Teancum Posted April 6, 2015 Posted April 6, 2015 I caught that. That is why I said people would start dissecting it. Elder Holland was very careful to make sure that while he believed in a literal garden and a literal Adam and Eve he did not go beyond that. Why does he have to be so careful?
The Nehor Posted April 6, 2015 Posted April 6, 2015 Why does he have to be so careful?So he communicates only what he is trying to communicate.
mnn727 Posted April 6, 2015 Posted April 6, 2015 I agree with Carbon.If there was no fall there was no need for an atonement to reverse it.Merely by mans nature there was a need for an atonement.
Teancum Posted April 6, 2015 Posted April 6, 2015 So he communicates only what he is trying to communicate. Well that makes total sense. What was he trying to communicate or not communicate. Really what I heard is he was teaching there was a literal Adam and Eve and no death before the fall. No real wiggle room.
Gray Posted April 6, 2015 Posted April 6, 2015 It seems obvious to me that Adam and Eve are allegorical and are meant to represent humanity generally. If the beginning of is all based on fiction why believe anything else. I don't see how one can claim a literal Christ without a literal Adam and Eve. I don't believe one can have one without the other. Suppose for a second that there was no Adam or Eve. Would humanity still need saving from sin, based on your observations?
Gray Posted April 6, 2015 Posted April 6, 2015 Then God should really stop talking to us as if they were all real. I'd argue that God doesn't "talk" in that way at all.
The Nehor Posted April 6, 2015 Posted April 6, 2015 I'd argue that God doesn't "talk" in that way at all.And I would disagree. 1
ERayR Posted April 6, 2015 Posted April 6, 2015 Merely by mans nature there was a need for an atonement. Adam fell that man might be. No fall. No man.
ERayR Posted April 6, 2015 Posted April 6, 2015 Well that makes total sense. What was he trying to communicate or not communicate. Really what I heard is he was teaching there was a literal Adam and Eve and no death before the fall. No real wiggle room. No human death, I believe he said.
Teancum Posted April 6, 2015 Posted April 6, 2015 No human death, I believe he said. Interesting. I would like to read it.
JLHPROF Posted April 6, 2015 Posted April 6, 2015 Merely by mans nature there was a need for an atonement. But men wouldn't have that nature without the fall of Adam and Eve.
Teancum Posted April 6, 2015 Posted April 6, 2015 Adam fell that man might be. No fall. No man. Yet humans, or at least home sapiens have existed for hundreds of thousands of years and on all the continents for tens of thousands. 1
teddyaware Posted April 6, 2015 Posted April 6, 2015 Merely by mans nature there was a need for an atonement. The Book of Mormon teaches us that freedom of choice is made possible only by the atonement of Christ. Since Adam and Eve had freedom of choice in the garden -- the right to chose between partaking of the fruit of the tree of life or partaking of the fruit of the tree of knowledge of God and evil -- it seems the blessings of the atonement extended back to the time before the fall. In fact, as far back as the time of the war in heaven spirits also had the freedom of choice to chose between God's plan of salvation and the atonement, or to chose the devil's unworkable counterfeit plan of salvation without an atonement. Therefore, the blessings of the atonement even extended into the preexistence. Because the atonement is infinite and eternal, its benefits and blessings extend retroactively into the infinite past. It's important to remember Christ not only suffered in body but in spirit as well. Because we were fallible and imperfect free agents in the pre-earth life we needed the blessings of the atonement in order to grow spiritually at that time as well as needing it now. "We know they (the preexistent spirits of all men) were all innocent in the beginning; but the right of free agency which was given to them enabled some to outstrip others, and thus, through the eons of immortal existence, to become more intelligent, more faithful, for they were free to act for themselves, to think for themselves, to receive the truth or rebel against it” ( Doctrines of Salvation, 1:59).
mfbukowski Posted April 6, 2015 Posted April 6, 2015 Help me out here. So you think he meant humans did not die before the fall but all other animals did. Next you think it implies that all humanoids the certainly would have to have existed before the fall of Adam were not human. It would really be nice if this is what the Church believes if it just said do. So if this is what you think Holland meant and what you believe are all humans now descended from Adam and Eve or are many of us descended from the non human home sapien types that have been wandering around for a few hundred thousand years or so?My view is in posts 44 to 46.There is another more literal view that says essentially that advanced humanoids were on the earth for perhaps millions of years, but at a certain point, God did a "special creation" of a new creature, perhaps very similar to the advanced humanoids, which was qualitatively different, he was "one of us". One could call that change a "mutation" or just a "setting apart" that now these creatures were defined by God as "sons and daughters of God".The first of these were A&E. These had spirits unlike the others, and were set apart from the others physically in a "Garden" isolated from the others. These were the first fully humans, and the first to experience death as humans did.On this theory, the special creation could have been fairly recent, maybe 6-8 thousand years ago, an accounts for the explosion of civilization during that period of history. 1
mnn727 Posted April 6, 2015 Posted April 6, 2015 But men wouldn't have that nature without the fall of Adam and Eve.That's YOUR belief
HappyJackWagon Posted April 6, 2015 Posted April 6, 2015 They are going to dissect Elder Holland's insistence that there was an Adam and Eve and a literal garden.The reason this is being dissected is because he is claiming that the atonement of Christ is only necessary IF Adam and Eve were historical people and the story of the fall is literal. The problem is that the atonement of Christ is necessary and people can believe in it even if they view Adam and Eve and the fall as an allegory. A literal Adam and Eve does not seem to be an essential building block for believing in Christ and more than believing in a literal Job, Moses, or Good Samaratan are essential for believing in Christ. Christ stands on his own, independent of the strengths or weaknesses of scriptural stories or people. 1
The Nehor Posted April 6, 2015 Posted April 6, 2015 The reason this is being dissected is because he is claiming that the atonement of Christ is only necessary IF Adam and Eve were historical people and the story of the fall is literal. The problem is that the atonement of Christ is necessary and people can believe in it even if they view Adam and Eve and the fall as an allegory. A literal Adam and Eve does not seem to be an essential building block for believing in Christ and more than believing in a literal Job, Moses, or Good Samaratan are essential for believing in Christ. Christ stands on his own, independent of the strengths or weaknesses of scriptural stories or people. I disagree. The Atonement does not work without a Fall of some kind and in scripture all the best doctrinal preaching about the Atonement ties it to the Fall. 3
JLHPROF Posted April 6, 2015 Posted April 6, 2015 The reason this is being dissected is because he is claiming that the atonement of Christ is only necessary IF Adam and Eve were historical people and the story of the fall is literal. The problem is that the atonement of Christ is necessary and people can believe in it even if they view Adam and Eve and the fall as an allegory. A literal Adam and Eve does not seem to be an essential building block for believing in Christ and more than believing in a literal Job, Moses, or Good Samaratan are essential for believing in Christ. Christ stands on his own, independent of the strengths or weaknesses of scriptural stories or people. A literal fall IS required though. There has to be an explanation wherein mankind became vulnerable to sin and the effects of a mortal existence. Without our fallen natures there would be no need for Christ to atone. There have to be laws broken, natures changed, and prices paid. That is the point of the atonement.If there were no Adam and Eve or fall then God purposely made us subject to death and full of sin. And God doesn't intentionally create evil things. I disagree. The Atonement does not work without a Fall of some kind and in scripture all the best doctrinal preaching about the Atonement ties it to the Fall. I agree with this. 1
Gray Posted April 6, 2015 Posted April 6, 2015 I disagree. The Atonement does not work without a Fall of some kind and in scripture all the best doctrinal preaching about the Atonement ties it to the Fall. Assume for a moment that Adam and Eve were never real people. Does that make you a sinless person somehow?
The Nehor Posted April 6, 2015 Posted April 6, 2015 Assume for a moment that Adam and Eve were never real people. Does that make you a sinless person somehow? No, because I wouldn't exist or be a person at all. If there is a redemption there must be something to be redeemed from and some reason I fell. Either that or God created a fallen being in which case He is kind of a jerk. 1
HappyJackWagon Posted April 6, 2015 Posted April 6, 2015 I disagree. The Atonement does not work without a Fall of some kind and in scripture all the best doctrinal preaching about the Atonement ties it to the Fall. But if Adam and Eve and the Fall were all an allegory describing leaving the paradise of the pre-earth life, coming to earth and the physical and spiritual dangers that exist here, and we accept that we are all imperfect regardless of whether or not Adam and Eve literally partook of a forbidden piece of fruit, then couldn't we find the same value and meaning in the atonement? There was "some kind" of Fall, from heaven to earth- no?
Teancum Posted April 6, 2015 Posted April 6, 2015 My view is in posts 44 to 46.There is another more literal view that says essentially that advanced humanoids were on the earth for perhaps millions of years, but at a certain point, God did a "special creation" of a new creature, perhaps very similar to the advanced humanoids, which was qualitatively different, he was "one of us". One could call that change a "mutation" or just a "setting apart" that now these creatures were defined by God as "sons and daughters of God".The first of these were A&E.These had spirits unlike the others, and were set apart from the others physically in a "Garden" isolated from the others. These were the first fully humans, and the first to experience death as humans did.On this theory, the special creation could have been fairly recent, maybe 6-8 thousand years ago, an accounts for the explosion of civilization during that period of history. Thanks But this still does not answer my question about current humans. Are they all descended from this special creation 6-8 thousand years ago. Or are many descended from the non special humanoid animals? Those without spirits from God? If not then what happened to all their descendants?
Gray Posted April 6, 2015 Posted April 6, 2015 (edited) No, because I wouldn't exist or be a person at all. If there is a redemption there must be something to be redeemed from and some reason I fell. Either that or God created a fallen being in which case He is kind of a jerk. Sure you would exist. Homo sapiens evolved from more primitive forms of life, just like every other life form on earth. Are you saying your own sins aren't sufficient to require redemption? Or are you being punished for Adam's transgression? No one starts out life as a fallen being. We're all born morally clean. Human nature is sufficient to make all of us Adams and Eves to fall eventually. As a metaphor, it's really quite eloquent. As a literal story, not so much. Edited April 6, 2015 by Gray 1
Teancum Posted April 6, 2015 Posted April 6, 2015 No, that's scripture. Which is your belief. Scripture may or may not be accurate. One's canon is another heresy.
Recommended Posts