Belief In Literal Adam/eve Required To Comprehend Atonement

[HappyJackWagon]

In Elder Holland's last conference talk, Where Justice, Love, and Mercy Meet, he says...

 

"the simple truth is that we cannot fully comprehend the Atonement and Resurrection of Christ and we will not adequately appreciate the unique purpose of His birth or His death--in other words, there is no way to truly celebrate Christmas or Easter--without understanding that there was an actual Adam and Eve who fell from an actual Eden, with all the consequences that fall carried with it."

 

There are many people who look at the Garden story as an allegory for the premortal world and birth into this world. If I view it as an allegory used to illustrate the concept of a fall and necessary atonement, why could I not truly comprehend the atonement? In either case it's accepting the principle behind the story that has the power, not the literalness of the story.

 

It doesn't seem helpful to me to require literal belief in the historicity of an old testament story but I'm open to being convinced.

 

To me, the literalness of Adam & Eve may be more of a requirement to believe in the restoration than it is to believe in the atonement because the church treats Adam as a historical figure who will return. But I don't see how that impacts upon the atonement of Christ.

[thesometimesaint]

I have no problem with a literal Adam and Eve. I do have problems with some of what is alleged they did.

[Gray]

When we insist that the myth must be historical, we miss the whole point of the story in the first place.

 

In any case, you don't need an Adam and Eve to justify the need for the penal substitution theory of atonement. Humans are just as imperfect without a literal Adam and Eve as they would be with them.

[bluebell]

My thoughts are that a lot of people that i know who don't believe in a literal adam and eve or literal fall (not all by any means, but more than a few) also have a skewed (from an lds doctrinal perspective) view of the Atonement.  They don't believe it was necessary, for example, or that God would require it, for another.  They don't believe in the virgin birth (and therefore don't believe that Christ was part divine from birth but was instead just like all of us) and therefore He was no more equipped to perform the Atonement than any other person, He was just blessed by God in specific ways to make some aspects of the Atonement possible.  Etc,.

 

So from that perspective, maybe not having a literal belief in adam and eve does make it difficult of people to understand the doctrine of the Atonement correctly-maybe it makes it easier for people not to believe it?

[Gray]

My thoughts are that a lot of people that i know who don't believe in a literal adam and eve or literal fall (not all by any means, but more than a few) also have a skewed (from an lds doctrinal perspective) view of the Atonement.  They don't believe it was necessary, for example, or that God would require it, for another.  They don't believe in the virgin birth (and therefore don't believe that Christ was part divine from birth but was instead just like all of us) and therefore He was no more equipped to perform the Atonement than any other person, He was just blessed by God in specific ways to make some aspects of the Atonement possible.  Etc,.

 

So from that perspective, maybe not having a literal belief in adam and eve does make it difficult of people to understand the doctrine of the Atonement correctly-maybe it makes it easier for people not to believe it?

 

I don't think the two are really related. A single "fall" event is not necessary to justify the atonement. Each of our lives is an individual story of a fall and (hopefully) a redemption.

 

I think what you're seeing is that people who are less likely to take a fundamentalist approach to Genesis are also less likely to be fundamentalists about Jesus' life. But nothing says you must use the same exegetical framework for both stories. 

Edited September 21, 2015 by Gray

[HappyJackWagon]

I have no problem with a literal Adam and Eve. I do have problems with some of what is alleged they did.

So which parts of the story are literal and which aren't? Is there a Cheribim with a flaming sword guarding a literal tree of life?

 

It seems like there is a great deal of flexibility in general Christianity about this, less so in LDS theology. When we start talking about Adam-ondi-Ahman etc it becomes essential to Mormon theology but not necessarily Christianity.

[Ahab]

The word comprehend refers to what is included in the comprehensive (as in complete) story, in this case a true story (rather than a fictional story) involving our family history beginning with our primary ancestors on this planet. Before they fell, and how they got here. The fact that they were real people, and not just mythical or fictional characters in a fictional story. And also including what the atonement of Christ does for us to restore us to that same condition Adam and Eve were in, as they were, in that prefall condition.

The whole shebang. The full and complete story of the way Adam and Eve were before the fall and how we will be again because of the atonement of Christ. Physically at least, if not as intellectually equal to how Christ and Adam and Eve are now.

[CV75]

In Elder Holland's last conference talk, Where Justice, Love, and Mercy Meet, he says...

 

"the simple truth is that we cannot fully comprehend the Atonement and Resurrection of Christ and we will not adequately appreciate the unique purpose of His birth or His death--in other words, there is no way to truly celebrate Christmas or Easter--without understanding that there was an actual Adam and Eve who fell from an actual Eden, with all the consequences that fall carried with it."

 

There are many people who look at the Garden story as an allegory for the premortal world and birth into this world. If I view it as an allegory used to illustrate the concept of a fall and necessary atonement, why could I not truly comprehend the atonement? In either case it's accepting the principle behind the story that has the power, not the literalness of the story.

 

It doesn't seem helpful to me to require literal belief in the historicity of an old testament story but I'm open to being convinced.

 

To me, the literalness of Adam & Eve may be more of a requirement to believe in the restoration than it is to believe in the atonement because the church treats Adam as a historical figure who will return. But I don't see how that impacts upon the atonement of Christ.

I think his use of the indefinite article “an” allows actual persons and events of one world, sphere, setting or dispensation to be used figuratively in another. We are all an actual Adam or an actual Eve; I’m not sure I fully understand how we all lived in an actual Garden of Eden but it may have something to do with our innocent childhood when we had no concept of death, which then took a turn the first time we made a conscious choice to discern light from darkness and from there developed an sense of the need for families. I think his statement allows people to believe or rationalize either way, which is our prerogative, because the end result is just as real for each of us.

 

He just gave you an opportunity to think it through and assess your understanding of Lord and His mission!

[Bobbieaware]

In Elder Holland's last conference talk, Where Justice, Love, and Mercy Meet, he says...

"the simple truth is that we cannot fully comprehend the Atonement and Resurrection of Christ and we will not adequately appreciate the unique purpose of His birth or His death--in other words, there is no way to truly celebrate Christmas or Easter--without understanding that there was an actual Adam and Eve who fell from an actual Eden, with all the consequences that fall carried with it."

There are many people who look at the Garden story as an allegory for the premortal world and birth into this world. If I view it as an allegory used to illustrate the concept of a fall and necessary atonement, why could I not truly comprehend the atonement? In either case it's accepting the principle behind the story that has the power, not the literalness of the story.

It doesn't seem helpful to me to require literal belief in the historicity of an old testament story but I'm open to being convinced.

To me, the literalness of Adam & Eve may be more of a requirement to believe in the restoration than it is to believe in the atonement because the church treats Adam as a historical figure who will return. But I don't see how that impacts upon the atonement of Christ.

Based upon many of the things the Ptophet Joseph Smith said about the role and position of the man Adam within the kingdom of God, it looks like there's a real problem with rejecting a belief in a literal Adam. Here"s a sampling of the Prophet Joseph's comments on the subject:

"This then is the nature of the priesthood, every man holding the presidency of his dispensation and one man holding the presidency of them all even Adam, and Adam receiving his presidency and authority from Christ, but cannot receive a fulness, untill Christ shall present. the kingdom to the Father which shall be at the end of the last dispensation." (Words of Joseph Smith, 5 Oct. 1840, p.40-41)

"The Priesthood was first given to Adam; he obtained the First Presidency, and held the keys of it from generation to generation. He obtained it in the Creation, before the world was formed.... He had dominion given him over every living creature. He is Michael the Archangel, spoken of in the Scriptures. Then to Noah, who is Gabriel: he stands next in authority to Adam in the Priesthood; he was called of God to this office, and was the father of all living in this day, and to him was given the dominion. These men held keys first on earth, and then in heaven.

"The Priesthood is an everlasting principle, and existed with God from eternity, and will to eternity, without beginning of days or end of years. The keys have to be brought from heaven whenever the Gospel is sent. When they are revealed from heaven, it is by Adam's authority." (Teachings, p. 157)

Edited September 21, 2015 by Bobbieaware

[bluebell]

I don't think the two are really related. A single "fall" event is not necessary to justify the atonement. Each of our lives is an individual story of a fall and (hopefully) a redemption.

 

 

Individual falls do not account for a fallen world, though, and the reality of a fallen world is a part of LDS doctrine.

[churchistrue]

I believe the Adam and Eve story is symbolic.  I have to admit I was a little puzzled by Elder Holland's insistence on this point.  I know my views are not orthodox, but I'd like to believe/hope they becoming more acceptable.  Or that they will be over time.  That talk seemed to push that timeline back a little.  Not sure, honestly, how to take his comments.  He didn't give a detailed explanation of what he meant.

[ERayR]

In Elder Holland's last conference talk, Where Justice, Love, and Mercy Meet, he says...

 

"the simple truth is that we cannot fully comprehend the Atonement and Resurrection of Christ and we will not adequately appreciate the unique purpose of His birth or His death--in other words, there is no way to truly celebrate Christmas or Easter--without understanding that there was an actual Adam and Eve who fell from an actual Eden, with all the consequences that fall carried with it."

 

There are many people who look at the Garden story as an allegory for the premortal world and birth into this world. If I view it as an allegory used to illustrate the concept of a fall and necessary atonement, why could I not truly comprehend the atonement? In either case it's accepting the principle behind the story that has the power, not the literalness of the story.

 

It doesn't seem helpful to me to require literal belief in the historicity of an old testament story but I'm open to being convinced.

 

To me, the literalness of Adam & Eve may be more of a requirement to believe in the restoration than it is to believe in the atonement because the church treats Adam as a historical figure who will return. But I don't see how that impacts upon the atonement of Christ.

 

If there were no Adam and Eve there was no fall.

If there was no fall there was no atonement.

If there was no atonement then Christ could not have been.

If there was no Christ then all of Christianity is false.

[HappyJackWagon]

I think his use of the indefinite article “an” allows actual persons and events of one world, sphere, setting or dispensation to be used figuratively in another. We are all an actual Adam or an actual Eve; I’m not sure I fully understand how we all lived in an actual Garden of Eden but it may have something to do with our innocent childhood when we had no concept of death, which then took a turn the first time we made a conscious choice to discern light from darkness and from there developed an sense of the need for families. I think his statement allows people to believe or rationalize either way, which is our prerogative, because the end result is just as real for each of us.

 

He just gave you an opportunity to think it through and assess your understanding of Lord and His mission!

This is a generous reading but I really don't think that's what he was trying to say.

 

We're reviewing this lesson in priesthood in a couple of weeks and I don't know how to discuss this in a productive way, not because of what a literal Adam and Eve mean to the Atonement but what they mean to Mormonism.

[HappyJackWagon]

If there were no Adam and Eve there was no fall.

If there was no fall there was no atonement.

If there was no atonement then Christ could not have been.

If there was no Christ then all of Christianity is false.

The fall occurred when we left the premortal world (Eden) and came to mortal life (the loan and dreary world). We are all subject to sin and death even without a literal adam and eve. So the fall can be real even if Adam and Eve aren't literal.

[bluebell]

The fall occurred when we left the premortal world (Eden) and came to mortal life (the loan and dreary world). We are all subject to sin and death even without a literal adam and eve. So the fall can be real even if Adam and Eve aren't literal.

 

That's not LDS doctrine though.

 

LDS doctrine does not teach that birth = the fall.  It also doesn't teach that birth is the reason the Atonement is necessary.

[TheSkepticChristian]

It seems like there is a great deal of flexibility in general Christianity about this, less so in LDS theology

 

Why are you defending general Christianity? 

[Gray]

Individual falls do not account for a fallen world, though, and the reality of a fallen world is a part of LDS doctrine.

 

Free agency is sufficient to account for it. Not to mention the laws of nature. 

[Gray]

If there were no Adam and Eve there was no fall.

If there was no fall there was no atonement.

If there was no atonement then Christ could not have been.

If there was no Christ then all of Christianity is false.

 

The logic falls apart in line 2. 

[bluebell]

Free agency is sufficient to account for it. Not to mention the laws of nature. 

 

I'm not sure i understand what you are saying. Can you elaborate?

[Gray]

That's not LDS doctrine though.

 

LDS doctrine does not teach that birth = the fall.  It also doesn't teach that birth is the reason the Atonement is necessary.

 

The topic though is the atonement and whether you need a historical Adam and Eve in order to require an atonement. 

[Gray]

I'm not sure i understand what you are saying. Can you elaborate?

 

Sure! Free agency is what allows us to choose good from evil. We apparently had that in the pre-existence, no need for assistance from trees of knowledge. Natural laws give us things like hunger, scarcity of resources, droughts, famine, earthquakes, and all the other "deficiencies" we might ascribe to the fallen world. Paradise is not the earth's natural state. 

Edited September 21, 2015 by Gray

[bluebell]

The topic though is the atonement and whether you need a historical Adam and Eve in order to require an atonement. 

 

All the results of the Fall are included in the quote mentioned in the OP-

 

"The simple truth is that we cannot fully comprehend the Atonement and Resurrection of Christ and we will not adequately appreciate the unique purpose of His birth or His death--in other words, is no way to truly celebrate Christmas or Easter--without understanding that there was an actual Adam and Eve who fell from an actual Eden, with all the consequences that fall carried with it."

 

A fallen world is an essential part of the doctrine of the Fall.

[CV75]

This is a generous reading but I really don't think that's what he was trying to say.

 

We're reviewing this lesson in priesthood in a couple of weeks and I don't know how to discuss this in a productive way, not because of what a literal Adam and Eve mean to the Atonement but what they mean to Mormonism.

Call it what you will, but he said “actual*” not “literal.” Christ is an actual God, had an actual mortality, and was an actual Man carrying out an actual Atonement and Resurrection for actual sons and daughters of God. I think Elder Holland is also saying we cannot fully comprehend Him and His Work without understanding where He came from and how He condescended into mortality, which was through actual generations that began with an actual couple who fell from an actual terrestrial place so as to enable the procreation of offspring in this telestial place.

 

And then the use of the indefinite article “an” makes more sense, perhaps. We are all as Adam and Eve, but in a sense are also actual Adams and Eves, just as Jesus’ parents are.

 

* real, true, genuine, authentic, verified, attested, confirmed, definite, hard, plain, veritable; existing, existent, manifest, substantial, factual, de facto, bona fide; informal: honest-to-goodness, real live

[CV75]

The topic though is the atonement and whether you need a historical Adam and Eve in order to require an atonement. 

Yes, because whatever you name them, human beings (even if only two) need an atonement. And Christ would not have come into the world without at least one actual, fallen, mortal progenitor.

[Gray]

All the results of the Fall are included in the quote mentioned in the OP-

 

"The simple truth is that we cannot fully comprehend the Atonement and Resurrection of Christ and we will not adequately appreciate the unique purpose of His birth or His death--in other words, is no way to truly celebrate Christmas or Easter--without understanding that there was an actual Adam and Eve who fell from an actual Eden, with all the consequences that fall carried with it."

 

A fallen world is an essential part of the doctrine of the Fall.

 

That is precisely the idea that is being disputed. To assume that it is true would be to beg the question. 

 

Scientifically we know that the conditions we observe about the world, that we would describe as "fallen", are completely natural and predate the existence of human beings by many millions of years. So obviously the Fall was not necessary to bring to pass the current condition of the world. But can you have the atonement without the fall? I think the answer is obviously yes. Humans are naturally prone (under the right circumstances) to acting upon feelings of anger, violence, greed, lust, etc. If any of this requires vicarious atonement, then atonement is needed regardless of whether or not there was any fall.