Belief In Literal Adam/eve Required To Comprehend Atonement

[Teancum]

And this brings us right back to a discussion on how valid macro-evolution is and we have been down that rabbit hole ad-nauseam.

 

 

Face the science.  Own it. There was not first Man or Woman. No Adam. No Eve. No Fall. No Flood. No Noah. 

[Teancum]

LOL!!! scientifically there is no theology. No first man, no Christ, no fall, no atonement. You are conflating the two.

 

Elder Holland used the word "actual" not "literal": a big, big difference. You are conflating the two. Please see post #23 (and #8 would be worthwhile) and let me know whether that explains the tie-in between the atonement and the fall.

 

The atonement is for those things which are lost / fallen / in need of reclaiming. At some point, both these things had to have actually happened through actual people in order for there to be any theology about it.

 

See 2 Nephi 2. The atonement answers the ends of the law (the cut-off or fallen state)—see verses 5-7. If there was no end of the law (no fall), there would be no atonement. The actual event of the fall by the actual man Adam is described later in the chapter (verse 25).

 

If you believe in an actual atonement, that Christ actually suffered in Gethsemane and on the cross and throughout His life as recorded in scripture, you must accept an actual fall juxtaposed to it (“an opposition in all things”—the condition of atonement is the eternal uniting of spirit and element; the condition of the fall is the permanent separation of the two). Otherwise you really can’t fully comprehend either to your greatest benefit.

 

 

It is intriguing to me that it seems there is a need to jump through hoops to explain away Elder Holland's plain and simple words.

 

Why is that?

[Teancum]

It's only a problem if it isn't true. 

 

 

 

It is non-demonstrable. 

 

 

Ok if you need to tell yourself that to maintain faith I am ok with that. But you are clearly wrong.

[Teancum]

Nope, it is not a virtue to encourage fellow LDS to believe in Creationism.  

 

 

Maybe I read Cinepro's post to fast. I did not think he was promoting creationism. I do not believe in creationism.

[pogi]

See below 

Edited September 21, 2015 by pogi

[pogi]

I do not believe in creationism.

 

Now you are being honest as what science can and cannot say.  It cannot say, I know with certainty that creationism is false.   

Edited September 21, 2015 by pogi

[Teancum]

Now you are being honest as what science can and cannot say.  It cannot say, I know with certainty that creationism is false.   

 

Well my friend, and I do like you Pogi, perhaps I overstated it. I most certainly do not know much of anything with certainty.  Is there a God that used evolution to create us?  Maybe? Even with that do a see a literal Adam and Eve fit in that.  Not likely based on the science.  But I cannot say for sure.

[JLHPROF]

The same science that says Adam and Eve couldn't have existed/didn't start humanity says that Christ couldn't have come back from the dead after 3 days, raised Lazarus, walked on water, turned water into wine, been born of a virgin...

 

Why should I believe science on either?

The same science that can't allow for Adam and Eve can't allow for my Savior Jesus Christ.  I don't see why people are prepared to accept Christ and not Adam.  As far as science is concerned, they're equally impossible and fictional.  Science is just wrong.

 

 

[The Nehor]

It is intriguing to me that it seems there is a need to jump through hoops to explain away Elder Holland's plain and simple words.

 

Why is that?

 

They are all heathen apostates.

[Robert F. Smith]

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.

It is one thing to claim that there was an actual Adam and Eve ("Man" and "Woman"), as Elder Holland said, and quite another to claim that the Garden of Eden story is to be taken literally.  Time and again, the Brethren have pointed to the metaphorical, allegorical, and symbolic content of the Creation and Garden stories, so that we have no excuse for yapping about it all being literal.  It isn't, and was never intended to be.  Those stories are told as ritual.  Indeed, Tom Wright considers them a "temple story" -- and he is an Anglican Bishop (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fxQpFosrTUk).  If you read the Bible as a history text, you will never understand it.

 

http://jbq.jewishbible.org/assets/Uploads/412/jbq_41_2_gardenofeden.pdf .

http://lds.net/forums/topic/30024-garden-of-eden-figurative-or-literal/ .

http://templethemes.net/publications/Meridian/100114-The%20Creation%20and%20the%20Garden%20of%20Eden%20as%20Temple%20Models.pdf .

http://derekzrishmawy.com/2012/12/07/9-reasons-the-garden-of-eden-was-a-temple/ .

http://biologos.org/blog/on-genesis-2-and-3 .

[Robert F. Smith]

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

...................................  There was not a literal Adam and Eve.  Science has clearly demonstrated this.

False.  CFR that science has demonstrated any such thing.

[VideoGameJunkie]

I believe the temple video. Otherwise why would the church show it?

[stephenpurdy]

The story of Adam and Eve is both symbolic and literal, if you really get down into LDS theology.

 

It is like Moses striking the rock for water in the wilderness.  Yes he really did it, yes water sprang forth, but it was symbolic for the Savior being struck for our sins so that we can have access to the waters of everlasting life.

 

Historically, there was a big debate within Mormonism between Joseph F. Smith against B.H. Roberts and Talmage.

 

Remember that the latter group was arguing for Adam and Eve being created apart in that paradisaical state which did not include the  "pre-Adamites".  (and perhaps that the offspring of Adam and Eve intermingled with them after leaving the garden).

 

Even so far back as the prophet Brigham Young, leaders have said that Genesis was not complete enough or detailed enough for us to understand exactly what God was doing.

 

I believe it was Grant who got people to agree that we just don't have enough information to be dogmatic about it.

 

The scriptures tell why man was created, but they do not tell how, though the Lord has promised that he will tell that when he comes again (D&C 101:32-33). In 1931, when there was intense discussion on the issue of organic evolution, the First Presidency of the Church, then consisting of Presidents Heber J. Grant, Anthony W. Ivins, and Charles W. Nibley, addressed all of the General Authorities of the Church on the matter, and concluded,

."..Upon the fundamental doctrines of the Church we are all agreed. Our mission is to bear the message of the restored gospel to the world. Leave geology, biology, archaeology, and anthropology, no one of which has to do with the salvation of the souls of mankind, to scientific research, while we magnify our calling in the realm of the Church. ..."

."..Upon one thing we should all be able to agree, namely, that Presidents Joseph F. Smith, John R. Winder, and Anthon H. Lund were right when they said: "Adam is the primal parent of our race." [First Presidency Minutes, Apr. 7, 1931].

 

Note that this last statement leaves open the possibility of Adam and Eve leaving the presence of God and their deathless world in order to mix with pre-Adamites in mortality.

 

-Stephen

[Teancum]

False.  CFR that science has demonstrated any such thing.

DNA does not tie us all back to one man and woman who lived 4000 years ago. If they are literal how does one explain that many of us still have Neanderthal DNA? How does one explain the Australian aborigines who when the Europeans went to Australia they found them living in their isolation as they had been for 40,000 years?

a literal Adam and Eve requires we all are tied to two people who lived 4000 years ago, or perhaps 8 if you literally beleive the Noah story.

[CV75]

It is intriguing to me that it seems there is a need to jump through hoops to explain away Elder Holland's plain and simple words.

 

Why is that?

LOL--the audience I'm explaining it to makes it appear that way!

[thesometimesaint]

And this brings us right back to a discussion on how valid macro-evolution is and we have been down that rabbit hole ad-nauseam.

 

Micro-evolution is a known fact.

SEE

Edited September 22, 2015 by thesometimesaint

[Gray]

If there was no fall there could have been no atonement.  Yours is but one understanding of the fall and doesn't really stand on a solid footing taken all that has been taught about the fall.  Example: I Corinthians 15:22  For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive.

 

But that's a non sequitur. It does not follow that if there was no fall there could be no atonement. All you need for atonement is sins to be atoned for and death to be overcome. You don't need a single, discrete "Fall" event to bring about either sin or death. 

[Gray]

And this brings us right back to a discussion on how valid macro-evolution is and we have been down that rabbit hole ad-nauseam.

 

It's not terribly rational to object to science on theological baseis, though

[Gray]

Spiritual death is a spiritual separation from God, not a physical one.  Adam and Eve in the garden of Eden were spiritual alive, even when they weren't literally in the presence of God.  I don't think that us leaving God's presence to be born counts as spiritual death as the plan of salvation defines it.

 

 

 

I'm not sure that evolved mammalian behaviors account for us being spiritually separated from God.  Evolved mammalian behaviors don't explain or validate the existence of eternal laws, for example.  Nor do they account for the act of, say... worshipping idols leading to eternal damnation.  Not that i understand anyway.

 

 

 

 

Verse 12 is a great example because it is teaching exactly what i said.  I was probably confusing in the way that i said it before.  

 

Children are alive in Christ-it is His Atonement that keeps them free from the affects of their sins. Without Christ they would be damned if they died before they could repent,  be baptized, etc.  

 

Their salvation is a free gift from God.  They can and do sin, but they are not accountable for their sins for a season because of the Atonement of Christ.  

 

But the atonement happened around 33 CE. It says Children are alive in Christ from the foundation of the world. 

 

Your idea still sounds like original sin to me, which I don't think has a foundation in LDS theology. 

[Gray]

LOL!!! scientifically there is no theology. No first man, no Christ, no fall, no atonement. You are conflating the two.

 

Elder Holland used the word "actual" not "literal": a big, big difference. You are conflating the two. Please see post #23 (and #8 would be worthwhile) and let me know whether that explains the tie-in between the atonement and the fall.

 

The atonement is for those things which are lost / fallen / in need of reclaiming. At some point, both these things had to have actually happened through actual people in order for there to be any theology about it.

 

See 2 Nephi 2. The atonement answers the ends of the law (the cut-off or fallen state)—see verses 5-7. If there was no end of the law (no fall), there would be no atonement. The actual event of the fall by the actual man Adam is described later in the chapter (verse 25).

 

If you believe in an actual atonement, that Christ actually suffered in Gethsemane and on the cross and throughout His life as recorded in scripture, you must accept an actual fall juxtaposed to it (“an opposition in all things”—the condition of atonement is the eternal uniting of spirit and element; the condition of the fall is the permanent separation of the two). Otherwise you really can’t fully comprehend either to your greatest benefit.

 

No, you don't need to accept a literal/actual fall in order to accept the atonement. The "fall" is a "just so" story that explains why people die and why people err. But it's hardly the only possible explanation. Sin is what stands in opposition to the atonement. The fall is a myth that attempts to explain the origins of sin and physical hardship. 

[bluebell]

The same science that says Adam and Eve couldn't have existed/didn't start humanity says that Christ couldn't have come back from the dead after 3 days, raised Lazarus, walked on water, turned water into wine, been born of a virgin...

 

Why should I believe science on either?

The same science that can't allow for Adam and Eve can't allow for my Savior Jesus Christ.  I don't see why people are prepared to accept Christ and not Adam.  As far as science is concerned, they're equally impossible and fictional.  Science is just wrong.

 

 

Perhaps this is what Elder Holland was thinking of when he said that quote.  

 

Maybe a reliance on science to explain our origins too often equals a reliance on science to understand the Atonement as well, and that makes it difficult to understand the Atonement correctly?

 

Besides that, you make an excellent point.  It would be interesting to understand the thinking of someone who believes that Adam and Eve can't have existed because of the science, yet does believe in the Savior despite what science says about Him.

[bluebell]

No, you don't need to accept a literal/actual fall in order to accept the atonement. The "fall" is a "just so" story that explains why people die and why people err. But it's hardly the only possible explanation. Sin is what stands in opposition to the atonement. The fall is a myth that attempts to explain the origins of sin and physical hardship. 

 

I don't have a problem if this is your belief as long as you are willing to concede that it is not what the LDS church teaches on the subject, is not what the Plan of Salvation teaches, and is also in opposition to the teachings of the Fall and the Atonement in scripture.

 

That concession explains why Elder Holland's beliefs and your's are opposed to each other on this topic. 

[ERayR]

There was not a literal Adam and Eve.  Science has clearly demonstrated this.

 

It has not been clearly demonstrated.  It is not possible to clearly demonstrate this.

Edited September 22, 2015 by ERayR

[ERayR]

Ok if you need to tell yourself that to maintain faith I am ok with that. But you are clearly wrong.

 

From your pov from what you have accepted and understand.

[ERayR]

Micro-evolution is a known fact.

 

 

I have no argument with micro-evolution.