Adam Just A Symbol, Not A Single Person...

[Alvino]

A while ago I posted a poll asking whether people here thought Adam and Eve were just symbols for something else and not two actual people, a couple, from which we all biologically descend.

Since then I've seen quite a significant number of posts were people take seriously the possibility that the story of Adam and Eve is just a symbol for our experience of being in the spiritual world and having 'fallen' to this Earthly state willfully wherein we became mortal.

I would like to discuss with anyone here who spouses this or a similar view their justifications for believing this.

The initial problem I have with this view is the following:

The vast majority of talk about Adam in scriptures and Church material makes it very very hard to make what is said Adam did or happened to him fit with the idea that Adam was a just a symbol for us. For example, Romans 5:12 "Therefore, just as through one man sin entered into the world, and death through sin, and so death spread to all men, because all sinned."

Romans 5:15: "For if through the offence of one many be dead, much more the grace of God, and the gift by grace, which is by one man, Jesus Christ, hath abounded unto many." What's Paul trying to say here? What offense did WE do so that.. we die? Or was Paul wrong in speaking of Adam as a single person different from the collective 'us'?

Luke 3:38, when talking about the genealogy of Jesus, it says, "Which was the son of Enos, which was the son of Seth, which was the son of Adam, which was the son of God." Are the collective "us" the fathers of Seth, grandparents of Enos, etc? Also, in all these passages Adam is clearly used as a single person is very concrete terms and it doesn't seem that the NT writers meant Adam to be taken as anything other than one guy.

The list goes on. Was Paul simply wrong in believing Adam was an actual historical man?

I also want to see why Mormons who oppose to this symbolic taken on Adam and Eve and who claim Adam was in fact a single man have to say against the symbolic view.

[Glenn101]

In his (in)famous lectures on Adam-God, Brigham Young espoused the idea not only that Adam was a real person, but that the first person on any worls that is created is also an Adam. There are no scrptures that I know of that would support a figurative Adam. If it were only figurative, the Fall would also be figurative. But the human race is not figurative.

Glenn

[DavidB]

I have a pet theory that Adam and Eve where the "first" but that more were placed on earth as Adam and Eve were later by God.

[Mark Beesley]

A while ago I posted a poll asking whether people here thought Adam and Eve were just symbols for something else and not two actual people, a couple, from which we all biologically descend.

Since then I've seen quite a significant number of posts were people take seriously the possibility that the story of Adam and Eve is just a symbol for our experience of being in the spiritual world and having 'fallen' to this Earthly state willfully wherein we became mortal.

I would like to discuss with anyone here who spouses this or a similar view their justifications for believing this.

The initial problem I have with this view is the following:

The vast majority of talk about Adam in scriptures and Church material makes it very very hard to make what is said Adam did or happened to him fit with the idea that Adam was a just a symbol for us. For example, Romans 5:12 "Therefore, just as through one man sin entered into the world, and death through sin, and so death spread to all men, because all sinned."

Romans 5:15: "For if through the offence of one many be dead, much more the grace of God, and the gift by grace, which is by one man, Jesus Christ, hath abounded unto many." What's Paul trying to say here? What offense did WE do so that.. we die? Or was Paul wrong in speaking of Adam as a single person different from the collective 'us'?

Luke 3:38, when talking about the genealogy of Jesus, it says, "Which was the son of Enos, which was the son of Seth, which was the son of Adam, which was the son of God." Are the collective "us" the fathers of Seth, grandparents of Enos, etc? Also, in all these passages Adam is clearly used as a single person is very concrete terms and it doesn't seem that the NT writers meant Adam to be taken as anything other than one guy.

The list goes on. Was Paul simply wrong in believing Adam was an actual historical man?

I also want to see why Mormons who oppose to this symbolic taken on Adam and Eve and who claim Adam was in fact a single man have to say against the symbolic view.

I think it is probably both. The story of Adam and Eve in the garden is probably figurative, and there used to be some language in the Temple endowment to support that. But think there was also a real Adam, and a real Eve who hold pre-eminent positions in the family of Man.

[DavidC]

I think it is probably both. The story of Adam and Eve in the garden is probably figurative, and there used to be some language in the Temple endowment to support that. But think there was also a real Adam, and a real Eve who hold pre-eminent positions in the family of Man.

Perhaps like the Exodus from Egypt was both a real event and also used figuratively.

[cinepro]

I also want to see why Mormons who oppose to this symbolic taken on Adam and Eve and who claim Adam was in fact a single man have to say against the symbolic view.

A "literal" Adam is so basic to the doctrines and scriptures of the Church that I suspect the General Authorities would be shocked to find anyone claiming to be a faithful, believing member of the Church suggesting otherwise.

If Adam wasn't a real, living, single human being, then this could be the biggest thing that the Church leaders have been wrong about in the history of the Church.

[ANACO]

If Adam wasn't a real, living, single human being, then this could be the biggest thing that the Church leaders have been wrong about in the history of the Church.

Please don't encourage any LDS Apologists! As we all know they teach that Church leaders are wrong when their teachings contradict with what LDS apologists believe.

107:56

And Adam stood up in the midst of the congregation; and, notwithstanding he was bowed down with age, being full of the Holy Ghost,

predicted whatsoever should befall his posterity unto the latest generation.

"Bowed down with age." "Predicted whatsoever should befall his posterity."

Sounds literal to me. And I suppose the Savior suffered on the cross because of some symbol? And there was a reason why the Savior resurrected for all. Because Adam fell affecting all.

[thesometimesaint]

Adam was a real live human being. But what he did in the Garden can be seen as figurative.

[wayfarer]

A "literal" Adam is so basic to the doctrines and scriptures of the Church that I suspect the General Authorities would be shocked to find anyone claiming to be a faithful, believing member of the Church suggesting otherwise.

If Adam wasn't a real, living, single human being, then this could be the biggest thing that the Church leaders have been wrong about in the history of the Church.

I have come to realize, from 2 Nephi chapters 31 and 32, 3 Nephi 11:28-40, and from D&C 10:67-69 that the "Doctrine of Christ" is explicitly nor more nor less than the first principles and ordinances of the gospel, to come on to Christ, and to endure to the end. All other things we 'teach' are subordinate and appendages to this core Doctrine of Christ. Curiously, the most explicit and best statements of this Doctrine is in the Book of Mormon and in the Doctrine and Covenants, and not elsewhere in scripture. It is plain and precious.

Now that said, we teach of Adam and Eve as if they are literal, and we accept in faith that they are real people. I accept that as well in faith, but I do not know for sure, and I doubt if anyone else really does. I have a reason from an earlier form of teaching not longer taught since 1990 that the story of Adam and Eve in the garden is simply figurative, but since this is no longer taught...I'm not sure what to think about it. I have faith that the stories are true (in some way) and relevant to me.

I see no threat whatsoever to the Doctrine of Christ as taught by the Church if Adam is literal or figurative. none whatsoever. There is evidence of a mitochondrial eve, and of a single male ancestor way back when -- they did not evidently live at the same time, but I have no clue what that means. So, in some way science gives an answer that "adam" and "eve" are literally true, although not in the form as taught.

[K-2]

What's next? Asking if Jesus was just a symbol?

[Bill “Papa” Lee]

Real man and woman...not sure of real names. Probably Greek versions of the names.

Edited September 2, 2012 by Bill “Papa” Lee

[Alvino]

I think it is probably both. The story of Adam and Eve in the garden is probably figurative, and there used to be some language in the Temple endowment to support that. But think there was also a real Adam, and a real Eve who hold pre-eminent positions in the family of Man.

This doesn't really clarify much. Paul took Adam to be a dude who 'fell'. Was he just wrong? And, what's the correct stuff? Adam existed but his fall was just symbolic and not really what happened?

An even bigger problem is how to reconcile what you are saying with evolution. What did this "Adam" guy do? His existence was correctly stated in scripture but things like "For if through the offence of one many be dead..." (Romans 5:15) are figurative? How come through him many are dead and who are the many?

[daz2]

Wayfarer,

Amen.

[Alvino]

I have a pet theory that Adam and Eve where the "first" but that more were placed on earth as Adam and Eve were later by God.

I would appreciate it if you present some reasons for this and expand on it. Did death enter the world through this one dude or not? Etc.

[Alvino]

Perhaps like the Exodus from Egypt was both a real event and also used figuratively.

You can say that but the reason why many today want to say the Adam and Eve story was purely symbolic or allegoric is because it goes against what we know from Biology. There was no primordial human couple.

[Alvino]

A "literal" Adam is so basic to the doctrines and scriptures of the Church that I suspect the General Authorities would be shocked to find anyone claiming to be a faithful, believing member of the Church suggesting otherwise.

If Adam wasn't a real, living, single human being, then this could be the biggest thing that the Church leaders have been wrong about in the history of the Church.

Indeed. But, how do you modify the doctrines to fit an Adam and Eve that both, were a concrete couple, and don't go against discoveries in Biology. Do you think a move of such characteristics can make for a normal enough Mormonism for current members to not feel too disappointed with 'revelation' AND that can be squared with Biology?

Edited September 1, 2012 by Alvino

[Alvino]

Please don't encourage any LDS Apologists! As we all know they teach that Church leaders are wrong when their teachings contradict with what LDS apologists believe.

107:56

And Adam stood up in the midst of the congregation; and, notwithstanding he was bowed down with age, being full of the Holy Ghost,

predicted whatsoever should befall his posterity unto the latest generation.

"Bowed down with age." "Predicted whatsoever should befall his posterity."

Sounds literal to me.

Some say Adam and Eve were real people but had a role in spiritual history depicted allegorically in scripture so as to not be in conflict with what we know in Biology. How they do this, I still want to find out.

And I suppose the Savior suffered on the cross because of some symbol?

One could say the Savior suffered on the cross because of what those symbols represent i.e. a real event but expressed symbolically. What they represent is what I'm asking you guys to try to do, preferably conforming with Biology.

Edited September 1, 2012 by Alvino

[Alvino]

Adam was a real live human being. But what he did in the Garden can be seen as figurative.

Why do some of you guys keep posting stuff like this? I want you guys to give reasons for what you think. These one-sentenced posts are useless to anyone who tries to think about this seriously.

[Alvino]

I have come to realize, from 2 Nephi chapters 31 and 32, 3 Nephi 11:28-40, and from D&C 10:67-69 that the "Doctrine of Christ" is explicitly nor more nor less than the first principles and ordinances of the gospel, to come on to Christ, and to endure to the end. All other things we 'teach' are subordinate and appendages to this core Doctrine of Christ. Curiously, the most explicit and best statements of this Doctrine is in the Book of Mormon and in the Doctrine and Covenants, and not elsewhere in scripture. It is plain and precious.

Oh, come on, this is so naive and unfair to those who try to figure out what's going on behind the preaching. What is "to come on to Christ"? What's to "endure to the end" and endure to what end? I assume that to come to Christ means to accept his sacrifice, that he resurrected and died for our sins, etc. The Fall is necessary to appreciate why Christ died for.

Now that said, we teach of Adam and Eve as if they are literal, and we accept in faith that they are real people. I accept that as well in faith, but I do not know for sure, and I doubt if anyone else really does. I have a reason from an earlier form of teaching not longer taught since 1990 that the story of Adam and Eve in the garden is simply figurative, but since this is no longer taught...I'm not sure what to think about it. I have faith that the stories are true (in some way) and relevant to me.

I see no threat whatsoever to the Doctrine of Christ as taught by the Church if Adam is literal or figurative. none whatsoever. There is evidence of a mitochondrial eve, and of a single male ancestor way back when -- they did not evidently live at the same time, but I have no clue what that means. So, in some way science gives an answer that "adam" and "eve" are literally true, although not in the form as taught.

To you and to everyone here, I think this little video explains the problem rather well:

www.youtube.com/watch?v=XXOvYn1OAL0

[DavidB]

I would appreciate it if you present some reasons for this and expand on it. Did death enter the world through this one dude or not? Etc.

Without other placed on earth means incest, I don't buy the whole ridiculous 'pure gene' pool. What we know is Adam and Eve were the first.

[wayfarer]

Oh, come on, this is so naive and unfair to those who try to figure out what's going on behind the preaching. What is "to come on to Christ"? What's to "endure to the end" and endure to what end? I assume that to come to Christ means to accept his sacrifice, that he resurrected and died for our sins, etc. The Fall is necessary to appreciate why Christ died for.

Perhaps each person may have their own definition as to what it means to come to Christ. To me, it has absolutely nothing to do with believing something about Jesus Christ. It is to have a personal experience or more with his atoning grace, and that is what I testify to.

My testimony of the Atonement is a personal one. I was once addicted to alcohol, mainly because of the guilt I felt when I took a drink. I could never drink moderately, because I felt that I had already sinned, so I might as well enjoy it. It became an obsession -- i simply could not stop. I went into AA, because frankly, all church repentence processes, including going to bishop after bishop, failed to work. At the point that I 'turned my will and my life over' to a higher power, whom I felt, strongly, was Jesus Christ, I heard his voice say, as he did to the woman in adultery, "Neither do I condemn thee, go and sin no more." I had a complete removal of even the desire to drink at all. ever. I did not have to go through a period of "repentance" and proving myself worthy, although when I did go to the bishop after this release from addiction through the atonement, I had to go through church discipline hell. (given the power of my atonement experience, I have an un-testimony of CD as a result of this). I came to the deep realization that atonement is absolutely real and tangible. I attribute this personal miracle to Christ. While this release from addiction could have been a result of releasing myself from church-imposed guilt, I don't know, nor do I care. The personal, spiritual experience I had from this release was very tangible to me.

Ever since, I have had this relationship where I have come to trust the atonement as I face challenges in life. Whenever I am grieved in the extreme, the peace of the Savior comes, and I know things will be well with my soul. He is there. He is real. Whether or not the physical details of his life are as they were written in the Bible and elsewhere, I do not know or care. To me, he already has judged me and found me to be acceptable to him. Completely and totally. The arms of his love completely encircled me and he has stood by my side since. So to me, Jesus atoned for me, and is my personal Savior and Redeemer.

For me, coming to Christ is exactly no more or less than a relationship with Him. That is not attained through study or rote acceptance of standard definitions of things.

To you and to everyone here, I think this little video explains the problem rather well...

I don't have 18 minutes to listen to someone explain why a literal Adam is necessary. How will such knowledge affect a relationship with Christ? with God?

Perhaps you could provide a 25 word summary.

Edited September 1, 2012 by wayfarer

[Maidservant]

And I suppose the Savior suffered on the cross because of some symbol?

I am the last person to say that my thinking should be the thinking of all.

I am the first person to say that I am still learning and I have working hypothoses and hold various ideas in suspension or tension until I can learn enough to reconcile them which usually means there was never any problem with them to begin, just with my lower level of understanding.

My learning journey is a spiritual journey and has nothing to do with the world. So if I learn symbolism or literalism or some other isms, it is in terms of my spiritual journey, not in terms of any 'secular' knowledge (which, btw, I do not divide up my knowledge into categories, it is all spiritual or revelatory or relating to my progression).

I am, at this time, seeing that there probably was not one man and one woman who were Adam and Eve, and who were the sole progenitors of humanity. Again, I know there are some supports for this, which I hold in tension with what I am thinking currently and I KNOW I am only in process of learning and it is likely I will come to another conclusion. But I trust God and what he has shown me.

However, the reasons that I HAVE come to understand "Adam and Eve" the way I do, right or wrong, is BECAUSE OF the scriptures and the temple. It does NOT rest on biology or evolutionary theory or a dismissal of the supernatural nor a dismissal of revelation or faith or anything like that (in fact, I consider it due to my faith that I have been able to learn more about, have the veil parted about, the reality of what Adam and Eve is, or as I understand now). I think that the scriptures and the gospel itself yield this information and being largely symbolic (and perhaps only?). By the way, when I say symbolism, I do not mean fiction. Symbolism ALWAYS! represents! REALITY! So what is the reality? Is it one man and one woman as the progenitor of the race? Or is the scriptural and revelatory and endowment information provided to us to we can uncover a reality even more breathtaking than that?

So here are some elements of my understanding. Again, I may be missing some pieces (willing to learn). And I may not be able to remember everything in my journey. But here are some basics.

1. The word 'Adam' itself. This is not a first name of a person and never was presented as such. It is like naming someone 'human'. "Hi! My name is Human Johnson!" The word ADAM itself TELLS us that it is about US as mortal people in the entire, NOT about one original person. Even if this was my only element, I could stop here and it still convinces me.

2. The Genesis account is a young text and is not reliable as history. It's value is only revelatory. In fact, it's (authoritative) value persists only because modern prophets have confirmed its gospel value, not because it is an ancient text (to me, in my understanding). As history, we have huge transmission problems, and even if we had perfect transmission from now back til, say, Moses the purported author, we have to ask where Moses got this from (as history). In any case, Genesis is the sole document that presents Adam and Eve (but I am not an expert, I would be glad to learn of others), and all the rest of our Adam and Eve understanding is derived from that; or revelatory but still hinging on that document. So if we are 'deriving', we have to realize what the original document WAS and it NEVER was fashioned or presented as a history. Even New Testament commentaries (scripture) are derivative, and are engaging the original symbolism. But they all (New Testament) serve to guide us in our individual and community progression to exaltation.

3. Genesis as a revelatory document IS the endowment, and as such it is meant to provide keys of progression and the unlocking of heaven on this earth for each of us. The temple endowment is clear to me in several places that Adam and Eve are presented as avatars or placeholders for each of us. For those who lean that they are actual persons, the temple does well enough on that as well, but for me, on the whole, that is not its meaning and never was.

4. There is no document that exists that describes, documentarily, the history and origin of the human body as it is on this planet. We do not have such a thing. This is my most worldly reasoning, but even this I don't consider worldly, just knowledge, period. No one has said where we come from physically in any document nor in any record that convinces me (speaking of the paleontological record and the interpretations thereof). Genesis does NOT say this. It never presented itself to say ANYTHING about physical origins (unless it is somewhere in the "folds" of the symbolism, which I am only just barely touching to find out). We observe, the observation IS, that human bodies come from other human bodies. There is no other reason, 'religious' or 'scientific' to think otherwise. To be looking for a 'beginning' of humans is to be bound by a paradigm that presumes SOME kind of creation, but that is what it is, a paradigm. If we accept the observation that is right in front of our eyes, that humans are born from other humans, then we only can be curious about how long this has been going on and how and when did human arrive here (and the real answer so far, or at least the only one that convinces me, is we don't know yet). OR see #5

5. There is also a huge paradigm that we exist in some natural world that exists independently and BEFORE humans, Gods, or anything. In fact, Joseph Smith loved thinking like this and I admit, it is THE dominant paradigm in Mormonism. But I have a different paradigm and it has to do with the universe as a program, and mortality as something akin to what we might call a virtual world (thus built specifically for the progression that has to take place in us). Meaning that what we see, sense and perceive is an interface. Thus it is completely malleable for our purposes of progression, but has been set in place with certain boundaries and parameters. I know this thinking will cause pretty much everybody to burn me at the stake, but the more I think about it, the more it makes sense. But maybe I will just learn more.

6. The fall is our choice to be born on earth. Partaking of the fruit IS our choice to be born on earth. When Adam and Eve partake of the fruit, Yes, I completely see it, have it lensed as, the choice we EACH make, EACH time, NOT the act of one set of people that set this in motion. I can't say in a word why I learned this, except that this comes clearer to me each time I attend the temple. So the temple itself, God himself, wants me to see this (as I understand).

7. To the degree that there are statements by Church leaders (which I do not study the past much on this, concentrating on current General Conferences)--I consider them to be based in the Genesis-as-history-mentality (artifact of apostacies) and learning themselves and speaking to people (us) who have to understand a little at a time. However, this may be a bit arrogant on my part, and again, affirm my need to continue learning.

So this is enough to speak on for now.

There is a reality. It is us. And our fall and our atonement.

But this has been going on for EONS!!! in this planet and other planets (or other programs, if you take that tack--still working on that one though). How do you teach people an EONS-ancient system for progression in a few passages of text that unfolds itself to those who understand by the spirit? It's really a genius system.

My question is how does one come to the conclusion that Adam and Eve are single persons based on their engagement with Genesis, the endowment, and accompanying scripture and revelation? Because when I was a young person and hadn't studied much, I accepted this as so, but the longer I study, pray, attend the temple and observe life, experience things, and get answers--I have been shown something completely different.

Edited September 2, 2012 by Maidservant

[mfbukowski]

I have come to realize, from 2 Nephi chapters 31 and 32, 3 Nephi 11:28-40, and from D&C 10:67-69 that the "Doctrine of Christ" is explicitly nor more nor less than the first principles and ordinances of the gospel, to come on to Christ, and to endure to the end. All other things we 'teach' are subordinate and appendages to this core Doctrine of Christ. Curiously, the most explicit and best statements of this Doctrine is in the Book of Mormon and in the Doctrine and Covenants, and not elsewhere in scripture. It is plain and precious.

Now that said, we teach of Adam and Eve as if they are literal, and we accept in faith that they are real people. I accept that as well in faith, but I do not know for sure, and I doubt if anyone else really does. I have a reason from an earlier form of teaching not longer taught since 1990 that the story of Adam and Eve in the garden is simply figurative, but since this is no longer taught...I'm not sure what to think about it. I have faith that the stories are true (in some way) and relevant to me.

I see no threat whatsoever to the Doctrine of Christ as taught by the Church if Adam is literal or figurative. none whatsoever. There is evidence of a mitochondrial eve, and of a single male ancestor way back when -- they did not evidently live at the same time, but I have no clue what that means. So, in some way science gives an answer that "adam" and "eve" are literally true, although not in the form as taught.

On another thread, Robert Smith posted this:

John A. Widtsoe,

Symbolism. Naturally, the very essence of these fundamental truths is not known to man, nor indeed can be. We know things only so far as our senses permit. Whatever is known, is known through symbols. The letters on the written page are but symbols of mighty thoughts that are easily transferred from mind to mind by these symbols. Man lives under a great system of symbolism. Clearly, the mighty, eternal truths encompassing all that man is or may be, cannot be expressed literally, nor is there in the temple any attempt to do this. On the contrary, the great and wonderful temple service is one of mighty symbolism. By the use of symbols of speech, of action, of color, of form, the great truths connected with the story of man are made evident to the mind. (Rational Theology, 120)

The earthly ordinances of the Gospel are themselves only reflections of heavenly ordinances. For instance, baptism, the gift of the Holy Ghost and temple work are merely earthly symbols of realities that prevail throughout the universe; but, they are symbols of truths that must be recognized if the Great Plan is to be fulfilled. The acceptance of these earthly symbols is part and parcel of correct earth life, but being earthly symbols they are distinctly of the earth, and cannot be accepted elsewhere than on earth. [1915 Melchizedek Priesthood Manual (“Work for the Dead,” UGHM, 6:33)]

Hugh Nibley, The Message of the Joseph Smith Papyri: An Egyptian Endowment, 2nd ed., xxix.

“The Mormon endowment… is frankly a model, a presentation in figurative terms. As such, it is flexible and adjustable; for example, it may be presented in more languages than one, and in more than one medium of communication. But since it does not attempt to be a picture of reality, but only a model or analogue to show how things work, setting forth the pattern of man’s life on earth with its fundamental whys and wherefores, it does not need to be changed or adapted greatly through the years; it is a remarkably stable model, which makes its comparison with other forms and traditions, including the more ancient ones, quite valid and instructive… Those who have been to the temple hundreds of times know that “age cannot wither… nor custom stale [its] infinite variety.” What [the] few bits of information [about parallels in other religions and cultures] do is to supply a new dimension to the experience, along with the assurance that a wealth of newly found records confirms the fundamental thesis of its antiquity and genuineness.”

Edited September 2, 2012 by mfbukowski

[wayfarer]

mfbukowski, excellent quotes. in the moment between reading your post and clicking reply, you evidently edited out Brigham Young, Spencer Kimball's, and Bruce R's speculations, keeping Widstoe and Nibley. The latter two really resonated. Love it, thanks.

[mfbukowski]

mfbukowski, excellent quotes. in the moment between reading your post and clicking reply, you evidently edited out Brigham Young, Spencer Kimball's, and Bruce R's speculations, keeping Widstoe and Nibley. The latter two really resonated. Love it, thanks.

Yes- that is right, and I agree. Thanks really to Robert Smith- but the link is there to his quote if anyone wants to see all of it- I just wanted to post what was most relevant to this thread.