Belief In Literal Adam/eve Required To Comprehend Atonement

[stemelbow]

I agree. I'm not talking about accepting something just because someone tell's you it's right.  

 

You must have some reason for accepting the beliefs that you hold as being true though, right?  What authority do your beliefs rest on, if not the prophets and scriptures? Personal revelation?  Just your own ideas of what seems reasonable?  Again, i'm not trying to be snarky, i just want to know where your beliefs come from-what is the standard that you use to decide whether or not your beliefs are correct?

 

From my perspective, the standard seems to be-if they make sense to me they are correct.  If they don't make sense to me then it's false.  Is my perspective wrong?

I'm not sure what you're looking for from me on this, exactly. I would say no one knows everything and everyone is wrong about something. All we have to go on is personal revelation, scripture and other means of gaining understanding, like science, for example. It seems to me we each use a combination of these. We all just hang on to, reject, or make assumptions about details of each of the three. I certainly could be wrong but I think it wise to give far more balance to the scripture/prophets side of it, than it seems you do. You claim that's your authority for accepting truths, or something. I don't know what authority quite has to do with it. When it comes to leaders of the Church authority refers to keys. It doesn't refer to everything I should accept as truth. Another way to say it, we all reject some things from prophets and scripture. Not everything coming from the Bible, for instance, it meaningful to us all.

[bluebell]

I'm not sure what you're looking for from me on this, exactly. I would say no one knows everything and everyone is wrong about something. All we have to go on is personal revelation, scripture and other means of gaining understanding, like science, for example. It seems to me we each use a combination of these. We all just hang on to, reject, or make assumptions about details of each of the three. I certainly could be wrong but I think it wise to give far more balance to the scripture/prophets side of it, than it seems you do. You claim that's your authority for accepting truths, or something. I don't know what authority quite has to do with it. When it comes to leaders of the Church authority refers to keys. It doesn't refer to everything I should accept as truth. Another way to say it, we all reject some things from prophets and scripture. Not everything coming from the Bible, for instance, it meaningful to us all.

It's a pretty simply question. Why do you believe what you do about the Fall?

Edited September 28, 2015 by bluebell

[HappyJackWagon]

We had a lesson at church yesterday using this talk and of course the quote about the literal Adam and Eve was read. No one blinked an eye. I don't think the thought occurred to anyone that the story is anything less than a literal historical event. I find that prospect kind of sad. I hope people would at least be willing to consider other possibilities. If we accept everything we're told as literal, universal truth then there isn't much need to study or ponder. Oh well. I think this is an interesting topic.

[CV75]

We had a lesson at church yesterday using this talk and of course the quote about the literal Adam and Eve was read. No one blinked an eye. I don't think the thought occurred to anyone that the story is anything less than a literal historical event. I find that prospect kind of sad. I hope people would at least be willing to consider other possibilities. If we accept everything we're told as literal, universal truth then there isn't much need to study or ponder. Oh well. I think this is an interesting topic.

Yes, it is an interesting topic. But I think that just because some don’t blink an eye on the “actual (not literal)” quote doesn’t necessarily mean they haven’t through it through. Only each individual can tell how fully he comprehends the Atonement and appreciates the Lord by accepting real people, places and events (which means they have to discern them first) as reported through scripture (or not!).

[jkwilliams]

I'm confused . I have not seen a reference and it sounds like you don't understand what a reference is. Is that possible? I don't mean that to be rude but I really can't understand why you think your personal understanding of the gospel is something we would have access to and agree with.

I am glad I wasn't the only one.

I don't know if Adam and Eve were real or not. If they were I dong know if they had knowledge of sex or not. I don't think we can know that. Regardless, I believe the atonement of Christ but as Elder Holland suggested, maybe I don't fully comprehend it. But does any one really comprehend the atonement fully?

I don't think it's possible to comprehend it fully. The only one who could is the one who went through it.

[stemelbow]

It's a pretty simply question. Why do you believe what you do about the Fall?

Hey Bluebell, I feel like you got frustrated with me. I already explained why I believe as I do about the fall in this thread. It seemed like this question was far more general about how I believe. Sorry for making this difficult. I can do that sometimes, mostly because I can be dense--feel free to ask my wife about that.

It appears to be nothing but allegory. From the eating of fruit as the cause, to feeling a need to clothe themselves, to going from in God's presence, or in Eden, to being cast out of it. It's all instructive to each of us individually. I can't see how it can possibly be taken as literal, honestly, considering what we know about the age of earth, and all junk called science.

[bluebell]

Hey Bluebell, I feel like you got frustrated with me. I already explained why I believe as I do about the fall in this thread. It seemed like this question was far more general about how I believe. Sorry for making this difficult. I can do that sometimes, mostly because I can be dense--feel free to ask my wife about that.

It appears to be nothing but allegory. From the eating of fruit as the cause, to feeling a need to clothe themselves, to going from in God's presence, or in Eden, to being cast out of it. It's all instructive to each of us individually. I can't see how it can possibly be taken as literal, honestly, considering what we know about the age of earth, and all junk called science.

 

I'm not frustrated, I just haven't seen an answer yet but would really like to know (i apologize if i missed the answer in an earlier post.  Perhaps you could repost it).

 

I know you have said what you believe about the Fall, but that is a different question than explaining why you believe it.

[thesometimesaint]

Actually, the reason why Neil deGrasse Tyson spent far more time on panspermia than archebiosis in the Cosmos series is because that is the currently most likely model.

 

One might better examine the even more avant garde genetic-engineering model in Ridley Scott's recent "Prometheus" and the forthcoming "Prometheus II."  See this opening scene of the former, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QKanXRERgoY .

 

Again. The public perception of the Panspermia idea is that fully formed multicellular organisms(IE; Man, Dinosaurs, etc.) traveled to earth to populate it. There is no evidence, to date, for such. Simple organic compounds are common here on earth and in space. IF they seeded the early earth with those simple organic compounds it doesn't bother me a bit. But would still like evidence for it.

 

I liked the movie, but I'm hardly in favor of getting my science from Hollywood.

[stemelbow]

I'm not frustrated, I just haven't seen an answer yet but would really like to know (i apologize if i missed the answer in an earlier post.  Perhaps you could repost it).

 

I know you have said what you believe about the Fall, but that is a different question than explaining why you believe it.

I just explained why again--it seems to be nothing but allegory. Considering all other info at my fingertips, including scientific understanding, even biblical criticism which is an interesting discipline often rejected by LDS on the face of it, it's easy for me to have reason to believe it is allegory.

I suppose I could break it down to more in depth than that, but that'd just be me talking a lot. What I just said, summarizes my why. HOpe that helps.

Edited September 28, 2015 by stemelbow

[bluebell]

I just explained why again--it seems to be nothing but allegory. Considering all other info at my fingertips, including scientific understanding, even biblical criticism which is an interesting discipline often rejected by LDS on the face of it, it's easy for me to have reason to believe it is allegory.

I suppose I could break it down to more in depth than that, but that'd just be me talking a lot. What I just said, summarizes my why. HOpe that helps.

 

So, if i'm understanding you right, you don't believe it's true because it doesn't make sense to you.  If i've got that right, then thanks for clarifying.  Is this typically how you decide your theological beliefs?  

 

(I know that sounds so snarky but i can't think of another way to put it that sounds better-i'm just wondering if your personal feelings are your go-to on deciding spiritual truth-if you are your own authority on understanding spiritual things).

[jkwilliams]

So, if i'm understanding you right, you don't believe it's true because it doesn't make sense to you.  If i've got that right, then thanks for clarifying.  Is this typically how you decide your theological beliefs?  

 

(I know that sounds so snarky but i can't think of another way to put it that sounds better-i'm just wondering if your personal feelings are your go-to on deciding spiritual truth-if you are your own authority on understanding spiritual things).

 

If taking a religious story literally conflicts with overwhelming evidence to the contrary, it seems reasonable to no longer view the story literally. Accepting it as allegorical is a way to accept the spiritual truth behind the story without getting hung up on it being literal. A literal reading of the Doctrine and Covenants, for example, leads a lot of people to believe the earth's "temporal existence" will be 7,000 years. Life and death have been going on uninterrupted for a lot longer than that, so we can either insist the evidence is wrong, or we can see the scripture as not being entirely literal. 

[CV75]

If taking a religious story literally conflicts with overwhelming evidence to the contrary, it seems reasonable to no longer view the story literally. Accepting it as allegorical is a way to accept the spiritual truth behind the story without getting hung up on it being literal. A literal reading of the Doctrine and Covenants, for example, leads a lot of people to believe the earth's "temporal existence" will be 7,000 years. Life and death have been going on uninterrupted for a lot longer than that, so we can either insist the evidence is wrong, or we can see the scripture as not being entirely literal. 

But “temporal existence” in this context refers to her spiritual existence for the salvation of mankind as well (D&C 29:34, where yes, Adam is once again mentioned)—“the revealed will, mysteries, and the works of God; the hidden things of his economy concerning this earth.” In light of the covenant bridging heaven and earth since the days of Adam (Moses 6:51 onward), there just might be only 7,000 years involved. And these may not even be contiguous years due to the period before this first instance in Moses 6, periods before dispensations and global apostasy, allowing a good deal of wiggle room.

 

Profitably accepting a scriptural record as “literal” or as “allegorical” cannot be done without faith (using the Alma 32:21 definition), which necessitates an “actual” basis for the story or the faith that goes into it.

 

Of course there is no so-called "evidence" but what the scriptures have to say about the union of such spiritual and temporal matters.

[jkwilliams]

But “temporal existence” in this context refers to her spiritual existence for the salvation of mankind as well (D&C 29:34, where yes, Adam is once again mentioned)—“the revealed will, mysteries, and the works of God; the hidden things of his economy concerning this earth.” In light of the covenant bridging heaven and earth since the days of Adam (Moses 6:51 onward), there just might be only 7,000 years involved. And these may not even be contiguous years due to the period before this first instance in Moses 6, periods before dispensations and global apostasy, allowing a good deal of wiggle room.

 

Profitably accepting a scriptural record as “literal” or as “allegorical” cannot be done without faith (using the Alma 32:21 definition), which necessitates an “actual” basis for the story or the faith that goes into it.

 

Of course there is no so-called "evidence" but what the scriptures have to say about the union of such spiritual and temporal matters.

 

I'm just trying to put myself in stemelbow's shoes. It's certainly possible to reinterpret the D&C to allow for a longer period of life and death on earth, but then that's pretty much what stem is doing. 

[bluebell]

If taking a religious story literally conflicts with overwhelming evidence to the contrary, it seems reasonable to no longer view the story literally. Accepting it as allegorical is a way to accept the spiritual truth behind the story without getting hung up on it being literal. A literal reading of the Doctrine and Covenants, for example, leads a lot of people to believe the earth's "temporal existence" will be 7,000 years. Life and death have been going on uninterrupted for a lot longer than that, so we can either insist the evidence is wrong, or we can see the scripture as not being entirely literal. 

 

It certainly is a reasonable way to handle the perceived conflict (something can be a reasonable choice and still be wrong of course, but I don't disagree at all with your point).

 

And just to be clear, i don't believe that those who do handle the conflict in that matter are less spiritual than those who don't.

[CV75]

I'm just trying to put myself in stemelbow's shoes. It's certainly possible to reinterpret the D&C to allow for a longer period of life and death on earth, but then that's pretty much what stem is doing. 

I just caught your comment; no other context.

 

In general, I think not being open to temporal-spiritual truths based on scientific (temporal) evidence to the contrary is counterproductive for those who wish to comprehend spiritual things in the way Elder Holland seems to be assuming his hearers wish to do regarding the Atonement and life of Christ. It is too easy, lacks critical thinking and facilitates parochialism. The actuality of Adam, Eve, Eden and the Fall need not be denied simply because of scientific evidence; the contrariness of the evidence is only the result of an overzealous interpretation.

[jkwilliams]

I just caught your comment; no other context.

 

In general, I think not being open to temporal-spiritual truths based on scientific (temporal) evidence to the contrary is counterproductive for those who wish to comprehend spiritual things in the way Elder Holland seems to be assuming his hearers wish to do regarding the Atonement and life of Christ. It is too easy, lacks critical thinking and facilitates parochialism. The actuality of Adam, Eve, Eden and the Fall need not be denied simply because of scientific evidence; the contrariness of the evidence is only the result of an overzealous interpretation.

 

I don't think it's a question of being "open" just that, when you've exhausted the possibilities, taking things allegorically is a reasonable place to end up. Obviously, he could have ended where I am, and I would hope that, from your perspective, a faithful church member who sees some things nonliterally is preferable to a wretched apostate like me.

[Gray]

This isn’t answering the question. Is this your way of trying to get me to shut up, or do you truly not understand what I’m asking? LOL

 

The question isn’t about the destructibility of physical things (like God), or even whether they get destroyed or not. You're only saying that the random genesis event of the universe (whatever that means) preceded life on earth and so it also proceeded to induce life on earth. Not only does it necessarily follow, but it is like saying “the random genesis of the result of random genesis,” yet another useless statement in terms of its relationship to the Atonement.

 

Yes, it may be off-topic, but since you mentioned it, your whole premise depends on the Atonement—the foundation of creation and order--responding to life-inducing random events that you're saying a universe of creation and order generates! Talk about circular!

 

P.S.

Would please post your responses outside of my post quote boxes like everyone else does? Thank you.

 

I must confess that after trying to answer your questions several times now, I'm not really sure what you're looking for. Perhaps your underlying assumptions prevent you from even considering scientific information.

 

If you ask the question "why" enough times you'll run out of good answers from any source. 

[stemelbow]

So, if i'm understanding you right, you don't believe it's true because it doesn't make sense to you.  If i've got that right, then thanks for clarifying.  Is this typically how you decide your theological beliefs? 

 

(I know that sounds so snarky but i can't think of another way to put it that sounds better-i'm just wondering if your personal feelings are your go-to on deciding spiritual truth-if you are your own authority on understanding spiritual things).

Not sure clarification is in order here. I liked John's explanation and agree with what he said, just following this post. I would suggest we all do this to some extent, though. It's not as if you take every story in the scriptures literally do you?

[CV75]

I don't think it's a question of being "open" just that, when you've exhausted the possibilities, taking things allegorically is a reasonable place to end up. Obviously, he could have ended where I am, and I would hope that, from your perspective, a faithful church member who sees some things nonliterally is preferable to a wretched apostate like me.

I keep going back to the OP, which I take as an invitation to more fully comprehend the atonement by understanding the actuality of Adam, Eve, Eden and the Fall. This does not deny anyone the option of taking these things allegorically if he wants to--or not taking them at all--so to make science and allegory arguments by making a caricature of the invitation seem a bit out of place to me.

[CV75]

I must confess that after trying to answer your questions several times now, I'm not really sure what you're looking for. Perhaps your underlying assumptions prevent you from even considering scientific information.

 

If you ask the question "why" enough times you'll run out of good answers from any source. 

I’m not looking for anything in particular, just your answers; granted they will eventuality have their limits/limitations. I have no qualms with the science itself nor with the data it brings forth. The actuality of Adam, Eve, Eden and the Fall need not be denied simply because of scientific evidence; the contrariness of the evidence is only the result of an overzealous interpretation.

 

In general, I think not being open to actual people, places and events based on the temporal evidence to the contrary (and is it really?) is counterproductive for those who wish to comprehend spiritual things in the way Elder Holland seems to be assuming his hearers wish to do regarding the Atonement and life of Christ. It is too easy, lacks critical thinking and facilitates parochialism.

[jkwilliams]

I keep going back to the OP, which I take as an invitation to more fully comprehend the atonement by understanding the actuality of Adam, Eve, Eden and the Fall. This does not deny anyone the option of taking these things allegorically if he wants to--or not taking them at all--so to make science and allegory arguments by making a caricature of the invitation seem a bit out of place to me.

 

I didn't see a caricature, just stemelbow's acknowledgement that, for him, it works best to see the Fall as not literal. 

[CV75]

I didn't see a caricature, just stemelbow's acknowledgement that, for him, it works best to see the Fall as not literal. 

Oh boy... I'm not talking about YOU (do I have to?)... LOL only the posts that do.

[Robert F. Smith]

Again. The public perception of the Panspermia idea is that fully formed multicellular organisms(IE; Man, Dinosaurs, etc.) traveled to earth to populate it. There is no evidence, to date, for such. Simple organic compounds are common here on earth and in space. IF they seeded the early earth with those simple organic compounds it doesn't bother me a bit. But would still like evidence for it.

 

I liked the movie, but I'm hardly in favor of getting my science from Hollywood.

The public perception and Hollywood are not the source of the scientific preference for panspermia -- which is not one of fully-formed multicellular organisms, and that is not what Tyson suggested on the basis of real science.  Hollywood is getting its science fiction from real science, not the other way around.  What "Prometheus" portrayed was an advanced civilization creating humans in their own image, using their own DNA (genetic engineering with recombinant DNA).  Later they think better of their inferior creation, and decide to end it.  The method they use is a truly horrific animal which will certainly destroy humankind, but the expedition of advanced beings gets destroyed by the very alien animal which they are going to transport to Earth.  The twist is that the humans decide to send those aliens back to the home planet of their advanced forebears.

 

The idea that genetic engineers of that advanced civilization would do such a thing is not at all strange in our own world of genetic engineering.  We do such work now all the time, genetically modifying plants and animals at will.  There is even a major clinic in Korea which clones dogs from all over the world.