Belief In Literal Adam/eve Required To Comprehend Atonement

[Gray]

I understand what you've been saying and I can see some things that you are either dismissing or failing to realize as truth.

A condition. Not the only condition. Mortality is only a phase and a very small part of what we as eternal beings go through. A transitory experience that Adam and Eve have already gone through.

 

It's the only condition so far experience by living things on earth.

No, and you're just assuming that other species are related to us (our kind, people) because of similarities you see among species. There are other ways to explain those similarities without assuming we are related.

 

The genetic and fossil evidence is overwhelming that we are descended from other species. 

Fortunately as an eternal species we have fugured out how to transform and inhabit other planets. Some of us are just not at that phase of our eternal lives yet.

 

You may speculate that that is the case for beings from other planets, but that has nothing to do with life so far on earth.

Yes, as a phase or part of it, but we have a way of overcoming it eventually.

To comprehend what the atonement is all about we need to realize that there was eternal life before the fall to mortality though. Without comprehending that we have only a partial understanding of all of the life in the universe.

 

Maybe, but you don't need the fall of Adam and Eve to come to any of those conclusions. 

[CV75]

I think what is being confused here is the state of being "fallen" (ie mortal, imperfect) with a specific event called the fall. You don't need the latter to get the former. The former is the natural state of life in a physical universe. 

OK show me how a state or condition can exist and change without a formulating event preceding it, and then try to tell me what is being confused.

[Ahab]

I think what is being confused here is the state of being "fallen" (ie mortal, imperfect) with a specific event called the fall. You don't need the latter to get the former. The former is the natural state of life in a physical universe.

Mortality is the fall. It is what you take for granted as the way things are now, mortal, without stopping to think and consider the fact that we and our primary parents on this planet were not mortal to begin with.

That's what I think Elder Holland was driving at when he talked about how we need to understand the fall of Adam and Eve. To comprehend the fact that they were not mortal to begin with and had to fall to become mortal. And then as mortals they produced other mortals as their children, which is why we are now mortal. But they didn't start out as mortals and we didn't either when we were born in heaven. We fell by being born through Adam and Eve after they had become mortal, but before that fall we were all living in heaven as eternal beings.

Comprehend that, why don't cha?

[pogi]

Close enough. Forensic evidence as in not just a body, but all the circumstantial and other types of physical evidence we would expect to see left behind. Yes we don't have Adam's body, but there is a lot of other circumstantial evidence (fossil record, radiometric dating, dna analysis etc). In Christ's case we have nothing.

 

We have plenty of supporting or circumstantial evidence against the resurrection.  All of those fields of study that I listed have mounds of evidence against the possibility.  I don't understand why you don't consider this as evidence.

 

I'm not sure it would have any impact on medical theory unless we could somehow scientifically tap into the power of the resurrection. We have all types of religious people who study and practice medicine. Their belief in the resurrection does not impact medical theory at all, does it? People who accept miracles believe that there is something that else out there that operates by a different set of rules. Maybe this is just a semantic difference.

 

The limitations of biology and cellular regeneration would have to be completely rethought; the theory that death is the end of life would have to be scrapped - that's a big one.  Death would no longer be viewed as the end of life, but a stage of life; and on, and on...!  We may not understand how it is possible yet, but we would have to acknowledge that our old understanding was wrong in light of new information. 

 

We have all types of religious people who study and practice medicine. Their belief in the resurrection does not impact medical theory at all, does it? 

 

That is because scientific theories do not change based on individual belief with no evidence.  But that is not what we are talking about here, we are talking about what changes would happen in light of new evidence for Adam or the resurrection.  

 

I will say that a belief in the resurrection does indeed impact my own personal theory of medicine and, yes, even impacts my practice of medicine.  As you may or may not be aware, I am a hospice nurse and practice palliative care.  A belief in the resurrection offers me a tool that I can use in the care of my fellow Christian patients.  It allows me to offer psychological and spiritual comfort to brighten the outlook of my patients and reduce the fear of eternal separation from loved ones.  That hope and comfort has been proven to alleviate stress and anxiety in dying patients.  Reduced anxiety has been linked to a reduction in the experience of pain and discomfort in the end of life as well.  It is a proven tool that works in palliative care, so yes, it impacts my personal theories and practice of medicine. 

Edited September 23, 2015 by pogi

[VideoGameJunkie]

I hate to repeat myself but if you don't believe in Adam and Eve being real then I suggest turning in your temple recommend and not attending another endowment session because I don't know what you'd be getting from it if you don't believe.

[pogi]

I hate to repeat myself but if you don't believe in Adam and Eve being real then I suggest turning in your temple recommend and not attending another endowment session because I don't know what you'd be getting from it if you don't believe.

 

Even though I do believe in Adam and Eve, I actually disagree.  It is not required to benefit from the temple or be worthy of a recommend.  We benefit from the temple by making and keeping sacred covenants.  While I believe the creation story is real, it is also allegorical to our own lives and relationship with God.  If you think about it, doesn't the temple encourage us to "imagine as if..."

[bluebell]

I hate to repeat myself but if you don't believe in Adam and Eve being real then I suggest turning in your temple recommend and not attending another endowment session because I don't know what you'd be getting from it if you don't believe.

I second what pogi said.

[Robert F. Smith]

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

 

I don't think the idea of our origin on another planet has any legs, though. There is too much evidence of our terrestrial evolution from previous species. 

You might want to consider, however, the emphasis by Neil deGrasse Tyson on porous rock with microbes embedded (panspermia) as the means of life moving from planet to planet, as well as star system to star system in Tyson’s “The Immortals” episode 11 of Cosmos: A Spacetime Odyssey (2014), online at http://www.dailymotion.com/video/x2a6cnm_cosmos-a-space-time-odyssey-season-01-episode-11_school .  – he provides the astounding example of the Martian rock which hit the Egyptian village of Nakhla about a century ago (see 8:14 in episode 11).

 

This is the latest method of overcoming the problem of spontaneous generation of life on this planet being at a dead end so far as normative science is concerned.  Philosophically, we call this the "transmission" theory of life (panspermia).  That still allows you your "terrestrial evolution from previous species," which you no doubt share with the entire biology faculty at BYU.  And it still allows Brother Brigham's claim to be included as figurative.

 

See also http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CAD25s53wmE .

Edited September 24, 2015 by Robert F. Smith

[SeekingUnderstanding]

We have plenty of supporting or circumstantial evidence against the resurrection.  All of those fields of study that I listed have mounds of evidence against the possibility.  I don't understand why you don't consider this as evidence.

All those fields point to their being no scientific explanation. Any faith tradition requires the believe in things unseen that are true. Things outside of science. I agree that like any religion belief, the resurrection has no basis in science and no scientific explanation. 

 

The limitations of biology and cellular regeneration would have to be completely rethought; the theory that death is the end of life would have to be scrapped - that's a big one.  Death would no longer be viewed as the end of life, but a stage of life; and on, and on...!  We may not understand how it is possible yet, but we would have to acknowledge that our old understanding was wrong in light of new information. 

 

 

That is because scientific theories do not change based on individual belief with no evidence.  But that is not what we are talking about here, we are talking about what changes would happen in light of new evidence for Adam or the resurrection.

That may not be what you are talking about, but it is precisely what I am talking about. I am not talking about being able to scientifically prove or study the resurrection of the fall. If scientific study of the resurrection was possible I agree that it would have wide sweeping implications for the medical field. I am talking about why it is more difficult for a scientifically minded individual to accept the literal fall than the literal resurrection. If I am a medical researcher studying cell decay, cancer, or any pathology what impact does my belief in the resurrection have on the way I conduct my research or the results that I would publish? Maybe I would pray about my results? If I was an archeologist studying the migration of humans to the American or Australian continent, or an evolutionary biologist, what impact would believing in a literal fall as described in scripture have on my work? 

 

 

I will say that a belief in the resurrection does indeed impact my own personal theory of medicine and, yes, even impacts my practice of medicine.  As you may or may not be aware, I am a hospice nurse and practice palliative care.  A belief in the resurrection offers me a tool that I can use in the care of my fellow Christian patients.  It allows me to offer psychological and spiritual comfort to brighten the outlook of my patients and reduce the fear of eternal separation from loved ones.  That hope and comfort has been proven to alleviate stress and anxiety in dying patients.  Reduced anxiety has been linked to a reduction in the experience of pain and discomfort in the end of life as well.  It is a proven tool that works in palliative care, so yes, it impacts my personal theories and practice of medicine.

This is all well and good. Religious belief has been well documented to have such effects in the scientific research. I guess what I was more looking for is would it effect the medication that gets prescribed to a sick patient, or effect the way that you would interpret the results of a clinical trial?

Edited September 24, 2015 by SeekingUnderstanding

[stemelbow]

I think when it comes down to it, we're all wrong in many ways about many things. When it's all said and done we may look back and see how foolish we once were. If anyone has a reason why, can explain why, a literal Adam and Eve must be accepted for someone to be able to comprehend the atonement, then that reason alone defies their reasoning. The explanation will provide reason for any who don't accept a literal Adam and Eve. Of course, if it's not true that one must accept a literal Adam and eve to comprehend the atonement, then we just have another case of making up stuff for dramatic effect.

We're at an impasse. Says the Church and it's leaders, "you must have a literal belief in the fall and Adam and Eve to comprehend the atonement."

Says the questioner, "why? Why can't I see the whole creation and fall story as allegory and still be able to comprehend the atonement."

"well, because. I said so. And I obviously know from whence I speak."

"Ok, but what would I be missing if I do not accept a literal fall and Adam and Eve?"

"You couldn't comprehend the atonement."

"how?"

"Because you don't believe the story as related in the OT literally took place".

"Yes, but why does that keep me from comprehending?"

"well that's what I'm saying, isn't it?"

"I believe so. I'm curious your reasoning behind it."

"Well the atonement only makes sense if there was a literal fall and Adam and Eve. Thus, if it didn't happen an atonement doesn't make sense."

"I believe in atonement but not the literal fall of Adam and Eve as told in the OT."

"ahhh...but you don't comprehend that which you believe."

"why?"

"well, because. I said so. And I obviously know from whence I speak."

"Ok, but what would I be missing if I do not accept a literal fall and Adam and Eve?"

"You couldn't comprehend the atonement."

"how?"

"Because you don't believe the story as related in the OT literally took place".

And there we go.

In all of this I see no reason at all to explain why accepting a literal fall as explained in the OT must have happened for one to comprehend the atonement. If I'm mistaken please provide the explanation.

[Gray]

I hate to repeat myself but if you don't believe in Adam and Eve being real then I suggest turning in your temple recommend and not attending another endowment session because I don't know what you'd be getting from it if you don't believe.

 

The endowment is highly symbolic. Getting hung up on it really being about Adam and Eve will probably make the experience less valuable. As in the scriptures, Adam and Ever really just represent all of us. 

Edited September 24, 2015 by Gray

[Gray]

OK show me how a state or condition can exist and change without a formulating event preceding it, and then try to tell me what is being confused.

 

Well what do you mean, change? Living things have always been mortal and subject to death.What preceding event do you need me to show you? 

[Gray]

Mortality is the fall. It is what you take for granted as the way things are now, mortal, without stopping to think and consider the fact that we and our primary parents on this planet were not mortal to begin with.

That's what I think Elder Holland was driving at when he talked about how we need to understand the fall of Adam and Eve. To comprehend the fact that they were not mortal to begin with and had to fall to become mortal. And then as mortals they produced other mortals as their children, which is why we are now mortal. But they didn't start out as mortals and we didn't either when we were born in heaven. We fell by being born through Adam and Eve after they had become mortal, but before that fall we were all living in heaven as eternal beings.

Comprehend that, why don't cha?

 

Sure, I get all that. But human beings (and all other forms of life on earth) have always been mortal. So you don't need the fall the bring about conditions that require an atonement. 

 

As far as whether or not spirits are mortal or immortal, that's not a scientific question. But the point is, the fall is just a proposed mechanism to bring us to our current state. And it's our current state that, according to Christian belief, requires atonement. So the fall is really disposable to the idea of the need for redemption. Physical life forms are naturally subject to death and bad behavior. 

Edited September 24, 2015 by Gray

[Gray]

You might want to consider, however, the emphasis by Neil deGrasse Tyson on porous rock with microbes embedded (panspermia) as the means of life moving from planet to planet, as well as star system to star system in Tyson’s “The Immortals” episode 11 of Cosmos: A Spacetime Odyssey (2014), online at http://www.dailymotion.com/video/x2a6cnm_cosmos-a-space-time-odyssey-season-01-episode-11_school .  – he provides the astounding example of the Martian rock which hit the Egyptian village of Nakhla about a century ago (see 8:14 in episode 11).

 

This is the latest method of overcoming the problem of spontaneous generation of life on this planet being at a dead end so far as normative science is concerned.  Philosophically, we call this the "transmission" theory of life (panspermia).  That still allows you your "terrestrial evolution from previous species," which you no doubt share with the entire biology faculty at BYU.  And it still allows Brother Brigham's claim to be included as figurative.

 

See also http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CAD25s53wmE .

 

Oh sure, that would be possible, but it wouldn't really "overcome" the idea of abiogenesis. You'd just be moving abiogenesis off-planet. And even so, panspermia wouldn't make Adam and Eve into transplants from another world. It would just be simple biological materials as the basis for all evolved life forms. 

 

It's an interesting possibility but probably not testable. 

[CV75]

Well what do you mean, change? Living things have always been mortal and subject to death.What preceding event do you need me to show you? 

Well this has turned into quite the non-conversation, hasn't it! LOL

[thesometimesaint]

You might want to consider, however, the emphasis by Neil deGrasse Tyson on porous rock with microbes embedded (panspermia) as the means of life moving from planet to planet, as well as star system to star system in Tyson’s “The Immortals” episode 11 of Cosmos: A Spacetime Odyssey (2014), online at http://www.dailymotion.com/video/x2a6cnm_cosmos-a-space-time-odyssey-season-01-episode-11_school .  – he provides the astounding example of the Martian rock which hit the Egyptian village of Nakhla about a century ago (see 8:14 in episode 11).

 

This is the latest method of overcoming the problem of spontaneous generation of life on this planet being at a dead end so far as normative science is concerned.  Philosophically, we call this the "transmission" theory of life (panspermia).  That still allows you your "terrestrial evolution from previous species," which you no doubt share with the entire biology faculty at BYU.  And it still allows Brother Brigham's claim to be included as figurative.

 

See also http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CAD25s53wmE .

 

The evidence to date is that relatively simple organic compounds have been found in rocks(asteroids). Some presumably from Mars and slightly deeper in space. TTBOMK nothing so far from other star systems.

[CV75]

I find it no more difficult to accept Adam than I do to accept the resurrection.

I think Elder Holland's remark is for those who do find it more difficult, which is why that which is relatively easier to accept (the Atonement and  Resurrection) cannot be fully understood or appreciated.

[HappyJackWagon]

 

 

“I have heard ministers of the gospel declare that they believed every word in the Bible was the word of God. I have said to them “you believe more than I do.” I believe the words of God are there; I believe the words of the devil are there; I believe that the words of men and the words of angels are there;”  Brigham Young - pp. 276-281 - Journal of Discourses

Discourses of Brigham Young : 11 : 124 : - Discourses of Brigham Young : 11 : 129 : 5

 

I think BY's approach to scripture is pretty good here, recognizing that there are inspired writings but also the writings of men. All of these writings develop from oral traditionsl over time. The problem comes when we declare our understanding as THE only way to understand the scriptures.

 

I wouldn't suggest that anyone MUST view Adam and Even and the garden story as allegorical but I think it is equally problematic for others to suggest that I MUST view something as literal.

[ERayR]

I think that some may just allegoricalize themselves right out of salvation.

[Ahab]

Sure, I get all that. But human beings (and all other forms of life on earth) have always been mortal. So you don't need the fall the bring about conditions that require an atonement.

You say you get all that and then I see that it once again flew right over your head. No we have not always been mortal, and your saying that doesn't make it come true. The fall is the event that made our primary parents on this planet become mortal, primary referring to the first of us on this planet who became mortal. Before that event they weren't mortal.

You have yet to comprehend that idea while seeing how it relates to the atonement. What the atonement is and how it culminates in the end of mortality for those who are fallen.

The atonement is only partially about what happened in the garden of Gethsemane, where the price for the fall of Adam and Eve was paid. The atonement culminates in the restoration of our parent's condition as it was before the fall. It's what gets us back up now that we have fallen. Back up. Restoration. Restoring us to our condition before we were mortal. As Jesus is now.

As far as whether or not spirits are mortal or immortal, that's not a scientific question.

That's debatable but we don't need to get into that now.

But the point is, the fall is just a proposed mechanism to bring us to our current state. And it's our current state that, according to Christian belief, requires atonement.

Right. Right. Keep that thought in mind now.

So the fall is really disposable to the idea of the need for redemption. Physical life forms are naturally subject to death and bad behavior.

No. No. No. You just blew it. Your previous statement...where did that go in your mind?

The fall explains our current condition as mortals, which was a transition from our previous eternal condition. We were not mortal to begin with and then later we were, and we still are, and we still will be until we are resurrected. And our resurrection is a result of our Lord's atoning sacrificial act, the loss of his mortal life so that we could become eternal again as Adam and Eve were before they fell to become mortal.

Through Adam and Eve we fell down and through Christ we can get back up again to where we won't be mortal anymore as we now are. We are going to be eternal again with a body like the body of Adam and Eve had before they became mortal.

[bluebell]

I think that some may just allegoricalize themselves right out of salvation.

 

There definitely are things that cannot be allegorical alone.

[jkwilliams]

I think that some may just allegoricalize themselves right out of salvation.

 

I would imagine the best thing for someone to do if they can't believe in a literal Adam and Eve is believe what they can and place their faith in God that He'll accept their faith, anyway.

[Gray]

Well this has turned into quite the non-conversation, hasn't it! LOL

 

If you're starting from the assumption that the first humans were immortal, then of course you'd need an explanation for the fallen state of human beings. But there is no evidence that humans were ever immortal, so no need to explain why we're not now since we never were. 

[Gray]

You say you get all that and then I see that it once again flew right over your head. No we have not always been mortal, and your saying that doesn't make it come true. The fall is the event that made our primary parents on this planet become mortal, primary referring to the first of us on this planet who became mortal. Before that event they weren't mortal.

 

The problem is that is it's verifiably false. Human beings as a species have always been mortal. 

You have yet to comprehend that idea while seeing how it relates to the atonement. What the atonement is and how it culminates in the end of mortality for those who are fallen.

 

You don't need the Eden narrative to explain our current state, though.

The atonement is only partially about what happened in the garden of Gethsemane, where the price for the fall of Adam and Eve was paid. The atonement culminates in the restoration of our parent's condition as it was before the fall. It's what gets us back up now that we have fallen. Back up. Restoration. Restoring us to our condition before we were mortal. As Jesus is now.

 

Not really - are you saying we'll be innocent, not knowing good from evil?

That's debatable but we don't need to get into that now.

Right. Right. Keep that thought in mind now.

No. No. No. You just blew it. Your previous statement...where did that go in your mind?

The fall explains our current condition as mortals, which was a transition from our previous eternal condition. We were not mortal to begin with and then later we were, and we still are, and we still will be until we are resurrected. And our resurrection is a result of our Lord's atoning sacrificial act, the loss of his mortal life so that we could become eternal again as Adam and Eve were before they fell to become mortal.

 

It's an explanation for our current condition, but it doesn't stand up to scientific scrutiny. Therefore a literal interpretation of the eden story is the wrong interpretation. We're supposed to be seeking all truth, regardless of source. 

 

Edited September 24, 2015 by Gray

[CV75]

I think BY's approach to scripture is pretty good here, recognizing that there are inspired writings but also the writings of men. All of these writings develop from oral traditionsl over time. The problem comes when we declare our understanding as THE only way to understand the scriptures.

 

I wouldn't suggest that anyone MUST view Adam and Even and the garden story as allegorical but I think it is equally problematic for others to suggest that I MUST view something as literal.

But your question was, “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 the context of the Elder Holland quote.

 

Because the Atonement answers the ends of the law (the Fall) and because certain aspects of the Atonement are far from conceptual (having been realized in the flesh), they answer the non-conceptual aspects of the Fall which is also realized in the flesh. Jesus, Adam and Eve and their lives and acts are no more conceptual than you are. They may be named and presented in ways that you take to be allegorical and incomplete, but there is certainly a non-allegorical aspect to it all.

 

Do you have an example where a concept that isn’t played out in real life has any use or validity? Do you have an example of a useful or valid real-life development that hasn’t a conceptual basis?