of Brigham Young 2:1024.
Cobalt-70 Posted September 5, 2011 Posted September 5, 2011 What if the Adam Sr/Adam Jr theory is correct?Adam Sr (God) comes to earth with one of His celestial wives, they eat the fruits of the earth until their able to procreate physical children, and then return to a higher realm.Could they have had only two children?Was there really a first couple--an Adam and Eve-- who gave birth to the whole human family?And getting back to the rib thing.Could Eve have been cloned from Adam (with a little genetic engineering to change the gender)?I don't think there is a constituency for the Adam, Sr./Adam, Jr. idea. Mainstream Mormons have rejected the Adam-God doctrine in all its forms, while Mormon fundamentalists believe the doctrine as taught by Brigham Young, in which there was only one Adam, who was the father of both the bodies and spirits of humanity, and the Heavenly Father to whom we pray. Adam's biological and spiritual father, according to current fundamentalist thinking, was either Jehovah or Elohim (neither of whom is Jesus).As to Eve being a clone, I don't see the point. The fossil record is clear that Eve was not the first female human living on the earth. Why clone a woman when there were approximately 3-4 million ready-made women to choose from in 4000 BC (assuming that is when the story is set)?
Franktalk Posted September 5, 2011 Posted September 5, 2011 To me God made the body of Adam from dust. But there was no spirit in the body. God placed a spirit in the body. God knew that He wanted men and women to marry and in doing so would become one flesh. So God did indeed take a rib of Adam and made the body of Eve. Then like Adam He placed a spirit in the body. Through the act of marriage we spiritually become one if we allow it to happen. We become one in flesh through the acts we perform. Like sacrificing our life for our loved ones. When we love another as we love our self we become one with them. I see no problem with what I just said and what BY said.Since God made man in His image then man's image was preset by the image of God. It did not evolve and then God changed His image to accommodate the evolved image of man. Those who believe that God allowed Adam to evolve from dust need to explain to me how Adam ended up looking like God. Now could God guide evolutionary processes, sure. But then it is not evolution.Adam is not his body and Eve is not her body. Once you go down the path of saying the body is the person then all kinds of problems occur in scripture. BY had it right. Adam is not the dust. And Eve is not the rib. But the body did manifest from dust and from a rib. Just like it says.
Hughes Posted September 5, 2011 Posted September 5, 2011 Would you comment on on Genesis 2:21-23."And the Lord God caused a deep sleep to fall upon Adam, and he slept: and he took one of his ribs, and closed up the flesh instead thereof. And the rib, which the Lord God had taken from man, made he a woman, and brought her unto the man. And Adam said, This is now bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh: she shall be called Woman, because she was taken out of Man."Why did the Lord cause a deep sleep to fall upon Adam and thenclose up his flesh if He didn't take out a literal rib?There are other questions too. Why did Jesus reference creation, as not being figurative? Why did Adam say bone of my bone? And why limit God, he could have made woman out of anything or nothing, as he made Adam out of the dust?However, the answer is, the LDS aren't "Scriptorians" as near as I can tell, meaning they don't rest their doctrines on scripture, but "revelation".
blackstrap Posted September 5, 2011 Posted September 5, 2011 If one were to remove all the water from a man,there would be left a pile of various minerals,chemically differing from dirt but physically not a lot different looking than some dust.I too am curious as to why the close connection to a medical procedure in the creation of Eve.
Minos Posted September 5, 2011 Posted September 5, 2011 Discussion of temple content will result in closure.
Maidservant Posted September 5, 2011 Posted September 5, 2011 All human beings (bodies) are born from other human beings (bodies). This is observable.To say differently is to subscribe to origin cosmologies as provided either by religion or science (as we currently label these grand categories of beliefs). We are free to say differently, and there is plenty of persuasive information existing for several different ideas, although the need to find a different explanation other than the current observation mystifies me personally.To say differently is to need a beginning where no beginning is needed.However, like you, I am still curious as to the symbolic meaning of that story. Not sure if I've ever understood it yet. 1
ERayR Posted September 5, 2011 Posted September 5, 2011 The doctrine is indeed that the rib account is figurative:I personally see the "dust of the earth" (which as we know now, was created in the nuclear furnaces of stars) as a figure representing Big Bang/Evolution.And I personally see that as a pretty big stretch.
shalamabobbi Posted September 5, 2011 Posted September 5, 2011 (edited) However, the answer is, the LDS aren't "Scriptorians" as near as I can tell, meaning they don't rest their doctrines on scripture, but "revelation".Many years ago when the world still had culture there were people known to the world as artists. They created wonderful compositions in a wonderful array of colors and values.There are members of society now that guard and keep these ancient relics of the wonderful past. They are known as curators. They are very particular about how to restore damaged areas of their ancient and deteriorating library. But wonder of wonders a movement is afoot! New artists again are seen creating wonderful works of art! See them busily mixing paint from pigments of varied color and value."Heresy" scream the curators! Art comes from these ancient's pieces only! These new artists aren't "curators" as near as we can tell, meaning they don't rest their art upon this past collection, but upon their own creativity! Their colors are not derived from the list we've compiled from this vast collection, but from pigments!! Edited September 5, 2011 by shalamabobbi 4
ERayR Posted September 5, 2011 Posted September 5, 2011 What if the Adam Sr/Adam Jr theory is correct?Adam Sr (God) comes to earth with one of His celestial wives, they eat the fruits of the earth until their able to procreate physical children, and then return to a higher realm.Could they have had only two children?Was there really a first couple--an Adam and Eve-- who gave birth to the whole human family?And getting back to the rib thing.Could Eve have been cloned from Adam (with a little genetic engineering to change the gender)?It could lead to some interesting speculations.It is not unreasonable, but to some it is sacrilegious.There is more than two children recorded, Cain, Abel, and Seth, but it is probable that the had a numerous posterity.I think so.Cloning is a posibility but I think God can do better.
ERayR Posted September 5, 2011 Posted September 5, 2011 I don't think there is a constituency for the Adam, Sr./Adam, Jr. idea. Mainstream Mormons have rejected the Adam-God doctrine in all its forms, while Mormon fundamentalists believe the doctrine as taught by Brigham Young, in which there was only one Adam, who was the father of both the bodies and spirits of humanity, and the Heavenly Father to whom we pray. Adam's biological and spiritual father, according to current fundamentalist thinking, was either Jehovah or Elohim (neither of whom is Jesus).As to Eve being a clone, I don't see the point. The fossil record is clear that Eve was not the first female human living on the earth. Why clone a woman when there were approximately 3-4 million ready-made women to choose from in 4000 BC (assuming that is when the story is set)?I think you are probably overstating your case here.
ERayR Posted September 5, 2011 Posted September 5, 2011 To me God made the body of Adam from dust. But there was no spirit in the body. God placed a spirit in the body. God knew that He wanted men and women to marry and in doing so would become one flesh. So God did indeed take a rib of Adam and made the body of Eve. Then like Adam He placed a spirit in the body. Through the act of marriage we spiritually become one if we allow it to happen. We become one in flesh through the acts we perform. Like sacrificing our life for our loved ones. When we love another as we love our self we become one with them. I see no problem with what I just said and what BY said.Since God made man in His image then man's image was preset by the image of God. It did not evolve and then God changed His image to accommodate the evolved image of man. Those who believe that God allowed Adam to evolve from dust need to explain to me how Adam ended up looking like God. Now could God guide evolutionary processes, sure. But then it is not evolution.Adam is not his body and Eve is not her body. Once you go down the path of saying the body is the person then all kinds of problems occur in scripture. BY had it right. Adam is not the dust. And Eve is not the rib. But the body did manifest from dust and from a rib. Just like it says.We are all made of the dust of the earth. The components that make up our bodies comes from the dust of the earth via the food we eat.
ERayR Posted September 6, 2011 Posted September 6, 2011 Many years ago when the world still had culture there were people known to the world as artists. They created wonderful compositions in a wonderful array of colors and values.There are members of society now that guard and keep these ancient relics of the wonderful past. They are known as curators. They are very particular about how to restore damaged areas of their ancient and deteriorating library. But wonder of wonders a movement is afoot! New artists again are seen creating wonderful works of art! See them busily mixing paint from pigments of varied color and value."Heresy" scream the curators! Art comes from these ancient's pieces only! These new artists aren't "curators" as near as we can tell, meaning they don't rest their art upon this past collection, but upon their own creativity! Their colors are not derived from the list we've compiled from this vast collection, but from pigments!!Hear, Hear.
altersteve Posted September 6, 2011 Posted September 6, 2011 Now could God guide evolutionary processes, sure. But then it is not evolution.Yes it is. What is your reasoning that led to this conclusion?
inquiringmind Posted September 6, 2011 Author Posted September 6, 2011 (edited) There is more than two children recorded, Cain, Abel, and Seth, but it is probable that the had a numerous posterity.Given the Adam Sr/Adam Jr theory, Cain, Able, Seth, and their unamed brothers aqnd sisters would be Adam Jr (Adam's) children. To me God made the body of Adam from dust. But there was no spirit in the body. God placed a spirit in the body. God knew that He wanted men and women to marry and in doing so would become one flesh. So God did indeed take a rib of Adam and made the body of Eve. Then like Adam He placed a spirit in the body. Through the act of marriage we spiritually become one if we allow it to happen. We become one in flesh through the acts we perform. Like sacrificing our life for our loved ones. When we love another as we love our self we become one with them. I see no problem with what I just said and what BY said.Since God made man in His image then man's image was preset by the image of God. It did not evolve and then God changed His image to accommodate the evolved image of man. Those who believe that God allowed Adam to evolve from dust need to explain to me how Adam ended up looking like God. Now could God guide evolutionary processes, sure. But then it is not evolution.Adam is not his body and Eve is not her body. Once you go down the path of saying the body is the person then all kinds of problems occur in scripture. BY had it right. Adam is not the dust. And Eve is not the rib. But the body did manifest from dust and from a rib. Just like it says.Thank you. Edited September 6, 2011 by inquiringmind
ERayR Posted September 6, 2011 Posted September 6, 2011 Given the Adam Sr/Adam Jr theory, Cain, Able, Seth, and their unamed brothers aqnd sisters would be Adam Jr (Adam's) progeny.I don't know that I am understanding what you mean here.
inquiringmind Posted September 6, 2011 Author Posted September 6, 2011 (edited) I don't know that I am understanding what you mean here.BY once said that the name "Adam" was much older than this earth, and is one of the names of God.Given that theory, Adam Sr would be God, and Adam Jr would be the first man to live in the flesh here on earth (who we call Adam.)Cain, Able, Seth, etc. would be Adam Jr's children.. Edited September 6, 2011 by inquiringmind
altersteve Posted September 6, 2011 Posted September 6, 2011 BY once said that the name "Adam" was much older than this earth, and is one of the names of God.Given that theory, Adam Sr would be God, and Adam Jr would be the first man to live in the flesh here on earth (who we call Adam.)Cain, Able, Seth, etc. would be Adam Jr's children..Brigham Young said that Adam is both God and the first man to live on earth. God (Adam) is the Being we pray to, and His Father is Elohim, the God of gods. After creating this earth under the direction of Elohim, God (Adam) came to the earth with one of His wives (Eve) to populate it.It's an interesting idea, but the Church has repudiated this doctrine.
Recommended Posts