Adam-ondi-Ahman: What does it mean, and do you believe it?

[Robert F. Smith]

1 hour ago, cinepro said:

Just curious Robert, but if you sat next to someone in Sunday School and during a lesson on the resurrection, they whispered to you "I don't believe in a literal resurrection.  I think it's an allegory for the new life someone begins as a follower of Jesus.  We're all resurrected when we get baptized. Some people have trouble reading it too literally",  what would you think?

I'd think that he was in the wrong church that day -- that maybe he would be happier attending the Community of Christ (RLDS) or a Unitarian church.

And regarding "Adam" being a generic term rather than a name, let's consider Joseph Smith saying this:

Quote

 

During an intimate meeting in Kirtland on December 18, 1833, the Prophet experienced a singular vision of the premortal Jehovah ministering to Father Adam in mortality. Oliver Cowdery noted that while Joseph Smith was setting apart his father, Joseph Smith Sr., as Patriarch to the Church, “the visions of the Almighty were open to his view,” and he beheld a great ancient council meeting at Adam-ondi-Ahman held three years previous to Adam’s death. “The Lord appeared unto them,” Cowdery recorded, and “administered comfort unto Adam.” In July 1839, during a meeting with the Twelve and the Seventy, Joseph Smith briefly recounted the vision. “I saw Adam in the valley of Adam-ondi-Ahman,” he said. “The Lord appeared in their midst, and he (Adam) blessed them all.”

The Visions of Joseph Smith

 

If "adam" wasn't a real, specific person but is instead a "generic term", please explain what Joseph Smith was really saying.

Generic terms are often  used to describe real people and gods.  In fact, the Bible seems to prefer generic, descriptive epithets (instead of names) applied to gods.  However, applying a Hebrew or English name or epithet to a person who may have existed before either language was ever used or spoken seems odd.  What we need to focus on is the archetypal rites of passage entailed in such accounts and visions. The "name" used may be nice for literary reasons (etymological word-play and the like), but misses the point of the esoteric encounter entirely.

I have no problem with using anachronistic names for purposes of convenience or cleverly composed literature, any more than I have a problem with Josephus inventing speeches delivered by people whom he did not immediately hear or have a discussion with later -- because they were dead.  What interests me is the verisimiltude or lack of it.  Playwrights constantly try to encapsulate reality within drama.  In any case, Joseph is above describing a ritual occasion in which titles are employed.  Who is represented may be the main focus..

[Robert F. Smith]

14 hours ago, sunstoned said:

It seems all the Cinepro did was quote a prophet.  If you don't agree with what the prophets say concerning the location and the time frame of the garden of Eden then be up front about it.  Don't shoot the messenger.

That isn't quite all he did.  He said:

Quote

"[LDS Apostles and Prophets] must not confuse that with biblical and religious accounts which are primarily ritualistic in content, and were never intended to be taken as actual history or science."

This unfairly holds the Brethren up to standards which they could never fulfill.  They need not be experts in biblical archeology or biblical Hebrew or biblical Greek or formal theology.  They need only be chosen by God to lead His Church.  The Holy Spirit and their own sense of responsibility take care of the rest.  They used to invite Hugh Nibley to come up and speak to them off the record on subjects they were interested in, and they constantly consult with experts in various fields as they administer the Church.  It would be foolhardy of them to attempt to micromanage the Church.  Indeed, every smart CEO and Board of Directors depend upon good advice from specialists.  They do the best they can, delegate authority, and test the results.  However, the general membership frequently fails to pay attention when one or two of their number point out the allegorical or figurative nature of some things which take place in the Garden story.

Edited February 23, 2016 by Robert F. Smith

[cinepro]

1 hour ago, Robert F. Smith said:

That isn't quite all he did.  He said:

This unfairly holds the Brethren up to standards which they could never fulfill.  They need not be experts in biblical archeology or biblical Hebrew or biblical Greek or formal theology.  They need only be chosen by God to lead His Church.  The Holy Spirit and their own sense of responsibility take care of the rest.  They used to invite Hugh Nibley to come up and speak to them off the record on subjects they were interested in, and they constantly consult with experts in various fields as they administer the Church.  It would be foolhardy of them to attempt to micromanage the Church.  Indeed, every smart CEO and Board of Directors depend upon good advice from specialists.  They do the best they can, delegate authority, and test the results.  However, the general membership frequently fails to pay attention when one or two of their number point out the allegorical or figurative nature of some things which take place in the Garden story.

 

To tell you the truth, I can't for the life of me tell the difference between what you are saying about Church leadership and their knowledge of the ancient world, and what people who don't believe in the Church say about Church leadership and their knowledge of the ancient world.  The only difference, as far as I can tell, is that you think it is different.

 

[Robert F. Smith]

1 hour ago, cinepro said:

To tell you the truth, I can't for the life of me tell the difference between what you are saying about Church leadership and their knowledge of the ancient world, and what people who don't believe in the Church say about Church leadership and their knowledge of the ancient world.  The only difference, as far as I can tell, is that you think it is different.

There is probably some difference in the animus and vitriol some outsiders express -- a lack of understanding of reality -- the same sort of reality President Obama has to deal with due to his lack of expertise in military matters (for example), so that he must be dependent upon military advisors.  Just so, the Brethren must depend upon expert advice in various areas.  Understanding this, and knowing some of the Church manual writers, I tend to accept the scholarly demands on the one hand, balanced with the demand to be simple and clear to those who have no expertise on the other.  You and I might say things here in this venue, which we would not likely say in Sunday School.  And for very good reasons.  When I am speaking with fellow archeologists or Hebraists, the conversation becomes still more exotic and unintelligible to those not familiar with those areas.  That is to say, you raise excellent questions.  You just don't show an evenhanded sensitivity.

[cinepro]

20 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

  Just so, the Brethren must depend upon expert advice in various areas.  Understanding this, and knowing some of the Church manual writers, I tend to accept the scholarly demands on the one hand, balanced with the demand to be simple and clear to those who have no expertise on the other. 

Do you really believe that there is some degree of outside knowledge that could be shared with any member of the FP or Q12 that would convince them that Adam wasn't an actual person who lived ~6,000 years ago?  Or that Noah's flood didn't cover the entire planet?

Take Donald Parry's article about Noah's flood.  Not only does this article strongly state LDS belief in a global flood based on the teachings of the scriptures and prophets, but it explicitly discredits the alternate "scholarly" theories arguing for a local flood or allegorical reading.  And this is an article by one of the Church's foremost Hebrew and Old Testament scholars!

So it might be a nice sentiment to think that Church leaders would think like you do if only they had someone more knowledgeable to give them lessons on how to read the scriptures, but I'm  pretty sure they are well aware of the alternate theories being bandied about and soundly reject them.

[CV75]

2 hours ago, cinepro said:

Do you really believe that there is some degree of outside knowledge that could be shared with any member of the FP or Q12 that would convince them that Adam wasn't an actual person who lived ~6,000 years ago?  Or that Noah's flood didn't cover the entire planet?

I think their doctrine and testimony is a matter of what they are commanded to teach by way of scripture and the Spirit. It wouldn't be appropriate to delve into their secular investigations, of which they cannot bear spiritual witness.

[Robert F. Smith]

3 hours ago, cinepro said:

Do you really believe that there is some degree of outside knowledge that could be shared with any member of the FP or Q12 that would convince them that Adam wasn't an actual person who lived ~6,000 years ago?  Or that Noah's flood didn't cover the entire planet?

Take Donald Parry's article about Noah's flood.  Not only does this article strongly state LDS belief in a global flood based on the teachings of the scriptures and prophets, but it explicitly discredits the alternate "scholarly" theories arguing for a local flood or allegorical reading.  And this is an article by one of the Church's foremost Hebrew and Old Testament scholars!

So it might be a nice sentiment to think that Church leaders would think like you do if only they had someone more knowledgeable to give them lessons on how to read the scriptures, but I'm  pretty sure they are well aware of the alternate theories being bandied about and soundly reject them.

I see no evidence that they are fully aware of the various sophisticated views and theories held by both Mormon and non-Mormon scholars.  For that they would have to have been trained in the requisite disciplines (although Joseph Smith did seem to understand the importance of learning Hebrew), and they are not conversant with the deeper academic issues.  Should we expect them to be?  Probably not, since the items you discuss here (the extent of the Great Deluge, existence of Adam 6,000 years ago, etc.) are all ritualistic & archetypal in nature and origin, even if there are plenty of specific historical instances.  The details are never as important as the meaning in Salvation History (Heilsgeschichte), which is why the Brethren preach instead of waxing academic.

However, it is false on your part to complain that they do not recognize allegory and metaphor in Scripture.  It is the general membership which is slow to adopt those understandings, not the Brethren (who are accustomed to mentioning the figurative meaning of some stories in Scripture).  If we took a poll among typical Mormons, I think that we would find that most still think that Eve was formed from Adam's rib, and most would likely think that the Creation and Garden Stories were literal events in nearly all respects.  Few would see them as temple rites, but only as sources of  temple rites.  I dare say that many on this board fail to recognize such nuanced aspects of the "Primeval History" sections of Genesis.

[CV75]

19 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said:

The details are never as important as the meaning in Salvation History (Heilsgeschichte), which is why the Brethren preach instead of waxing academic.

I think here is a good example of such preaching:

“In our increasingly secular society, it is as uncommon as it is unfashionable to speak of Adam and Eve or the Garden of Eden or of a “fortunate fall” into mortality. Nevertheless, Nevertheless, 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.” https://www.lds.org/general-conference/2015/04/where-justice-love-and-mercy-meet?lang=eng

I think we can expect it to come across to some as the “weak things of the world… the weak and simple” (D&C 1:19-23).

Do you see any nuanced difference between Elder Holland’s use of the term “an actual,” rather than, “the literal?” Personally, I think it conveys a broader allowance for how (and what, when, etc.) things happened, and as you pointed out, the why is the essential thing which is taught by divine commission.

[CV75]

A case in point of the above post, I happened to read a reprint of Elder McConkie's last apostolic witness in the March Ensign today. It reads, "...I shall use my own words, [and] though you may think they are the words of scripture, words spoken by other... they are now mine. ...t is now as though the Lord has revealed them to me in the first instance. I have thereby heard His voice and know His word." And then he speaks of the Garden of Eden.

In the temple, children are sealed to parents and have the same blessings as though they had been born in the covenant. Those who become exalted are as though they had been gods all along. Whatever we become, it is as though Adam and Eden and rest of it had happened just as the words of scripture and "the holy Spirit of God has borne witness to me that they are true..."

This is a good example in my mind as to why (and how) prophets and apostles preach.

Edited February 25, 2016 by CV75

[cinepro]

21 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

However, it is false on your part to complain that they do not recognize allegory and metaphor in Scripture.  It is the general membership which is slow to adopt those understandings, not the Brethren (who are accustomed to mentioning the figurative meaning of some stories in Scripture).  If we took a poll among typical Mormons, I think that we would find that most still think that Eve was formed from Adam's rib, and most would likely think that the Creation and Garden Stories were literal events in nearly all respects.  Few would see them as temple rites, but only as sources of  temple rites.  I dare say that many on this board fail to recognize such nuanced aspects of the "Primeval History" sections of Genesis.

Sorry, but the fact that LDS leaders acknowledge the allegorical nature of some stories only weakens the likelihood that they are wrong in their literal interpretations of the creation, Fall, flood and resurrection stories (among many others).   

When President Kimball taught the allegorical nature of the comment about Eve coming from Adam's rib, he was also reinforcing the literal reality of Adam and Eve and the fall.

 

As for who is aware of what, remember that one of the Church's foremost Hebrew and Old Testament scholar fully explained that he understands the alternate arguments for Noah's flood (local scope or allegorical), and then stated this:

 

Quote

 

Not everyone throughout the modern world, however, accepts the story of Noah and the Flood. Many totally disbelieve the story, seeing it as a simple myth or fiction. Typical of some modern scholars, one author recently discounted the events of the Flood by using such terms as “implausible,” “unacceptable,” and “impossible”; he stated that believers who would hope to provide geologic or other evidence regarding the historicity of the Flood “can be given no assurance that their effort, however sustained, will be successful.”¹ Another author titled his book The Noah’s Ark Nonsense,² revealing his disbelief that the Flood actually took place.

Still other people accept parts of the Flood story, acknowledging that there may have been a local, charismatic preacher, such as Noah, and a localized flood that covered only a specific area of the world, such as the region of the Tigris and Euphrates Rivers or perhaps even the whole of Mesopotamia. Yet these people do not believe in a worldwide or global flood. Both of these groups—those who totally deny the historicity of Noah and the Flood and those who accept parts of the story—are persuaded in their disbelief by the way they interpret modern science. They rely upon geological considerations and theories that postulate it would be impossible for a flood to cover earth’s highest mountains, that the geologic evidence (primarily in the fields of stratigraphy and sedimentation) does not indicate a worldwide flood occurred any time during the earth’s existence.

There is a third group of people—those who accept the literal message of the Bible regarding Noah, the ark, and the Deluge. Latter-day Saints belong to this group. In spite of the world’s arguments against the historicity of the Flood, and despite the supposed lack of geologic evidence, we Latter-day Saints believe that Noah was an actual man, a prophet of God, who preached repentance and raised a voice of warning, built an ark, gathered his family and a host of animals onto the ark, and floated safely away as waters covered the entire earth. We are assured that these events actually occurred by the multiple testimonies of God’s prophets.

https://www.lds.org/ensign/1998/01/the-flood-and-the-tower-of-babel?lang=eng

 

 

So what, exactly, does the good Professor Parry not understand about the origin of the story of Noah's ark?  Is it your belief that if he studied it a little more, he would arrive at the conclusion that the flood story was allegorical (or at least limited in scope)?  What do you know that he doesn't?

Edited February 25, 2016 by cinepro

[Robert F. Smith]

18 minutes ago, cinepro said:

Sorry, but the fact that LDS leaders acknowledge the allegorical nature of some stories only weakens the likelihood that they are wrong in their literal interpretations of the creation, Fall, flood and resurrection stories (among many others).  

Not at all.  In fact, such recognition means that the general membership would do well to recognize allegory, metaphor, and other rhetorical devices in sacred literature in order to better comprehend it.  Moreover, they ought to more readily connect all that with the temple rites which they perform.

When President Kimball taught the allegorical nature of the comment about Eve coming from Adam's rib, he was also reinforcing the literal reality of Adam and Eve and the fall.

Figurative comments within sacred rites de passage do not detract from the archetypal or real/literal content, but do certainly alter our immediate view that such an event can only be interpreted in a narrow/rigid way.  The Brethren and general membership do not need to understand associated geology, biology, and paleontology in order to perform the rites.  In fact, their individual beliefs in such matters may be completely erroneous, yet irrelevant.  I have no problem with a literal Creation, Fall, or Flood, but I may differ from some others on the details (just as Brother Brigham did in saying that "Adam" and "Eve" were created the same way all of us were created, through biological reproduction -- being brought here from another world).  The archetypal names are irrelevant even in LDS temple rites.

As for who is aware of what, remember that one of the Church's foremost Hebrew and Old Testament scholar fully explained that he understands the alternate arguments for Noah's flood (local scope or allegorical), and then stated this:

So what, exactly, does the good Professor Parry not understand about the origin of the story of Noah's ark?  Is it your belief that if he studied it a little more, he would arrive at the conclusion that the flood story was allegorical (or at least limited in scope)?  What do you know that he doesn't?

I was reading and writing Hebrew when Don Parry was still in diapers, and so were a number of other Mormon scholars.  I haven't engaged Don on this (or any other subject), even though I have spent some time with one of his sons, who is also a Hebraist.  I would be interested in seeing a review by Don of David Bokovoy's Authoring the Old Testament, volume 1.

 

[mfbukowski]

On 2/23/2016 at 8:42 AM, CA Steve said:

Hi Robert,

 

Do you think our Mormon ancestors who were persecuted in Missouri thought they were there to participate in an ongoing ritual?

Or did they believe they were defending the actual ground on which Adam walked?

 

Did you read his post??  You did not even comprehend it slightly.

[mfbukowski]

On 2/23/2016 at 10:08 AM, cinepro said:

Just curious Robert, but if you sat next to someone in Sunday School and during a lesson on the resurrection, they whispered to you "I don't believe in a literal resurrection.  I think it's an allegory for the new life someone begins as a follower of Jesus.  We're all resurrected when we get baptized. Some people have trouble reading it too literally",  what would you think?

 

And regarding "Adam" being a generic term rather than a name, let's consider Joseph Smith saying this:

 

 

 

If "adam" wasn't a real, specific person but is instead a "generic term", please explain what Joseph Smith was really saying.

 

He saw a VISION of Adam.  The existence of a "real Adam" is a matter of faith.  Whether or not he walked the earth is knowable only by faith and testimony.   There is no evidence either way except testimony. No pottery shards, no remnants of the tree of Life, no bones.   But that is all we have for religious matters.

You have argued on threads forever about there being no flood, no literal fall, the problem of no death before the fall, and all the other items taken literally and now you turn it around and argue the opposite, arguing in favor of literalism.

The importance of Adam, "real" or not is what we learn from the story.  I do not know why that is so hard for you to comprehend.

Americans believe in "Freedom".  It doesn't "exist" - it is a belief.  It is only as real as our belief in it is, and yet we have built our nation on this foundation of a non-existent belief in an abstract notion.  This sort of thinking parallels religion exactly.  These beliefs are useful and mold our lives and give us something to live and die for, and correctly so.  How many brave soldiers have died for "freedom"?  How precisely did each death help you to be able to write your own beliefs on this thread?  How "real" was their sacrifice for YOU personally?

These ideas are actually "secular" ideas but they are just as "religious" and based on faith and hope as anything in Christianity, and people still are dying for these ideals- these "hopes for things unseen"

I don't know why this is such a hard principle for you to see.

 

Edited February 26, 2016 by mfbukowski
Snark

[mfbukowski]

On 2/23/2016 at 10:48 AM, CA Steve said:

You could also let him know there is an online forum where such ideas are openly discussed.

Why bother?

No one here appears to understand it anyway..  So much for the "superiority" of "internet Mormons".   We are all the same.

[Robert F. Smith]

On 2/23/2016 at 9:42 AM, CA Steve said:

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

Do you think our Mormon ancestors who were persecuted in Missouri thought they were there to participate in an ongoing ritual?

Or did they believe they were defending the actual ground on which Adam walked?

I doubt that our Mormon ancestors understood the full implications of what they were actually doing in Western Missouri, or in Kirtland, Ohio -- from whence Joseph led the rescue party known as "Zion's Camp."  Zion's Camp turned out to be the crucible from which the Lord was able to choose his future leadership, tried and tested under the harshest of circumstances.  Yet Zion's Camp never even came close to achieving its stated objectives or purpose, and the Mormons in Western Missouri had to flee for their lives. No rescue was possible.  Only massacre and rape awaited the Mormons in Missouri, and so they had to leave the state.  The persecution continued in other venues, including Nauvoo, leading finally to an archetypal Exodus to the West.  One can properly interpret all of that as a ritual, just as John Bunyan's Pilgrim's Progress* can be so interpreted -- and for basically the same reasons.

*  The Pilgrim's Progress from This World to That Which Is to Come; Delivered under the Similitude of a Dream, a 1678 Christian allegory.  It is regarded as one of the most significant works of religious English literature.  It was a best-seller in its day.

Edited February 26, 2016 by Robert F. Smith

[CA Steve]

9 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said:

I doubt that our Mormon ancestors understood the full implications of what they were actually doing in Western Missouri, or in Kirtland, Ohio -- from whence Joseph led the rescue party known as "Zion's Camp."  Zion's Camp turned out to be the crucible from which the Lord was able to choose his future leadership, tried and tested under the harshest of circumstances.  Yet Zion's Camp never even came close to achieving its stated objectives or purpose, and the Mormons in Western Missouri had to flee for their lives. No rescue was possible.  Only massacre and rape awaited the Mormons in Missouri, and so they had to leave the state.  The persecution continued in other venues, including Nauvoo, leading finally to an archetypal Exodus to the West.  One can properly interpret all of that as a ritual, just as John Bunyan's Pilgrim's Progress* can be so interpreted -- and for basically the same reasons.

*  The Pilgrim's Progress from This World to That Which Is to Come; Delivered under the Similitude of a Dream, a 1678 Christian allegory.  It is regarded as one of the most significant works of religious English literature.  It was a best-seller in its day.

Thanks Robert,

As always, you bring a well informed, cordial and interesting perspective to a conversation.

[cinepro]

13 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

 

I don't know why this is such a hard principle for you to see.

 

The point of this thread is to try and understand why that principle is so hard for LDS Church leaders to see.  These guys spend more time studying and thinking about the scriptures than just about anyone else, and we are taught they are the final authority on interpreting the scriptures.  Yet they continue to take a super-literal view on the reality of many scriptural people and events (with no indication that they will ever adopt a less-literal view).

 

[thesometimesaint]

1 hour ago, cinepro said:

The point of this thread is to try and understand why that principle is so hard for LDS Church leaders to see.  These guys spend more time studying and thinking about the scriptures than just about anyone else, and we are taught they are the final authority on interpreting the scriptures.  Yet they continue to take a super-literal view on the reality of many scriptural people and events (with no indication that they will ever adopt a less-literal view).

The LDS are well represented in the sciences. To present faith based claims as science does a grave disservice to both. Galileo said " The bible teaches us how to go to heaven, not how the heavens go".

[CV75]

2 hours ago, cinepro said:

The point of this thread is to try and understand why that principle is so hard for LDS Church leaders to see.  These guys spend more time studying and thinking about the scriptures than just about anyone else, and we are taught they are the final authority on interpreting the scriptures.  Yet they continue to take a super-literal view on the reality of many scriptural people and events (with no indication that they will ever adopt a less-literal view).

 

I think it is easy to know what LDS Church leaders say and teach, not so much what they see and how they view it. They speak and teach faith and repentance, and the rest of the Gospel and Doctrine of Christ using the scriptures and scripture (“whatsoever they shall speak when moved upon by the Holy Ghost”). As the final mortal authorities on all matters of the earthly kingdom, they administer and secure the covenants therein.

The principle is not about what they see and how they view it, but about what we see and how we view what they say and teach in the way the Lord has commanded them to. They have no more authority over that than we do over what they see (and/or how).

[mfbukowski]

9 hours ago, cinepro said:

The point of this thread is to try and understand why that principle is so hard for LDS Church leaders to see.  These guys spend more time studying and thinking about the scriptures than just about anyone else, and we are taught they are the final authority on interpreting the scriptures.  Yet they continue to take a super-literal view on the reality of many scriptural people and events (with no indication that they will ever adopt a less-literal view).

 

You do not understand the vast continuum of beliefs in the church about this point, and how easy it is to destroy someone's faith.

It is best to teach to the most elementary level and let others who see it otherwise see it as they will naturally anyway.

One learns this in teaching lessons.  I have taught enough and gotten blank stares, raised eyebrows and negative feedback to know that one must tell the story literally and then discuss the abstract principles taught in the stories.  The GA's know that principle much better than I do.

They know that fundamentalists see things only one way, and really their view is no more or less valid than anyone else's.  No one knows anything except by testimony, and God teaches each of us in the way best for us individually.  None of us were there to view the flood.  None of us were witnesses to the creation or resurrection.

Some must see it literally, or they would lose their way.   So do we lose these good folks who are our family members, parents, and grandparents?  Or do we realize that we do not know better than they do, we just see it differently.  It is not even a matter of humility or not being condescending.  The fact is, NOBODY KNOWS any of this "rationally".  God could have done it any way he desired.   It is as much speculation on what happened literally as it is to see it symbolically 

The GA's know that those who see symbology will see symbology, and it does not need to be pointed out.  Those who see it literally need it to be literal.

Literalism is the easiest way to learn the gospel- children can and do learn moral principles through stories.  When one learns something as a child, it is hard to take it back from them and teach them a different way of seeing.

But arguing in favor of literalism as some  here do, just seems to reflect ignorance that there ARE other ways to see it.

[mfbukowski]

7 hours ago, CV75 said:

I think it is easy to know what LDS Church leaders say and teach, not so much what they see and how they view it. They speak and teach faith and repentance, and the rest of the Gospel and Doctrine of Christ using the scriptures and scripture (“whatsoever they shall speak when moved upon by the Holy Ghost”). As the final mortal authorities on all matters of the earthly kingdom, they administer and secure the covenants therein.

The principle is not about what they see and how they view it, but about what we see and how we view what they say and teach in the way the Lord has commanded them to. They have no more authority over that than we do over what they see (and/or how).

Exactly!

[CV75]

9 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

Literalism is the easiest way to learn the gospel- children can and do learn moral principles through stories.  When one learns something as a child, it is hard to take it back from them and teach them a different way of seeing.

I think becoming as a little child in attitude stretches our capacity to see things in the many ways necessary to charitably empathize with the needs others in learning and living the Gospel--especially after the intellect and body have gotten more/too sophisticated!

[mfbukowski]

6 hours ago, CV75 said:

I think becoming as a little child in attitude stretches our capacity to see things in the many ways necessary to charitably empathize with the needs others in learning and living the Gospel--especially after the intellect and body have gotten more/too sophisticated!

Totally agree, but one must intentionally "BECOME" as a little child.  Those who keep that perspective into adulthood end up becoming critics of the church or hard and dogmatic.

Historically, that has happened in the church, even in some cases, in leadership.  For me, I believe that one can only become as a child by understanding that there are many "valid" ways of seeing the church, including the child-like way, along with understanding symbolism and allegory.  When you see that these literal, symbolic and allegorical views can co-exist without contradiction, that is where we all should be, in my never-humble opinion.

[CV75]

58 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

Totally agree, but one must intentionally "BECOME" as a little child.  Those who keep that perspective into adulthood end up becoming critics of the church or hard and dogmatic.

Historically, that has happened in the church, even in some cases, in leadership.  For me, I believe that one can only become as a child by understanding that there are many "valid" ways of seeing the church, including the child-like way, along with understanding symbolism and allegory.  When you see that these literal, symbolic and allegorical views can co-exist without contradiction, that is where we all should be, in my never-humble opinion.

Yes; that is why I use the term “as a little child in attitude.” The only way to do that, and the sense in which I think the Lord is asking us to do it, is with the same intent and sacrifice it takes a sinner to repent and be baptized (3 Nephi 9:20-22 and 11:37-38). That is why we do it after our bodies and minds have become sophisticated in the ways of the world (“but to whom [much] is forgiven, the same loveth [much]”). It is impressive and instructional to me that the Lord assesses the sophistication of an eight-year old as quite enough already—less than a fifth grader! And of course we all go way too far beyond that as we become connoisseurs of the things of the world.

Little children are not damned (3 Nephi 11:33-34), whether under the rules of age of accountability or sanctification, but only the accountable can operate with the requisite intent (obedience) and sacrifice. I think the gospels convey this nicely with the use the phrase “receive the kingdom of God as a little child.” I think the broadened (or rather integrated) perspective comes after being baptized with fire and with the Holy Ghost.

Not to go off on too much of a tangent, but I think the ongoing, weekly sacrament allows the repentant and baptized eight-year-old to continue to become as a little child as he gains experience (and loses ground!) as the natural man.

[Cold Steel]

Adam's existence and mission are as essential to other Christians as it is latter-day saints. If the theory of evolution is true and Adam and Eve are are just part of the Judao-Christian mythos, then there's no need for Jesus Christ, Joseph Smith or any of the other prophets. I keep seeing even our own brethren trying to rationalize evolution and religion as facts. Since I can't rationalize it, I have to choose religion. It's clear that Jesus believed in Adam and equally clear the prophets did as well. The same is true for the global flood. If it wasn't global, why did Noah have to take all those animals on board? And how did the ark end up in the highlands of Turkey, way up in the mountains? And how did the altar of Adam end up in Missouri? 

As for the flood, I don't buy the local flood theory. Just about every country and people on Earth have verbal or written traditions about a global flood, including the Western Hemisphere. That would have to be one impressive flood!

I don't know enough about evolution to refute it, but it seems to me that anthropologists find one skeletal remain, then link it irrefutably to man, and I've never understood that. Lucy was about four feet tall and was covered with hair. I've always wondered how she was determined to be man's forebear? 

Man is pathetically designed. We have zero weapons outside tools. No teeth, claws, fur for protection from cold, high mortality rate. After ten years we're still children. Those tools we do develop are often either taken from us or forbidden by our societal leaders. We can't outrun anything but turtles, nor do we have the ability to run down prey. How and why evolution did that is beyond me. We didn't get a single physical break! 

The revelations say: 

Quote

Yea, verily I say unto you, in that day when the Lord shall come, he shall reveal all things—things which have passed, and hidden things which no man knew, things of the earth, by which it was made, and the purpose and the end thereof—things most precious, things that are above, and things that are beneath, things that are in the earth, and upon the earth, and in heaven.   ( D&C 101:32-34)

Which is where I'm leaving it....