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

[K-2]

...

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).

...

Did Heavenly Father command us not to "fall" in this way?

Did Jesus actually atone for countless individual falls instead of one?

Did He atone for falls that hadn't happened yet?

Is this new revealed understanding of Adam, Eve, and the Fall meant to be only for yourself personally?

If so, then why are you sharing it publicly?

If not, then by what authority do you receive such revelation and teach it to others?

[Maidservant]

Did Heavenly Father command us not to "fall" in this way?

A lot of the instructionary information in that story, yes, I sometimes hear as being "pre-mortal", in the sense that we were taught the risks of coming here before making our choice. But I don't have that particular element completely thought through. A good place I could learn more.

Did Jesus actually atone for countless individual falls instead of one?

I'm surprised at this question. When did he ever not? He atoned for every single one of us. Even if the Adam and Eve story is completely at face value, we each still had to make the choice to come here and participate, and yes, each of us fall. When has that NOT been the story?

Did He atone for falls that hadn't happened yet?

Do you mean after his earth life? Of course, his atonement is infinite in all directions of time.

Is this new revealed understanding of Adam, Eve, and the Fall meant to be only for yourself personally?

You can understand it based on your own study with God, but when you say 'new', that is your perception, not mine. There's nothing new about it if what is there has always been there. The only difference is whether or not I can understand it (or have gotten it wrong, of course).

And I already stated in my post that it is personal. I am answering the OP who ASKED us to supply reasoning if we thought the way he is asking about. I never share my thinking with the object in mind of convincing other people. It's none of my business what other people think, and I trust and acknowledge their responsibility and choices for what they think.

If so, then why are you sharing it publicly?

Why not? The question was asked. I answered. It's an opportunity for me to learn too--to think through where I'm at, and get feedback. Thanks for yours . There is not too much I consider taboo to talk about thanks to my mother who taught me to express myself freely in the process of learning.

If not, then by what authority do you receive such revelation and teach it to others?

I'm not claiming authority.

I'm not teaching it to others. I'm answering the OP, and sharing ideas. Everyone here on this board (a discussion board) is an adult when it comes to the engagement of ideas and is capable of accepting or challenging things they hear, for themselves.

I'm not claiming revelation, but only in the sense that everyone receives revelation when they study scriptures and attend the temple. Isn't that one of the main points of study and attending the temple and of just living life? I would find it strange to hear someone say that they never had a revelation in/from the temple and that their understanding of the symbols never advanced. Where else would I be getting my information other than scripture (inc. temple, prophets) and personal thinking/revelation? If I sound certain (and I know I come across that way quite often when I write here), then that is only human nature. We know what we know--until we get our minds changed.

I'm well aware of the, hm, how shall we say it--I mean, I CAN'T say that what I know is for others. I could be wrong. But neither can I walk around rejecting the spiritual information and communication I have with and from my Father. So it's a process, and one that requires a great deal of humility (not saying I'm awash in that either, but just that I'm aware it can be a delicate situation).

As for the particular statement of mine that you quoted from, what makes you say that the fall (partaking of the fruit) is NOT representative of our choice to be born on earth? Just curious. Because it's plain as day to me and the least wierd thing I said out of all my post. But, again, that's me.

Edited September 2, 2012 by Maidservant

[cinepro]

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.

The Fall of Adam is one of the "Three Pillars of Eternity". The reality of the Atonement depends on the literalness of the Fall.

The three pillars of eternity, the three events, preeminent and transcendent above all others, are the creation, the fall, and the atonement. These three are the foundations upon which all things rest. Without any one of them all things would lose their purpose and meaning, and the plans and designs of Deity would come to naught.

If there had been no creation, we would not be, neither the earth, nor any form of life upon its face. All things, all the primal elements, would be without form and void. God would have no spirit children; there would be no mortal probation; and none of us would be on the way to immortality and eternal life.

If there had been no fall of man, there would not be a mortal probation. Mortal man would not be, nor would there be animals or fowls or fishes or life of any sort upon the earth. And, we repeat, none of us would be on the way to immortality and eternal life.

If there had been no atonement of Christ, all things would be lost. The purposes of creation would vanish away. Lucifer would triumph over men and become the captain of their souls. And, we say it again, none of us would be on the way to immortality and eternal life.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The fall of Adam and the atonement of Christ are linked together—inseparably, everlastingly, never to be parted. They are as much a part of the same body as are the head and the heart, and each plays its part in the eternal scheme of things.

Edited September 2, 2012 by cinepro

[wayfarer]

The Fall of Adam is one of the "Three Pillars of Eternity". The reality of the Atonement depends on the literalness of the Fall.

From scripture, can you tell me what the doctrine of Christ is and whether the doctrine of Christ depends upon the literalness of the fall?

Of what normative value is a literal belief in the fall if one fully accepts the doctrine of Christ?

[Storm Rider]

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.

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.

Great comments. It is an excellent "snap back" to where priorities really are and how insignificant some things can be when compared to those most fundamental, vital priorities.

Way, I am so sorry for how badly your experience was with church discipline. Sometimes our bishops and stake presidents get so caught up with a proscribed process they have forgotten what the objective was in the first place. It is so very easy when one is listening first, foremost, and always to what the Spirit is telling us. Some people have already gone through and obtained that wonderful forgiveness the Savior offers and have been able to forgive themselves. These individuals have no need of church discipline; it would yield nothing beneficial for them. However, there are some leaders who feel compelled to go through the steps proscribed. These people who do this will face the same God as you and will be held account for their sins just as much as you will be. Their actioins demand the greatest of humility from those already forgiven, already at the place that we seek through Church discipline, but that humility the Savior grants must continued to be leaned upon and go through whatever is demanded. You will have learned true patience, true humility, and they that demand such a thing damn themselves for not listening to the Spirit.

We too quickly forget the counsel of D&C 121:37:

That they may be conferred upon us, it is true; but when we undertake to cover our sins, or to gratify our pride, our vain ambition, or to exercise control or dominion or compulsion upon the souls of the children of men, in any degree of unrighteousness, behold, the heavens withdraw themselves; the Spirit of the Lord is grieved; and when it is withdrawn, Amen to the priesthood or the authority of that man.

This was written specifically to those in authority and it is they who pay the price of their unrighteous dominion. You must put them in God's hands and be able to forgive and love them as much as you wish for the Savior to love you.

You have gained a wonderful testimony that will not only strengthen you, but all those around you. What a blessing you will be to others.

[K-2]

A lot of the instructionary information in that story, yes, I sometimes hear as being "pre-mortal", in the sense that we were taught the risks of coming here before making our choice. But I don't have that particular element completely thought through. A good place I could learn more.

Well weren't Adam and Eve placed in a garden on a world that was patterned after an older one where they "used to live"?

If they were still in the pre-mortal existence while here, then what would the older world be, that they could not remember, if not the pre-mortal spirit world?

Do you also believe that Adam and Eve had physical bodies organized for them "of the dust of the earth" before they fell? How would that work if the Fall consisted of their choice to be born on earth? How Did they forget all and become as little children if they were still in the pre-mortal existence after being placed in the garden of Eden? Do you believe that the physical bodies of Adam and Eve were organized through the normal reproductive process, or that they were organized "magically" (for lack of a better word)?

I'm surprised at this question. When did he ever not? He atoned for every single one of us. Even if the Adam and Eve story is completely at face value, we each still had to make the choice to come here and participate, and yes, each of us fall. When has that NOT been the story?

Each of us sin of course, but do each of us fall in such a way as to effect the entire earth as the Fall of Adam did? Are we not born onto an already-fallen world that is in a condition that we did not bring about?

Do you mean after his earth life? Of course, his atonement is infinite in all directions of time.

I don't think the atonement of Jesus Christ could be infinite in the past, unless there have been no other Saviors ever, and Joseph Smith taught that the Father took a body and went to redeem a world in the flesh, and Jesus only did what he had seen the Father do.

As for the particular statement of mine that you quoted from, what makes you say that the fall (partaking of the fruit) is NOT representative of our choice to be born on earth? Just curious. Because it's plain as day to me and the least wierd thing I said out of all my post. But, again, that's me.

It is not compatible with what I've already been taught about the nature of the Fall, some points of which I've referred to above. Thanks for being a good sport about my critical comments by the way. I hope it isn't coming across as "jerky". I just wanted to try to point out some reasons I can't accept your understanding of the Fall.

[CV75]

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.

My fallback to such discussions is that belief and faith are not the same. Whatever we believe, it is our faith in that which is true that saves us, inasmuch as what we believe does not detract from our relationship with Christ through pride or contention against the truth. I believe Adam and Eve were real people, but I really don’t know much about them, and it is my faith in the truths and covenants connected with them (whether they are figurative or actual people) that makes me the saint to the degree that I am.

On the other hand, if I look at my wife and children as figurative, there isn’t much to be sealed to except an idea, and then what need would there be for a resurrection, or a mortal life for that matter? If the chain of sealings goes back to the first parents, and these are figurative, then we are too.

[thesometimesaint]

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?

As in Adam all men die, even so in Christ shall all men be made alive.

[mfbukowski]

The Fall of Adam is one of the "Three Pillars of Eternity". The reality of the Atonement depends on the literalness of the Fall.

Or the symbology of the atonement depends on the symbology of the fall if you want to look at it that way.

Taking it literally doesn't really make much difference in how the ideas are linked.

[Maidservant]

Let me clarify just in general that the terms "literal" and "figurative/symbolic" are terms that I apply to literature/text/media. Is a given media "literal" to the REALITY; or "symbolic" to the REALITY. To speak of something as symbolic is to speak of the media of presenting the reality, not the reality itself. The reality is always there and it is always the reality. Textual literalism is always a bit tricky also because you always have to leave some reality 'out' and you always have a bias or point of view (although one could trust in God's bias or point of view). All historians learn that there is no 'real' story--there is only a frame or point of view, although the more points of view you include, the closer you get, but never quite approach, the 'real' story. Why? because it's gone, and only the present remains.

So, the FALL is absolutely real to me. Reality cannot be symbolic (other than taking life's experience as a media of some other reality, won't go into that). Reality is reality. The Fall is real, we are living it. The great thing about symbolism in general and the Genesis and temple and etc accounts (=media) is the miraculous level of symbolism that provides endless feasts of spiritual information as we go along in our understanding and the progression of our spiritual condition. It provides information about the mechanics of the Fall and of our Restoration and Exaltation (etc).

To be more plain, the Genesis account (etc) does provide information about the mechanics of the reality of the Fall, but that information is not located in the face value child's story that is meant to be just that--a place for a child to begin in their understanding. So I say. And that is NOT a put down. Children must have a place to begin, whether chronological or spiritual children. I believe that the Hebrew way of learning begins with learning rote stories, good for children and beginning learners, and then once those are memorized then more exploration and learning based on specific ways and keys. Genesis is presented in the manner of Hebrew learning, which we have lost, unless we learn it on our own. Again, so I say. Glad to hear anyone who knows about Hebrew learning to correct me in my impressions of this learning style.

I was going to reply directly to K-2, but I have to go for now, will reply on his further points later.

[CV75]

Reality is reality.

This is why I ask myself, “At what point (or in what way) were my ancestors figurative, and at what point (or in what way) did they become actual ancestors?” And, “At what point did they become ancestors by blood, and at what point did they become ancestors by covenant?” The sealing power seems to bring the blood (the literal) and the covenant (the figurative) together into one, as only the righteous will be linked together as families in the eternities, where blood/mortality is not the reality at all.

One answer might be that the points of transition from figurative to literal and from blood to covenant occurred when my ancestors became as human as I am. Some may argue this was a particular point in evolution (when humanity could grasp the divine revelation of the covenant of Christ) and others at the point of the Fall (when Adam and Eve became mortal and placed under covenant).

But I don’t see how a figurative Adam and Eve can serve as placeholders at the beginning of the line of the same literal, mortal humanity (“blood”) that is shared by Christ, whose immortal Father in the flesh is literal, and whose covenant is fulfilled only in mortality among His actual spirit children.

I can also see real people being used a figurative characters for instructional purposes.

[mfbukowski]

Let me clarify just in general that the terms "literal" and "figurative/symbolic" are terms that I apply to literature/text/media. Is a given media "literal" to the REALITY; or "symbolic" to the REALITY. To speak of something as symbolic is to speak of the media of presenting the reality, not the reality itself. The reality is always there and it is always the reality. Textual literalism is always a bit tricky also because you always have to leave some reality 'out' and you always have a bias or point of view (although one could trust in God's bias or point of view). All historians learn that there is no 'real' story--there is only a frame or point of view, although the more points of view you include, the closer you get, but never quite approach, the 'real' story. Why? because it's gone, and only the present remains.

So, the FALL is absolutely real to me. Reality cannot be symbolic (other than taking life's experience as a media of some other reality, won't go into that). Reality is reality. The Fall is real, we are living it. The great thing about symbolism in general and the Genesis and temple and etc accounts (=media) is the miraculous level of symbolism that provides endless feasts of spiritual information as we go along in our understanding and the progression of our spiritual condition. It provides information about the mechanics of the Fall and of our Restoration and Exaltation (etc).

To be more plain, the Genesis account (etc) does provide information about the mechanics of the reality of the Fall, but that information is not located in the face value child's story that is meant to be just that--a place for a child to begin in their understanding. So I say. And that is NOT a put down. Children must have a place to begin, whether chronological or spiritual children. I believe that the Hebrew way of learning begins with learning rote stories, good for children and beginning learners, and then once those are memorized then more exploration and learning based on specific ways and keys. Genesis is presented in the manner of Hebrew learning, which we have lost, unless we learn it on our own. Again, so I say. Glad to hear anyone who knows about Hebrew learning to correct me in my impressions of this learning style.

I was going to reply directly to K-2, but I have to go for now, will reply on his further points later.

Yep- right on the money.

[mfbukowski]

I can also see real people being used a figurative characters for instructional purposes.

As in George Washington never telling a lie.

[CV75]

As in George Washington never telling a lie.

...or in the President's Day car sales ads

I really like the Abe Lincoln in the Geico commercial!

[Maidservant]

Ok, replying only as to my understanding so you can see where I'm coming from and/or where I've gotten to.

Well weren't Adam and Eve placed in a garden on a world that was patterned after an older one where they "used to live"?

If they were still in the pre-mortal existence while here, then what would the older world be, that they could not remember, if not the pre-mortal spirit world?

Yes, or more or less.

Adam and Eve= me, us

placed = could mean anything, birth, or in a previous condition to birth, or simply a spiritual level, could even be cyclical meaning we come around to it again and again in eternal rounds; but yes, I think very carefully if *I* am Adam and Eve, then what does it say about me and my progression to be placed in a garden--where, when, how, why, and what do I do from there to continue to progress?

in a garden = indicative of a spiritual or some progressive condition, represents more than one thing depending on the knowledge set I'm thinking through or learning; have even tried out some things like, garden = childhood innocence; I do NOT tend to think of this as a physical placement nor do I consider the text to be asking me to do so

on a world = 'world' is not equated with 'planet' with me; a world is a system for how human beings relate to and interact with each other

patterned after an older one where we used to live = honestly this phrase continues to take my breath away and I haven't figured it all out, but I have not very often taken that as "pre-mortal" life necessarily; yes and no; depends on how I'm thinking. I mean, obviously there is something pre-mortal about it because it is before and not now, but what it really means, I find it very mysterious still!

You see, I ask myself, why would God have me walk through the endowment just learn about some people in the past? The plain answer to me is, he wouldn't. That isn't what God is trying to teach me. He is having ME do the story of the garden of eden, which is all he has ever done--each of us passing through this story NOT in the temple only but in REALITY. See I think my way is even more literal. We are the children of God literally in the middle of God's literal plan of salvation and this is presented to us in the endowment (of which Genesis is a textual record) symbolically so that we can learn what we literally need to do in our real life NOW. I cannot see Genesis as a history about my origins; it is an intricate symbolism about MY relationship with God and with other people (particularly in the gender sense) and also my relationship with myself, because sometimes I take all the figures in that "play" and I ask myself, what part of MYSELF does this represent and how do I deal with it (for example)?

So even if I don't know exactly yet what the garden of eden is to me, I know I have to figure it out, because it is about ME, not THEM (and there is no 'them', to me; just US).

Do you also believe that Adam and Eve had physical bodies organized for them "of the dust of the earth" before they fell? How would that work if the Fall consisted of their choice to be born on earth? How Did they forget all and become as little children if they were still in the pre-mortal existence after being placed in the garden of Eden? Do you believe that the physical bodies of Adam and Eve were organized through the normal reproductive process, or that they were organized "magically" (for lack of a better word)?

Well, what is your definition of dust? By my definition (i.e. the symbolism I understand from dust), *I* am created from dust and so are you.

I also sometimes try out, and find that it gives much good information, is the idea that on this planet, people have been living for a long time and perhaps there was a whole society of people who were living in innocence just like we expect to again during the Millenium and the terrestrial world, which we are told will be for a time, and then we will fall again--Satan will be loosed again. Now, again, am I right? I don't know. But what I'm saying is that for me there are connections and patterns everywhere, and I try to see where they go. But here is an example of people with bodies who are not fallen--that is, people who are living in a terrestrial world including children who are born.

Generations of time (mortality) have been going on for eons and generations of time will go on for eons. There will be no end to the opportunity for physical, mortal birth, because history in time, in mortality, will always be happening. This is my opinion from what I've gathered from the temple and bits here and there. And I am absolutely a firm believer that all human beings are born (not evolved, not fashioned from clay, etc). There are worlds coming into existence and passing away. There is always mortality somewhere, because mortality, the fall, is something that just IS, and we participate in it at some point. No, I don't think it means that one man and woman had to push a button (i.e. eat a piece of fruit) for mortality to initiate on this planet.

However, our bodies are a technology and it is likely that (in my opinion only) they were invented at some point in the eons. But was it invented just prior to the advent of mortality in which we are now participating? No, I don't think so. I don't think the wheel needs to be re-invented. Of course, some very interesting stuff is happening in articifical intelligence research, so maybe there are other pathways to becoming alive.

If I go with the idea that the mortal universe is a program we have entered, then there are a lot of other implications to our physical bodies and what they are and our spirit's relationship to them.

And I repeat--the story and its symbolisms don't always mean the same thing to me all the time--sometimes I see them as past (pre-mortal), present, future, here, there. The symbolisms as a set are like a piece of hardware (a computer) that can bring up infinite meanings (the internet).

I cannot account for every loose end in my thinking. And the questions you bring are definitely the places I need to think more about. But if you take the endowment, they play fast and loose about who has a body also. I mean, I remember being utterly startled when in a particular instance of the temple drama the flesh of someone I considered unborn to be touching the flesh of someone I considered to be born. So in terms of its literalness, I have to leave that for now and just wonder what ELSE it means, since it's obviously (?) not about the literalness of bodies--OR? I don't know yet! I know that I am in process--here a little, there a little. Some things become stronger to me, some things fall away. But what I have come to believe, I find everything in the story as it is and in other scriptures that connect to those same symbolisms, not in any place of study outside of these materials other than just the plainness of life experience.

Each of us sin of course, but do each of us fall in such a way as to effect the entire earth as the Fall of Adam did? Are we not born onto an already-fallen world that is in a condition that we did not bring about?

I do not know how much more I can speak of until I get to parts of things I am learning that I do not feel comfortable sharing. Let me only repeat that as I am understanding now, mortality is a constant opportunity AND/OR that perhaps we fell as a society by forgetting AND/OR people are people, humans are humans, and this God/human story is amazing, but it's right before our eyes and there is no magical explanation but at the same time it is deeply sacred. We come here into the fall, we struggle, we figure out the truth of charity through that struggle, we find our heaven here in the same place as our hell--the only difference is what WE have become. Once our condition changes (sanctification etc), then our surroundings also change. (sin = separation from God, not only 'being bad', so we have been SEPARATED from God, we separated ourselves from God and from each other by coming here). Also in the Old Testament, the concepts hinge on clean/unclean not 'sin' as we sometimes accept its meaning.

There is nothing one man could do to bind or force us to experience the Fall without our complete choice. So what purpose is it to have one man 'push a button' when it is clear that this type of choice on his part (were it literal as I am understanding right now that it is not) could not be binding on us anyway? WE choose to come. WE are Adam. We are Human (because that is all that Adam means). And yet at the same time, you are right. There is so much that we are 'forced' to participate in that we did NOT choose (in terms of this life). We are born into and inherit a culture and a set of traditions and our eyes are closed by them unless we slowly, proactively open them. We inherit history and the weaknesses of the flesh and we are subject to them without any choice (once we arrive, but we chose to enter before we came, but we forgot that). Until we learn and by the grace of Christ's Atonement, learn to overcome and have all things become subject to us.

I don't think the atonement of Jesus Christ could be infinite in the past, unless there have been no other Saviors ever, and Joseph Smith taught that the Father took a body and went to redeem a world in the flesh, and Jesus only did what he had seen the Father do.

This idea is almost another thread and I really don't know the conclusion to it, nor for myself do I need to know. The Book of Mormon speaks of an infinite atonement and I take that as backwards and forwards in time also (at least to this earth). But what the actual mechanics are, I don't know and/or another thread. I tend to agree with you that this life and atonement process has played out on other earths with its own set of people including saviors, but that's just an opinion, I can't account for it. I am also not needing heavenly Father to be one of those saviors. I know people frequently understand that scripture in that way, but I do not have a need for that explanation myself. It's ok with me if he was just a regular person and the plan as I understand it doesn't break down if he was just a regular person (or as my 12 year old son once put it, with deep respect but humor as well, a gangsta ).

It is not compatible with what I've already been taught about the nature of the Fall, some points of which I've referred to above. Thanks for being a good sport about my critical comments by the way. I hope it isn't coming across as "jerky". I just wanted to try to point out some reasons I can't accept your understanding of the Fall.

Fair enough. Like I said, you made good points of probably the exact places where I need to think about it more. And I've lived long enough to know that sometimes after going through an entire process, I end up learning that the simplest explanation really is what it ends up being. Also though--I didn't ask for this. I was a young girl with a religious mind and in the past I was completely satisfied with face value stuff. The trouble is that the scriptures themselves, life itself, and what God himself wants to show me, have never let me rest in those things I once understood when younger. It is my heavenly Father who challenges me constantly to understand something more, generally right at the points of scriptures, endowment or my life that don't make sense. It's a scary process for me, honestly, and sometimes I wish I could just go back to thinking that Adam and Eve had three sons and no daughters and this is how the world began. Once you mention to yourself, well, three sons cannot give birth to the whole world no matter what the text says because its plain that you need a man and woman to keep reproducing, so who are those women? and you question THAT--then the questions never end, and neither do the answers. It's exhilarating and a little scary and exhausting at the same time.

I want to mention that I am open to the reality of Adam and Eve as historical figures, but my point would be that Genesis does not present this. So if one wishes to take them as historical figures, there has to be another source (so I say), because Genesis itself does not purport to be that source (so I say). And as a historical text it is otherwise unreliable, due to the transmision problems. (As a revelatory text, I accept it and have a deep personal testimony of it.) And I am simply not studied enough to know what else there is that say who our ancestors are. Now, Joseph Fielding Smith had a vision and he saw Father Adam and Mother Eve. I accept what he saw in his vision. But this is a NEW piece of information, not an old one, and it is revelatory and not historical. And there is not a lot of information other than that he saw them.

Anyway. I do not expect anyone to agree with me. But what I do hope for if possible (fine, if not) is for others who do not agree, to acknowledge that I have not picked my conclusions out of thin air but rather with long engagement with the material itself and with God himself, and I consider this faithful and not the opposite of faith--to be seeking further knowledge.

Edited September 3, 2012 by Maidservant

[urroner]

Whether or not if Adam and Ever were real people, I don't care that much, but I like to think they are real.

Several years ago, I read some writings by Margaret Barker about what Adam and Eve could have represented and I find it rather interesting.

http://www.margaretb...omOtherTree.pdf

She said that Adam represented the high priesthood during the time of the First Temple and his fall represented the loss of the high priesthood.

The symbol of the Lady was the tree of life, and when the story of Eden was told by the Genesis writer, Adam was intended to eat its fruit. Only the other tree was forbidden. Nobody knows where that other tree came from, nor how it came to be in Eden. All the LORD God could do was warn his Adam against it, knowing that it would lead to death.

Genesis 2-3 tells the story of the rejection of the Lady and its consequences. Adam and Eve were driven from Eden and faced the prospect of thorns and thistles, pain, dust and death. The land became infertile - just as Isaiah had warned his people, and the refugees in Egypt had complained. Eden represented the original temple, as is clear in Jubilees and many other texts. The undivided Adam-and-Eve were the original high priesthood, driven from their temple where they had enjoyed angel status and walked with the LORD. After eating from the forbidden tree, they lost their angel status and faced the prospect of death and returning to dust. In the code of the temple, they became ‘animals’ and not ‘men, that is mortals and not angels.

The first creation story is in Genesis 1, and the relationship between this account and the Eden story has long been a problem. Genesis 1 is a priestly text, a stylised account of the creation that was replicated in the ceremonial erection of the tabernacle and in the form and function of the temple. The creation of Adam corresponded to the purification of the high priests, and Adam was remembered as a glorious and wise figure whose priesthood upheld the creation. The Community Rule shows that the people at Qumran hoped to regain all the glory of Adam, the knowledge of the Most High and the wisdom of the sons of heaven (1QS IV). There is none of this is in Genesis 1 as we point and read the text today, but the wise and glorious Adam was well known in non-canonical texts5. Adam had been the ideal for the sacral kings in Jerusalem, and when they became corrupt and eventually lost their throne, questions were asked about Adam and how he had lost his original state and status.

One of the responses to this crisis was Ezekiel’s twin oracles that now appear as oracles against Tyre. They were originally prompted by the expulsion of the sacral kings from the temple, Adam driven from Eden. The Eden stories encoded the story of the temple and its priesthood.

[Alvino]

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.

Brother, the point is that this is an epistemological problem. For you to say you have a personal experience with Jesus you have to have several beliefs already about Jesus. For example, he is capable of communicating with you through weird means more close to psychic powers than to T.V. He is still alive. He atoned for something. He has some relation to 'grace'. Etc.

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.

Honestly, I don't want to downplay your experience here and I am seriously glad that people have these experience and help them to overcome some challenges they have.

...but, for the sake of the discussion and so you see that you are assuming a lot of things about this Jesus, here are other assumptions: 1) Jesus was the one that helped you and not Zeus or Quetzalcoatl. 2) Jesus wanted you to stop drinking.

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.

Because no one here may dispute the veracity of your private experiences. What many people question is the source of those experiences. If I feel like I am floating, that doesn't mean I am floating.

[MormonMason]

Personally, I don't necessarily see the need to reconcile anything with science. In all the decades of my life, I have seen the scientists make complete 180s and 360s on various things, not the least of which was biological. On some things, science builds upon and continues to do so. On other things, ideas get overturned over time with the next new discovery.

I do not see evolution as necessarily being opposed to LDS beliefs, and some kind of evolution is even implied in some LDS scripture. Examples can be seen in the idea that the Gods command something and watch to see that they have been obeyed. That involves a process going on over long periods.

In my thinking, Adam and Eve were the first humans on earth to have the opportunity for full sentience and immortality, and I believe them to be literal persons. Science tells us some interesting things in relation to this. It may not currently agree at the present time and may never agree on all points. Thing is, the Doctrine and Covenants supports the Bible in testifying of Adam as a real person interacting with history.

Now, let's look at this scientifically. Science claims that through genetic bottlenecks and so forth, all humans are descended from one surviving human female and one surviving human male (with a small influx of genes from other hominid species). In this narrow point of one human male and one human female from whom all other humans on earth now descend (excepting the influx of genes from other hominids), religion in the Bible agrees.

However, current science says that these individuals did not live at the same time but that genetic bottlenecks occurred that wiped out most all of the other humans at the times that the single male and female survived. "Genetic clocks" put them at different times but that is assuming that we have all the data right on the use of such "genetic clocks." Given that the human DNA databases may have as high as a 50% error rate in them this will take considerable time to sort out.

I find the recent studies of the FOX0 gene interesting. Worms with a more functional variant have double the healthy lifespan of those with the less functional variant. All humans have it but not all humans have one that functions as well as others. If you have a more functional FOX0 gene, you will live longer than most people and the aging process is slower and less destructive in those who carry the more functional variant of the gene. People who have the more functional variant tend to live in the high 90s or even into their 100s, without major health problems! In no case is the gene 100% functional, however, in combination with the other genes involved in aging and longevity.

Suppose a human had a 100% functional FOX0 gene and 100% functional longevity-associated genes, along with genes responsible for accelerating aging all switched off. What might happen, then? Would a human then have some kind of immortality? It is a good possibility. Suppose now that Adam and Eve were possessors of such genetic functionality? Can you now see the plausibility of the Bible account of Adam and Eve and the long-lived Antedeluvians in even the slightest?

Now, suppose that there was a tree that could cause genetic mutation upon eating the fruit, thereby neutralizing the genes and switching on some of the genes involved in aging. Suppose that humans descended from Adam and Eve still could live a very long time because of their genes and that the genes eventually degraded with succeeding generations. Could that explain the long lifespans in the early part of the Bible? Possibly. That is thinking it out scientifically. It is not proof of anything and may not be the reason for why things were reported as they were. But, it is of interest, nonetheless, when we think about long enough.

Now, for my take on death and dying, and related thought, I think that for other species death existed. I think the forerunners of humanity died. Adam and Eve, being the first humans on earth who were fully sentient and also having some kind of immortality, lived long enough to see other life forms dying to know that death would kill them when God imparted instructions to them relative to what they could and could not eat in the garden.

How many little children actually understand death until they have seen it for themselves? How many even then? But, I think Adam and Eve understood the meaning of death because they saw it elsewhere as they continued on for a while, during which time other things died around them. God telling them that they would die if they ate something makes little sense to me if they did not understand what that entailed and meant. That is just my thinking on the matter, however. It is nothing set in stone and I could discard my ideas in the blink of an eye should new revelation give new information that "tells us like it is."

While I in my younger years made my bread and butter in the sciences, I do not adhere to it like a religion. I have seen too many very serious changes in it to make it so. I see no need to quantify and correlate every doctrine to current scientific thinking in order to maintain belief.