"the Story Of The Rib, Of Course, Is Figurative."

[CV75]

When discussing the creation of Adam and Eve, President Kimball taught the following:

 

 

 

 

 

Can anyone explain to me how the following verses from Moses 3 are "figurative"?  I've underlined the parts that seem to really be describing a literal rib being taken from Adam:

 

 

 

In other words, if the phrase "I took one of his ribs" is figurative, then what is the figurative understanding of "and closed up the flesh in the stead thereof."

Here is how it is figurative to me:

 

1. His rib isn’t a “she.”

2. “This…bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh” refers the new “creature” that was created by the marriage of a man and a woman.

3. “Closed up the flesh” means sealing the breech in the eternal plan that the unmarried state represents.

4. To be “taken out of man” refers to having to be two separate creatures before being united (the first creation of marriage was spiritual, and had to be reinstated and confirmed in the flesh).

[mfbukowski]

If one believes human bodies are the sexual offspring of God, why would that be "not our business"? We're not speculating about positions or asking for pictures. Our kids knowing the facts of how they got here is "their business".

 

I just don't think the stories about God procreating immortal physical children who are then changed into mortals makes any sense today when everything is taken into consideration. It especially doesn't make any sense in context with the intent of the original Genesis story.

 

If talking about, umm, the divine importance of 'procreative power' is lightning worthy, then our GAs are in big trouble.

 

I do think the bodies of humans are the result of sexual reproduction, and that any "first" modern humans to have had an eternal divine spirit as part of their essential identity came into the world the same way as I did - wet, yucky, and crying. I think Ahab and I disagree on who they got their homo-sapien DNA from, tho.

One might think it was a divinely caused mutation which makes the source of the DNA irrelevant.  But that also presumes that the story is at least in principle scientifically knowable, but I would disagree with that.

 

For me it is a spiritual belief, not a scientific one.

Edited February 9, 2014 by mfbukowski

[firepatch36]

Here's a Brigham Young quote that I find humorous:

 

I do not know anything to the contrary of my ribs being equal on both sides. The Lord knows if I had lost a rib for each wife I have, I should have had none left long ago… As for the rib out of Adam’s side to make a woman of, he took one out of my side just as much. ‘But,’ Brother Brigham, ‘would you make it appear that Moses did not tell the truth?’ No not a particle more that I would that your mother did not tell the truth, when she told you that little Billy came from a hollow toad stool…. The people in the days of Moses wanted to know things that were not for them. (Discourse from October 8, 1854 contained in the book “The Adam – God Maze”)

 

[mfbukowski]

Here's a Brigham Young quote that I find humorous:

The more I study BY the more I like him.

[Five Solas]

If it's figurative, Adam's song in Genesis 2:23 is nonsense--

 

“This is now bone of my bones
    and flesh of my flesh;
she shall be called ‘woman,’
    for she was taken out of man.”

 

Methinks you're losing something important

 

--Erik

[Ahab]

If it's figurative, Adam's song in Genesis 2:23 is nonsense--

“This is now bone of my bones

and flesh of my flesh;

she shall be called ‘woman,’

for she was taken out of man.”

Methinks you're losing something important

--Erik

The big question is what man was she taken out of, or in other words, who is her Father? If the part of a man that was used to create her came from Adam, then I would say her Father is Adam, but if the part of a man that was used to create her came from our Father, then I would say Adam and Eve were both children of our Father, and brother and sister, as well as husband and wife.

[mfbukowski]

If it's figurative, Adam's song in Genesis 2:23 is nonsense--

 

“This is now bone of my bones

    and flesh of my flesh;

she shall be called ‘woman,’

    for she was taken out of man.”

 

Methinks you're losing something important

 

--Erik

Well for the first time in history, and probably the last, I think I agree with you.

 

Here the thread starts out quoting a prophet of the Lord telling us that the story of the rib is figurative, and the rest of the thread is about how it is about science and the possible biology involved.

 

Go figure.

[Robert F. Smith]

http://vridar.org/2010/06/20/which-bone-was-eve-made-from/

2010-06-20 Which “Bone” Was Eve Made From? by Neil Godfrey

Filed under: OT Archaeology & Literature

Tags: Adam, Adam and Eve, Book of Genesis

The creation and Adam and Eve narratives are often said to be nice moral tales that convey spiritual truths. Being myth does not disqualify them from containing meaningful messages for modern readers.

So at wedding ceremonies and in sunday school classes bible-believers are regaled with the “beautiful story” of the God practising a bit of psychic surgery as his hand penetrates Adam’s side to pull out a rib which he used to create Eve. And since this story is not something that has been uncovered in modern times among cuneiform tablets alongside myths of sea-monsters and sky-gods, but is one we have been as familiar with as our soft pillows and teddy bear toys since childhood, we call it a “beautiful metaphor” of the marriage relationship.

....................................................   

You might want to contemplate this bit of cuneiform literature, from http://faculty.gvsu.edu/websterm/SumerianMyth.htm:

 

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)

 

Each of the eight healing deities has a name that sounds like the name of the body part that needs healing. Kramer finds one of these double names to be significant:

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, though he is quick to point out that "the Hebrew word for 'rib' and that for 'who makes live' have nothing in common" (Mythologies 103). I suppose it is possible that Eve ("life") was taken from Adam's rib (and not some other body part) because of some dim recollection of this Sumerian rib / life pun. I should note, however, that in the Bible the two terms are separated: Eve is created from Adam's rib at Genesis 2:21-24, but she does not receive her "life" name until Genesis 3:20.

Edited February 10, 2014 by Robert F. Smith

[DBMormon]

According to General Authorities

- Rib is figurative

- Adam from dust is figurative

- The two trees are figurative

- How they were created is alluded to being the same as we all were.

 

This doesn't leave much.  My take

While the First spirit children of God to take on Mortal tabernacles may have and I am happy to believe named ADAM and EVE - The rest of the story is only literal in terms of symbollically relating to God;'s children leaving his presence to come to earth, falling from pre earth life to a mortal tabernacle here on earth.

 

I feel no pressure to take more then this.

[JAHS]

So, God asked Adam, "What is wrong with you?" 
Adam said he didn't have anyone to talk to.
God said that He was going to make Adam a companion and that it would be a woman. God said, "This person will gather food for you, cook for you, and when you discover clothing she'll wash it for you. She will always agree with every decision you make. She will bear your children and never ask you to get up in the middle of the night to take care of them. She will not nag you and will always be the first to admit she was wrong when you've had a disagreement. She will never have a headache and will freely give you love and passion whenever you need it." 
Adam asked God, "What will a woman like this cost?" And God replied, "An arm and a leg." 
Adam said, "So, what could I get for a rib?" 
And, the rest is history.

[mfbukowski]

According to General Authorities

- Rib is figurative

- Adam from dust is figurative

- The two trees are figurative

- How they were created is alluded to being the same as we all were.

 

This doesn't leave much.  My take

While the First spirit children of God to take on Mortal tabernacles may have and I am happy to believe named ADAM and EVE - The rest of the story is only literal in terms of symbollically relating to God;'s children leaving his presence to come to earth, falling from pre earth life to a mortal tabernacle here on earth.

 

I feel no pressure to take more then this.

Agreed.

 

One you label one portion of the story as "figurative", drawing the line becomes impossible.

[mfbukowski]

In fact for you who are younger than 45 or so, Google the phrase "strictly figurative insofar as the man and woman are concerned."

 

Let's just say that there is an authoritative doctrinal source saying the entire story is figurative.

[DBMormon]

In fact for you who are younger than 45 or so, Google the phrase "strictly figurative insofar as the man and woman are concerned."

 

Let's just say that there is an authoritative doctrinal source saying the entire story is figurative.

 

And if the first man and Woman were created just as we were, then they haveto be the Children of other humanoids.  The Church has essentially left this as one possibility by calling this part figurative.  

 

So now we speak of the repercussions of having a physical experience to make an atonement by Christ when the fall now was a figurative experience For Adam and Eve

[mfbukowski]

And if the first man and Woman were created just as we were, then they haveto be the Children of other humanoids.  The Church has essentially left this as one possibility by calling this part figurative.  

 

So now we speak of the repercussions of having a physical experience to make an atonement by Christ when the fall now was a figurative experience For Adam and Eve

This is precisely where Pragmatism as a philosophy is key.  As you have stated this is ONE possibility.  The function of the belief in the atonement is to allow ourselves to feel forgiven after having repented, and to free ourselves from the awful burden of guilt.

 

One possibility, which I personally believe, is that somehow it "actually" happened, but in my life the "actual" part is unimportant.  On a spiritual level what is most important subjectively is that I can forgive myself after I have done "all I can do" to remediate what I may have done to hurt other's or not measure up to my personal expectations of what it means to me to "fill the measure of my creation and have joy therein."

 

One can erase the need "real" events, if one understands that the kingdom of heaven is within

[mfbukowski]

The advantage is that one no longer needs history or science as a crutch to testimony.  Testimony becomes the only important thing.

 

What Joseph did or did not do, or whether there was a flood or the idea that we are glorified monkeys becomes irrelevant when one sees spirituality this way.

 

You can believe whatever you like "actually" happened, it just becomes unimportant in the final analysis.

Edited February 10, 2014 by mfbukowski

[ALarson]

The advantage is that one no longer needs history or science as a crutch to testimony.  Testimony becomes the only important thing.

I agree.  This is exactly where I am at with my testimony of the church.  I have a much more symbolic view of the writings rather than a literal view.  This has really helped me.

[mfbukowski]

And what that does is make testimony unshakable

[mfbukowski]

I agree.  This is exactly where I am at with my testimony of the church.  I have a much more symbolic view of the writings rather than a literal view.  This has really helped me.

Exactly!

[CMZ]

Well, Adam and Eve really existed. I think the story we get about these real people is rooted in actual events but is told in a way that almost inextricably entwines the literal with the figurative. Don't throw out the literal just because there's symbolic aspects.

 

As far as the rib thing goes, just keep going to the temple and pondering on it and eventually it'll make sense.

[DBMormon]

The imagery used to veil the account of Eve's birth is most beautiful, particularly so in a day when there is so much confusion about the role of women. Symbolically, she was not taken from the bones of Adam's head nor from the bones of his heel, for it is not the place of woman to be either above the man or beneath him. Her place is at his side, and so she is taken, in the figurative sense, from his rib-the bone that girds the side and rests closest to the heart. Thus we find Adam declaring: "This I know now is bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh; she shall be called Woman, because she was taken out of man" (Moses 3:23). Eve, unlike the rest of God's creations, was of Adam's bone and of his flesh, meaning that she was equal to him in powers, faculties, and rights.

 

http://www.lds.net/forums/lds-gospel-discussion/32478-garden-eden-figurative-literal.html

[Gray]

Well, Adam and Eve really existed. I think the story we get about these real people is rooted in actual events but is told in a way that almost inextricably entwines the literal with the figurative. Don't throw out the literal just because there's symbolic aspects.

 

As far as the rib thing goes, just keep going to the temple and pondering on it and eventually it'll make sense.

 

What value is added by supposing that any of it is literal?

[DBMormon]

What value is added by supposing that any of it is literal?

We have in our faith tradition to link a real Adam and Eve to other "this dispensation" experiences.  If there is no real Adam and Eve then it becomes a house of cards and can fall

[Gray]

We have in our faith tradition to link a real Adam and Eve to other "this dispensation" experiences.  If there is no real Adam and Eve then it becomes a house of cards and can fall

 

Why is the idea of dispensations important? I know it's something that has come to the forefront in the last decade or so, but I'm not sure how the idea of dispensations affects anyone's relationship with the divine. It's an idea based on a literal view of scripture, but I'm not sure it's terribly important 

 

The story of Adam and Eve is the story of all of us - we start out innocent, and we trade innocence for knowledge of good and evil. 

 

One of the most powerful stories in all of scripture is the story of the Good Samaritan - a story we can all agree is not based on actual events, and yet remains one of the most powerful teachings in the Bible. Taking it literally wouldn't add anything really. 

[JLHPROF]

Why is the idea of dispensations important? I know it's something that has come to the forefront in the last decade or so, but I'm not sure how the idea of dispensations affects anyone's relationship with the divine. It's an idea based on a literal view of scripture, but I'm not sure it's terribly important 

 

The story of Adam and Eve is the story of all of us - we start out innocent, and we trade innocence for knowledge of good and evil. 

 

One of the most powerful stories in all of scripture is the story of the Good Samaritan - a story we can all agree is not based on actual events, and yet remains one of the most powerful teachings in the Bible. Taking it literally wouldn't add anything really. 

 

The difference is The Good Samaritan was a parable, a story Christ told to illustrate many points.

 

The people listed in the Old Testament - Adam, Noah, Moses, are actual people, at least in Mormonism.  They have appeared to prophets, been seen in visions, and in some cases physically laid hands.

 

This desire to place everything that Science and History don't prove as real into the realm of myth is in my opinion the work of the adversary.  It is the same spirit caused the BOM people to doubt in the existence of a Christ, because they had not seen.  It is the same spirit that apostates and critics use to denounce Joseph Smith's prophetic calling.  It is science versus religion, a story as old as the ages, and it is strange to see so many people trying to reconcile them at the expense of faith.

[Gray]

The difference is The Good Samaritan was a parable, a story Christ told to illustrate many points.

 

The people listed in the Old Testament - Adam, Noah, Moses, are actual people, at least in Mormonism.  They have appeared to prophets, been seen in visions, and in some cases physically laid hands.

 

This desire to place everything that Science and History don't prove as real into the realm of myth is in my opinion the work of the adversary.  It is the same spirit caused the BOM people to doubt in the existence of a Christ, because they had not seen.  It is the same spirit that apostates and critics use to denounce Joseph Smith's prophetic calling.  It is science versus religion, a story as old as the ages, and it is strange to see so many people trying to reconcile them at the expense of faith.

 

 

The Pentateuch is no less parable than the story of the Good Samaritan or the Prodigal Son. How could it be anything but parable, written by a people without our modern concept of historicity and literalness?

 

If the purpose of this life is to become as God, then I can't imagine that ignoring evidence just because we don't like it is good preparation for that enterprise. If God were to ignore evidence that displeased him, the consequences might be disastrous. 

 

No, I think evidence and reason are next to Godliness, not an affront to Godliness. 

 

Joseph's prophetic calling is not just a matter of evidence, but also a matter of perspective.

Edited February 12, 2014 by Gray