Adam'S Rib

[BCSpace]

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.

It has, but by extension it also repudiates the Adam Sr. Adam Jr. theory which is most likely what BY was actually referring to.

[Franktalk]

Yes it is. What is your reasoning that led to this conclusion?

Come now. Evolution as defined is a result of natural mechanisms in the species and environmental pressure. Once a third party is involved in the process it ceases to be the definition of evolution. At least from a scientific view point.

[altersteve]

Come now. Evolution as defined is a result of natural mechanisms in the species and environmental pressure. Once a third party is involved in the process it ceases to be the definition of evolution. At least from a scientific view point.

So if God does something, then it's not "natural"? God did not create nature; rather, He uses it to accomplish His work, just as He did not create intelligence but still uses it to accomplish His work also. Everything God does is bound by laws of nature and is therefore natural. It is simply the type of nature itself that is beyond our understanding. And you are incorrect, anyway. Evolution is any change that takes place over a long period of time. It doesn't matter how this change takes place or what the change is.

God guiding biological evolutionary processes does not mean that it is not evolution. He guides our spiritual evolutionary processes too (if we let Him), but that's still evolution as well. Another example is the Founding Fathers being raised up and inspired by God to establish the federal government of the United States. The fact that God was directly involved in that process doesn't change or go against the definition of "establishing a government."

See my point?

Edited September 7, 2011 by altersteve

[David T]

Perhaps the species leading to mankind were divinely 'selectively bred', or 'guided', like domesticated animals or plants, guided by the Great Shepherd/Gardener?

Or something like this...

Edited September 7, 2011 by nackhadlow

[Cobalt-70]

I think you are probably overstating your case here [that mainstream Mormons have rejected the Adam-God doctrine in all its forms].

I guess it depends on what you call "mainstream." When I went to BYU, one of my religion professors, whom I shall not name, and who has since retired, taught a variation of the doctrine (one in which apparently Elohim, rather than Michael, was the god we prayed to and the father of Jesus) and gave us assigned reading material on the subject. I can't tell if he advocated that view or if he was just presenting what he thought were theological options. It sounded like he believed it. This professor was notorious, though, for pushing the envelope on the conservative end of Mormonism.

[KevinG]

I don't know much about making wimmenz from ribs but I do know that round here we make mountains outta molehills all the time.

[JeremyOrbe-Smith]

The Creation account in Genesis (and the Tabernacle symbolism in the wilderness, for that matter) is heavily influenced by Temple ritual. The seven "days" correspond to movement within the Tabernacle and Temple culminating in a period of rest, etc., are all symbolic in an effort to describe not a literal step-by-step orderly instruction manual for how to create worlds, but rather a record of the intentionality of the creation of the human family living on this one in a simplified Sacred Drama which can pass the main points on to each generation.

There are numerous parallels throughout the Temples and Tabernacles of the ancient world - Hugh Nibley's "The Message of the Joseph Smith Papyri: An Egyptian Endowment" goes deeply into the Egyptian version, which is relatively well-preserved; Jon Lundquist's "Fundamentals of Temple Ideology From Eastern Traditions" ( http://maxwellinstit...100&chapid=1128 ) goes in the opposite direction on the map.

But intentionality is a tricky thing to spot. We don't know how many dominoes can fall in between the intention and the actions which carried out that plan. For this reason, I think adhering to too-literal a reading of Genesis largely misses the point.

All that matters about the Adam and Eve account is that we are related to one another in one family. All the branching nations of the world (and the worlds without number which God has organized) grow from a common root sprouting from the tree of life, and we therefore have responsibilities we should try to live up to. As Mormon 3:20 states: "And for this cause I write unto you, that ye may know that ye must all stand before the judgment-seat of Christ, yea, every soul who belongs to the whole human family of Adam."

Yet the Creation account is also clearly archetypal, using specific people to represent larger populations. (This is perfectly common in middle-eastern thinking - for instance, the "Whore of Babylon" is not a literal, specific woman, it's an archetype applied to populations who sin, couched in the cultural terms of the time. By using a metaphor to describe the real actions of groups of people, the story becomes symbolic and yet literal simultaneously. It is a non-fictional fiction, containing deep truths in the midst of a deliberate falsehood.)

In exactly this vein, the Book of Moses points out that "the first man of all men have I called Adam, which is many," and "Adam ["many"] called his [i.e.,"many's"] wife’s name Eve, because she was the mother of all living; for thus have I, the Lord God, called the first of all women, which are many." [Emphasis added]

To belabor the point, the names mean the same thing - "many". As in the Temple, we are all Adams and Eves, who are following in our parents' pathways. It is all types and symbols and patterns and culture. We don't have to find mitochondria in Eve's rib to clone her from and force-fit scientific findings to explain what is a simplified, archetypal, symbolic story.

So all the accounts of Adam's life - in, for instance, the D&C - are, in my view, speaking of a real man. He was the father of a particular branch of the family; the "Father of all living," the "Ancient of Days." If I'm writing a tribal history and the records I'm compiling it from only go back to my great-great-grandparents, then it's true to say they are the first parents, the origin of all the tribes who are descended from them.

Connecting it with the oral tradition, it's true to say that their species is made of the dust of the earth (after a long process of evolution, since it is never said how long the "forming" took place and one day to god is like a thousand years to us, with "thousand" being just a way to say "a really big number"?), and that their spirits have been "breathed" into them (a simplified poetic term describing what is obviously a more complicated process which has been streamlined into an archetypal story.) But none of these stories is complete.

Interestingly enough (to spring off nackhadlow's comment) there is evidence that we as a species are, in a sense, "self-domesticated". That is, though our brain structures are all homologous to earlier animal structures (though to be clear, I'm not saying we are not animals ourselves), sexual selection is not a strong argument for why we have language ability. If God is, as we believe, an exalted man who is part of our family and who did not have power to create Himself, and who brings us culture - stories - then He fits in quite nicely.

Early primates, for instance, lost the capacity for internal vitamin C synthesis because they had shifted the acquisition process to the surrounding environment. Most animals can just produce it internally, but because the primates, 35 million years ago or so, found external sources such as veggies and fruits to be abundant, natural selection concentrated on traits that would give them an advantage in acquiring it rather than creating it. This initial impetus leads to many related attributes: for instance, this is why we see in color - it's an adaptation designed for vitamin C acquisition.

What's fascinating is that, like dog-breeders selecting for certain attributes by harnessing the preexisting process of natural selection, humans have self-selected traits that are crucial for language acquisition. At a certain point in time, we became isolated due to environmental factors (A peaceful Garden, perhaps?), and by degrading the innate instinctual structure of animal-calls, we've shifted control of sound and offloaded it to a socially-transmitted process, leading to modification of our brain structures not in response to directly eco-systemic features, but rather to social and cultural influences.

Now, in order to live successfully in a community, we - like the primates who shifted vitamin-C acquisition from an internal to external process, or the beavers who are now aquatically adapted because they've changed themselves to function in an environment they create - have become addicted to the community. We need each other in a way few animals do.

And this language acquisition was only possible in a process of self-domestication. Sometime in our prehistory, we were influenced to adapt to a cultural niche we created. For an utterly brilliant lecture on this subject which should be very instructive for Mormons, I recommend the biological anthropologist and neuroscientist Terrence Deacon:

Now, in a traditional post-Apostasy view of God, there might seem like little left for God to do. But think about it: it wasn't until blindingly recently, historically speaking, that the absolutist Monotheism, the bodiless conception of deity became prevalent. That view of God was obviously a product of the Hellenizing influence on older cultures which had seen their Gods as distinctly embodied. Real people were the Gods.

Most religions in the world have been overtaken by that disembodied understanding. We are told over and over again by ostensibly "Eastern" and "Western" philosophies (which are more similar than they'd care to admit) that a real God will "transcend" mere matter, mere finitude. In order to be a real God, He had to be all alone, creating absolutely everything from nothing rather than guiding and organizing preexisting matter by persuasion and long-suffering. But this is obviously untrue; the earliest conceptions of the Gods and Goddesses were humans, they were based on human fertility and honoring the long-separated families who influenced us by introducing us to language which they brought from the skies.

Joseph Smith, of course, said that God was an exalted man, who was once like we are now. He is literally the Gardener, the Shepherd who influences our culture through the inspired language of the Holy Spirit to teach us line upon line, precept upon precept, how to become like all the other members of the Divine Council, the enormous family of reconciled Intelligences taking part in the Atonement spread across the worlds without number, the preexisting family which pulls us along on each step of evolution.

Edited September 7, 2011 by JeremyOrbe-Smith

[Ron Beron]

I wrote a little something on this awhile back...

I have some thoughts I would like to share and I have read some fascinating things of late that shed some light on this.

1. The actual term is that Eve was created from Adam’s tsela or side. The actual passage is, “And the LORD God caused a deep sleep to fall on Adam, and he slept; and He took one of his ribs (or side), and closed up the flesh in its place.” If one looks at tsela one will find it has many meanings. In each case it means an item that extends out. And before everyone gets excited I am NOT heading in that direction.

Zeony Zevit, an teacher at the American Jewish University of Los Angeles has suggested in a paper published in the American Journal of Medical Genetics in 2001 entitled “Congenital Human Baculum Deficiency” by Scott F. Gilbert and Ziony Zevit that the tsela in question was actually the baculum or literally a bone present in all but male humans and spider monkeys in aiding intercourse. The absence of this bone would certain give rise by obvious observation to the exclusion of this part of the anatomy and the speculation among early peoples in the speculation of how Eve came about, i.e., tsela equates to the baculum. In addition, the passage in Genesis continues with another etiological detail… Zevit writes, Quote

Genesis 2:21 contains another etiological detail: “The Lord God closed up the flesh.” This detail would explain the peculiar visible sign on the penis and scrotum of human males—the raphé . In the human penis and scrotum, the edges of the urogenital folds come together over the urogenital sinus (urethral groove) to form a seam, the raphé. If this seam does not form, hypospadias of the glans, penis, and scrotum can result. The origin of this seam on the external genitalia was “explained” by the story of the closing of Adam’s flesh. Again, the wound associated with the generation of Eve is connected to Adam’s penis and not his rib.

My intent was not to be indiscreet but informative on how legend sometimes creeps into doctrine to make up our understanding of the scriptures.

2. On a more literary note, the ancient Mesopotamians believe that the rib motif is actually from a much older text in Sumerian that reads…

Quote

Ninhursag: “My brother what hurts thee?”

Enki: “My side hurts me.”

Ninhursag: “To the goddess Dazimua I give birth for thee.”

Ninhursag: “My brother what hurts thee?”

Enki: “My rib hurts me.”

Ninhursag: “To the goddess Ninti I give birth for thee.”

(Kramer, Sumerian Mythology 58)

Samuel Kramer writes,

Quote

Now the Sumerian word for “rib” is ti (pronounced “tee”). The goddess created for the healing of Enki’s rib, therefore was called in Sumerian Nin-ti, “the lady of the rib.” But the very same Sumerian word ti also means “to make live.” The name Nin-ti may thus mean “the lady who makes live,” as well as “the lady of the rib.” In Sumerian literature, therefore, “the lady of the rib” came to be identified with “the lady who makes live” through what might be termed a play on words. (Kramer, Mythologies 103)

Kramer suggests that the passage in Genesis where Eve, “the mother of all living” is taken from Adam’s rib may be an echo of this Sumerian pun. Enki felt a pain in his rib or side which is identical to the word life. To relieve Enki Ninhursag created a new god named Ninti or “Lady of Life or Rib”. Both Ninhursag and Eve are composite creations.

3. An old story of the rib is told by Rabbi Joshua:

Quote

“God deliberated from what member He would create woman, and He

reasoned with Himself thus: I must not create her from Adam’s head, for

she would be a proud person, and hold her head high. If I create her

from the eye, then she will wish to pry into all things; if from the

ear, she will wish to hear all things; if from the mouth, she will talk

much; if from the heart, she will envy people; if from the hand, she

will desire to take all things; if from the feet, she will be a

gadabout. Therefore I will create her from the member which is hid,

that is the rib, which is not even seen when man is naked.” translated from the Ethiopic (1882) by Malan. This was first translated by Dillmann (Das christl. Adambuch des Morgenlandes, 1853), and the Ethiopic book first edited by Trump (Abh. d. Münch. Akad. xv., 1870-1881)

[JeremyOrbe-Smith]

Yep. I think Bokovoy wrote something on the Council of the Gods referencing that same paper, too, but I can't recall what it was.

[Franktalk]

Everything God does is bound by laws of nature and is therefore natural.

Read the book of Job and you will find that it describes the opposite.

[Ron Beron]

Yep. I think Bokovoy wrote something on the Council of the Gods referencing that same paper, too, but I can't recall what it was.

That Bokovoy guy stole it from me. :::just kidding::: David and I were researching along the same lines and both came up with it. He wrote about it here...

http://www.mormondia...3612-adams-rib/

At the time we were both discussing Zevit's work on the subject.

Edited September 7, 2011 by Ron Beron

[JeremyOrbe-Smith]

That's the one. Nice bit of sleuth work, dudes.

[thesometimesaint]

Franktalk:

You are conflating the tool with the tool user.

[K-2]

It's interesting to note that in Hebrew, tsela (rib) minus the lamed is etsah which can mean either the feminine version of the word for tree, or a counselor.

[BCSpace]

Yes it is. What is your reasoning that led to this conclusion?

Come now. Evolution as defined is a result of natural mechanisms in the species and environmental pressure. Once a third party is involved in the process it ceases to be the definition of evolution. At least from a scientific view point.

There are too many factors/motions, environmental, known and unknown, visible and invisible, macro and subatomic, often passed off as "random", for science to detect and track. And even if they could, they wouldn't necessarily be able to explain them.

[altersteve]

Read the book of Job and you will find that it describes the opposite.

I've read the Book of Job (much of which is figurative, by the way) several times, and I see nothing in it that supports your point of view. If you do not believe that God is bound by laws of nature, then you do not believe what the Church teaches on the matter.

[Franktalk]

I've read the Book of Job (much of which is figurative, by the way) several times, and I see nothing in it that supports your point of view. If you do not believe that God is bound by laws of nature, then you do not believe what the Church teaches on the matter.

We disagree on Job. Please let me know what you think of this?

Mat 19:26 But Jesus beheld them, and said unto them, With men this is impossible; but with God all things are possible.

And in Job.

Job 38:4 Where wast thou when I laid the foundations of the earth? declare, if thou hast understanding.

Who laid the foundations?

Job 38:5 Who hath laid the measures thereof, if thou knowest? or who hath stretched the line upon it?

Who set the sizes of things?

Job 38:6 Whereupon are the foundations thereof fastened? or who laid the corner stone thereof;

Who established the cause and effect relationship between the parts?

Job 38:8 Or who shut up the sea with doors, when it broke forth, as if it had issued out of the womb?

Job 38:9 When I made the cloud the garment thereof, and thick darkness a swaddling band for it,

Job 38:10 And broke up for it my decreed place, and set bars and doors,

Job 38:11 And said, Hitherto shalt thou come, but no further: and here shall thy proud waves be stayed?

Who set limits on the waves? Who set the bars and doors?

Job 38:22 Hast thou entered into the treasures of the snow? or hast thou seen the treasures of the hail,

Job 38:23 Which I have reserved against the time of trouble, against the day of battle and war?

If nature is outside of God then how can God reserve hail?

If indeed God is controlled by nature then how do you read these verses to get to that conclusion?

[altersteve]

We disagree on Job. Please let me know what you think of this?

Mat 19:26 But Jesus beheld them, and said unto them, With men this is impossible; but with God all things are possible.

And in Job.

Job 38:4 Where wast thou when I laid the foundations of the earth? declare, if thou hast understanding.

Who laid the foundations?

Job 38:5 Who hath laid the measures thereof, if thou knowest? or who hath stretched the line upon it?

Who set the sizes of things?

Job 38:6 Whereupon are the foundations thereof fastened? or who laid the corner stone thereof;

Who established the cause and effect relationship between the parts?

Job 38:8 Or who shut up the sea with doors, when it broke forth, as if it had issued out of the womb?

Job 38:9 When I made the cloud the garment thereof, and thick darkness a swaddling band for it,

Job 38:10 And broke up for it my decreed place, and set bars and doors,

Job 38:11 And said, Hitherto shalt thou come, but no further: and here shall thy proud waves be stayed?

Who set limits on the waves? Who set the bars and doors?

Job 38:22 Hast thou entered into the treasures of the snow? or hast thou seen the treasures of the hail,

Job 38:23 Which I have reserved against the time of trouble, against the day of battle and war?

If nature is outside of God then how can God reserve hail?

If indeed God is controlled by nature then how do you read these verses to get to that conclusion?

I never said that God is controlled by nature, I said that He is bound by laws of nature. There are things that even He cannot do (such as create something from nothing, etc.). Like I said, if you believe otherwise, then you don't believe what the Restored Gospel teaches about it.

[Franktalk]

I never said that God is controlled by nature, I said that He is bound by laws of nature. There are things that even He cannot do (such as create something from nothing, etc.). Like I said, if you believe otherwise, then you don't believe what the Restored Gospel teaches about it.

In some extreme sense in God space God may have established methods. In this very limited view God can be viewed as bound. But God enjoys keeping promises which is also being bound by choice. In the sense that we experience nature God is not bound at all. He makes the laws.

What do you mean - etc?

Edited September 7, 2011 by Franktalk

[David T]

We disagree on Job. Please let me know what you think of this?

Mat 19:26 But Jesus beheld them, and said unto them, With men this is impossible; but with God all things are possible.

And in Job.

Job 38:4 Where wast thou when I laid the foundations of the earth? declare, if thou hast understanding.

Who laid the foundations?

Job 38:5 Who hath laid the measures thereof, if thou knowest? or who hath stretched the line upon it?

Who set the sizes of things?

Job 38:6 Whereupon are the foundations thereof fastened? or who laid the corner stone thereof;

Who established the cause and effect relationship between the parts?

Job 38:8 Or who shut up the sea with doors, when it broke forth, as if it had issued out of the womb?

Job 38:9 When I made the cloud the garment thereof, and thick darkness a swaddling band for it,

Job 38:10 And broke up for it my decreed place, and set bars and doors,

Job 38:11 And said, Hitherto shalt thou come, but no further: and here shall thy proud waves be stayed?

Who set limits on the waves? Who set the bars and doors?

Job 38:22 Hast thou entered into the treasures of the snow? or hast thou seen the treasures of the hail,

Job 38:23 Which I have reserved against the time of trouble, against the day of battle and war?

If nature is outside of God then how can God reserve hail?

If indeed God is controlled by nature then how do you read these verses to get to that conclusion?

According to the author of Job, God is the one responsible for setting up this:

It's a philosophical treatease of man's nothingness in comparison to God, written in an age where "God Did It" was the only explanation for all sorts of naturally occurring phenemena. I don't think we need to look for further implications than the rhetorical point being made: "There's a lot of things man doesn't or can't know. But God is sovereign and does. Don't question it: just be loyal to God."

[volgadon]

I am certainly bound by nature, but I can set limits on, say, rain, in a modest way by planting four posts in the ground and placing a sheet of corrugated iron over them. Someone else with superior knowledge and skills to mine can dig foundatins, construction a steel skeleton and fill the skeleton in with bricks, placing metallo-plastic windows and a steel door in the openings, also running electricity and plumbing to the new house. God of course is infinitely more wise and powerful, but I write this to show that yours is far from the only reasonable reading of Job. The author of that book wasn't terribly concenred about whether or not God followed the rules of nature. What concerned him was if God was in control, but even more so, those verses emphasize God's superiority in knowledge and ability.

[altersteve]

In some extreme sense in God space God may have established methods. In this very limited view God can be viewed as bound. But God enjoys keeping promises which is also being bound by choice. In the sense that we experience nature God is not bound at all. He makes the laws.

What do you mean - etc?

God did not create the laws of nature, just as He did not create energy or the laws of logic. These are eternal, uncreated, indestructible, and universal.

And God keeps promises because of His perfect, loving nature, not simply because He "enjoys" it. He likewise punishes His children because of His perfect, loving nature, but He certainly doesn't "enjoy" doing that.

[Franktalk]

According to the author of Job.......

.....It's a philosophical treatease of man's nothingness in comparison to God, written in an age where "God Did It" was the only explanation for all sorts of naturally occurring phenemena. I don't think we need to look for further implications than the rhetorical point being made: "There's a lot of things man doesn't or can't know. But God is sovereign and does. Don't question it: just be loyal to God."

The Book of Job contains an outline of the Bible. Written around a thousand years before Abraham.

Job 19:25 For I know that my redeemer liveth, and that he shall stand at the latter day upon the earth:

Job 19:26 And though after my skin worms destroy this body, yet in my flesh shall I see God:

Job 19:27 Whom I shall see for myself, and mine eyes shall behold, and not another; though my reins be consumed within me.

Job 19:28 But ye should say, Why persecute we him, seeing the root of the matter is found in me?

Job 19:29 Be ye afraid of the sword: for wrath bringeth the punishments of the sword, that ye may know there is a judgment.

The book clearly describes spiritual warfare. One day I hope to meet Job.