The Emergence From the Garden

[USU78]

For purposes of this OP and (hopefully) thread, assume both that there were a real Adam and a real Eve, fully formed and fully human, and that they are metaphor for our own lives, intended to be our guides in how to live and what our lives mean.  Metaphors abound, as we tend to infuse objects and other phenomena in our environment with meaning, even though there may not, in the strictest sense, be or have been any such meaning.  Let's please first examine the Adam and Eve story as metaphor for birth.

The Birth Metaphor.

In the womb, we are fully human, though not yet fully formed.  The volitional acts we are capable of prebirth are few, though our brains and bodies are brimming with potential.  We can chose to stick out our tongues, move around a bit, push, pull, yawn, suck our thumbs and such, but there's no particular meaning to what we choose and what we do.  What could possibly be the moral significance of having our heads up or down, our legs flexed or extended?  We feed, we respire, we excrete, but what we feed on and what we respire doesn't require any effort on our part.

And through all this our eyes are not opened.  In order to acquire opened eyes and make meaningful contact with persons and things that are not so much a part of our limited environment they just as well be ourselves, we must leave the womb.

As Adam and Eve must leave the garden.  There they did entertain choices, what and when to eat, when and how long to sleep, where to excrete, but those choices had no particular moral significance, though they were brimming with potential.  Neither did the carrying out of the assignments of naming the beasts or tending the garden carry any kind of moral significance.  Ultimately, did it matter whether they did or didn't tend it?  Or which name they gave which critter? Their environment was just as warm and giving as the womb, but it was also just as restrictive as the womb.  It didn't ask much more of them than it does of the prebirth human.

As anybody who goes through the birth process, either as active participant or close and interested observer, the whens and hows of birth are driven by the baby as much as anything else, though the environment plays a significant part.

The when of Adam and Eve's emergence into the world were driven by their volitional acts, though G-d, part of their environment, made the choice of when, how and that it was compulsory once the choice was made.

And in each instance, emergence from the womb or the garden, the place we land is lonely and desolate.  It is not giving, it expects things of us, we are frequently disappointed and thwarted, and we are alienated.

[Tacenda]

1 hour ago, USU78 said:

For purposes of this OP and (hopefully) thread, assume both that there were a real Adam and a real Eve, fully formed and fully human, and that they are metaphor for our own lives, intended to be our guides in how to live and what our lives mean.  Metaphors abound, as we tend to infuse objects and other phenomena in our environment with meaning, even though there may not, in the strictest sense, be or have been any such meaning.  Let's please first examine the Adam and Eve story as metaphor for birth.

The Birth Metaphor.

In the womb, we are fully human, though not yet fully formed.  The volitional acts we are capable of prebirth are few, though our brains and bodies are brimming with potential.  We can chose to stick out our tongues, move around a bit, push, pull, yawn, suck our thumbs and such, but there's no particular meaning to what we choose and what we do.  What could possibly be the moral significance of having our heads up or down, our legs flexed or extended?  We feed, we respire, we excrete, but what we feed on and what we respire doesn't require any effort on our part.

And through all this our eyes are not opened.  In order to acquire opened eyes and make meaningful contact with persons and things that are not so much a part of our limited environment they just as well be ourselves, we must leave the womb.

As Adam and Eve must leave the garden.  There they did entertain choices, what and when to eat, when and how long to sleep, where to excrete, but those choices had no particular moral significance, though they were brimming with potential.  Neither did the carrying out of the assignments of naming the beasts or tending the garden carry any kind of moral significance.  Ultimately, did it matter whether they did or didn't tend it?  Or which name they gave which critter? Their environment was just as warm and giving as the womb, but it was also just as restrictive as the womb.  It didn't ask much more of them than it does of the prebirth human.

As anybody who goes through the birth process, either as active participant or close and interested observer, the whens and hows of birth are driven by the baby as much as anything else, though the environment plays a significant part.

The when of Adam and Eve's emergence into the world were driven by their volitional acts, though G-d, part of their environment, made the choice of when, how and that it was compulsory once the choice was made.

And in each instance, emergence from the womb or the garden, the place we land is lonely and desolate.  It is not giving, it expects things of us, we are frequently disappointed and thwarted, and we are alienated.

I know that you're not saying any different, but the church has not mentioned this, either they are literal, or they are not. I wish the church leaders would know which it is. Since they have been given special powers, the PH. And since Joseph spoke with God almost daily and received revelation that we can read about in the D&C...about things that were temporal, such as a plot of land and this or that. But nothing on if Adam & Eve were literal people? Why even place metaphors in there if it's literal? It takes away IMO, I guess I can be a black & white thinker, but not usually. In this case I need to know which is which. No fuzziness, no metaphor, no symbolism. I can wrap my head around a parable because it states upfront that it is a made up story to help someone understand a principle or a teaching. 

Please don't take it that I'm being disrespectful with this post, this is just a huge disillusionment with what I was told late in life, or that I missed the memo on while attending the temple, that we don't know how literal it is. Which btw, begs the question...what would that do to Brigham Young's teachings? And when another prophet of God says the following...

The First Presidency said in 1931,

Upon the fundamental doctrines of the Church we are all agreed. Our mission is to bear the message of the restored Gospel to the people of 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.

We can see no advantage to be gained by a continuation of the discussion to which reference is here made, but on the contrary are certain that it would lead to confusion, division and misunderstanding if carried further. Upon one thing we should all be able to agree namely, that presidents Joseph F. Smith, John Winder and Anthon Lund were right when they said: "Adam is the primal parent of our race. 

—First Presidency, Memorandum to General Authorities, April 1931.

[USU78]

1 minute ago, Tacenda said:

I know that you're not saying any different, but the church has not mentioned this, either they are literal, or they are not. I wish the church leaders would know which it is. Since they have been given special powers, the PH. And since Joseph spoke with God almost daily and received revelation that we can read about in the D&C...about things that were temporal, such as a plot of land and this or that. But nothing on if Adam & Eve were literal people? Why even place metaphors in there if it's literal? It takes away IMO, I guess I can be a black & white thinker, but not usually. In this case I need to know which is which. No fuzziness, no metaphor, no symbolism. I can wrap my head around a parable because it states upfront that it is a made up story to help someone understand a principle or a teaching. 

Please don't take it that I'm being disrespectful with this post, this is just a huge disillusionment with what I was told late in life, or that I missed the memo on while attending the temple, that we don't know how literal it is. Which btw, begs the question...what would that do to Brigham Young's teachings? And when another prophet of God says the following...

The First Presidency said in 1931,

Upon the fundamental doctrines of the Church we are all agreed. Our mission is to bear the message of the restored Gospel to the people of 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.

We can see no advantage to be gained by a continuation of the discussion to which reference is here made, but on the contrary are certain that it would lead to confusion, division and misunderstanding if carried further. Upon one thing we should all be able to agree namely, that presidents Joseph F. Smith, John Winder and Anthon Lund were right when they said: "Adam is the primal parent of our race. 

—First Presidency, Memorandum to General Authorities, April 1931.

Please re-read:

Quote

For purposes of this OP and (hopefully) thread, assume both that there were a real Adam and a real Eve, fully formed and fully human, and that they are metaphor for our own lives, intended to be our guides in how to live and what our lives mean.

I mean it.  Please don't get us bogged down in that conversation.  Assume both true for purposes of this conversation:  Adam & Eve lived in a particular place at a particular time and did particular things  ...  AND their story is our story; their lives our lives, as we "liken the scriptures unto ourselves."

[Bobbieaware]

1 hour ago, USU78 said:

For purposes of this OP and (hopefully) thread, assume both that there were a real Adam and a real Eve, fully formed and fully human, and that they are metaphor for our own lives, intended to be our guides in how to live and what our lives mean.  Metaphors abound, as we tend to infuse objects and other phenomena in our environment with meaning, even though there may not, in the strictest sense, be or have been any such meaning.  Let's please first examine the Adam and Eve story as metaphor for birth.

The Birth Metaphor.

In the womb, we are fully human, though not yet fully formed.  The volitional acts we are capable of prebirth are few, though our brains and bodies are brimming with potential.  We can chose to stick out our tongues, move around a bit, push, pull, yawn, suck our thumbs and such, but there's no particular meaning to what we choose and what we do.  What could possibly be the moral significance of having our heads up or down, our legs flexed or extended?  We feed, we respire, we excrete, but what we feed on and what we respire doesn't require any effort on our part.

And through all this our eyes are not opened.  In order to acquire opened eyes and make meaningful contact with persons and things that are not so much a part of our limited environment they just as well be ourselves, we must leave the womb.

As Adam and Eve must leave the garden.  There they did entertain choices, what and when to eat, when and how long to sleep, where to excrete, but those choices had no particular moral significance, though they were brimming with potential.  Neither did the carrying out of the assignments of naming the beasts or tending the garden carry any kind of moral significance.  Ultimately, did it matter whether they did or didn't tend it?  Or which name they gave which critter? Their environment was just as warm and giving as the womb, but it was also just as restrictive as the womb.  It didn't ask much more of them than it does of the prebirth human.

As anybody who goes through the birth process, either as active participant or close and interested observer, the whens and hows of birth are driven by the baby as much as anything else, though the environment plays a significant part.

The when of Adam and Eve's emergence into the world were driven by their volitional acts, though G-d, part of their environment, made the choice of when, how and that it was compulsory once the choice was made.

And in each instance, emergence from the womb or the garden, the place we land is lonely and desolate.  It is not giving, it expects things of us, we are frequently disappointed and thwarted, and we are alienated.

I have always thought that our first real sin, after arriving at the age of accountability, is analogous to Adam and Eve loosing their innocence and being punished for disobeying God.

 

[hagoth7]

8 hours ago, USU78 said:

For purposes of this OP and (hopefully) thread, assume both that there were a real Adam and a real Eve, fully formed and fully human, and that they are metaphor for our own lives, intended to be our guides in how to live and what our lives mean.  Metaphors abound, as we tend to infuse objects and other phenomena in our environment with meaning, even though there may not, in the strictest sense, be or have been any such meaning.  Let's please first examine the Adam and Eve story as metaphor for birth.

The Birth Metaphor.

In the womb, we are fully human, though not yet fully formed.  The volitional acts we are capable of prebirth are few, though our brains and bodies are brimming with potential.  We can chose to stick out our tongues, move around a bit, push, pull, yawn, suck our thumbs and such, but there's no particular meaning t.

Any thoughts on why a woman was repeatedly used to represent God's people, whether the kingdom of Judah and the kingdom of Israel, or its later Christian iterations (fx. Rev 12)?

Or why Jesus said a man had to be born again...and Nicodemus' reply?

Edited July 19, 2017 by hagoth7

[hagoth7]

7 hours ago, Tacenda said:

...what would that do to Brigham Young's teachings? And when another prophet of God says the following...

The First Presidency said in 1931,

Upon the fundamental doctrines of the Church we are all agreed. Our mission is to bear the message of the restored Gospel to the people of 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.

We can see no advantage to be gained by a continuation of the discussion to which reference is here made, but on the contrary are certain that it would lead to confusion, division and misunderstanding if carried further. Upon one thing we should all be able to agree namely, that presidents Joseph F. Smith, John Winder and Anthon Lund were right when they said: "Adam is the primal parent of our race. 

—First Presidency, Memorandum to General Authorities, April 1931.

What if the First Presidency was right? On both counts. That those in the fold should focus on the task at hand.

While those who left the 99 were free to do otherwise? To forage and hopefully find the one (which per my brother's early-mission counsel, is generally yourself), and sharpen the Covey axe (please don't use it on me unless you absolutely have to). D&C 88 and other passages make it quite clear that there are a broad range of seemingly-secular areas of study that should be deeply inhaled, for the express purpose of then leveraging them to magnify our callings and help build the kingdom.

Which aligns with leaving. And then returning. 

At least that's my riff on things. Your results may vary. Consult a doctor before beginning a rigiorous exercise program...or not.

Hadn't thought about things quite that full-circle way until today.  Circular logic. K. :0)

[hagoth7]

7 hours ago, Bobbieaware said:

I have always thought that our first real sin, after arriving at the age of accountability, is analogous to Adam and Eve loosing their innocence and being punished for disobeying God.

Sin? Or transgression?

Are we punished for transgressions? Or merely face the natural consequences associated with not adhering to any given law. (Fx. gravity.) Wasn't aware that God punished for innocent mistakes. Must have missed the memo on that one.

And *did they* really disobey? Was God the one being judgmental, or the one who said "Psst, your emperor's clothes are holey." Shame, never a good thing, (temporary/motivational guilt is a different matter) makes people *feel* like they're being jdged. Or were intetionally left with a loaded Catch 44. A onstructive choice as to which command was to be deemed more important. A decision which involved an opportunity cost and a different known consequence either way. For them, which of their choices was least harmful, and/or more benefiicial in the long wrong? Wasn't that the core narrative?

And wondering, given the recent beleif among some that there were pre-Adamites what impact for good their leaving might have had on any such inhabitants they encountered after leaving, let alone their own descendants...? What they contributed to the understanding of those around them, and what they gathered in return/exchange.

Edited July 19, 2017 by hagoth7

[hagoth7]

Part of the issue I repeatedly ran into, was that I simply couldn't, within my lmited framework of being a husband and already-terrible provider, make much traction in Joseph's charge to gather out truths that others had stashed like easter eggs elsewhere...something he said we needed to find/gather in order to come out true Mormons, and that the D&C said that we need to fulfill our charge. 

I couldn't both attend my priesthood meeting *every* week, *and* experience what was being shared in other faiths. At least not the lion's share that was taught on Sundays. 

I couldn't' give full focus to the Ensign and assigned SUnday School readings and still give the focus to non-LDS teachings, the breadth/depth of which required occasional pickling. Opportunity cost. Something simply had to give. 

And ending up a true Mormon (and gathering out things that might benefit others) was/is kinda important to me.

So I chose a path that was deemed hypocritical, shirking of duty, and traitorous.

Or true.

Eye of the beholder.

Not my job or place to claim anyone else should do that. 

But please widen the circle, and makre an extra friend or three from another faith(s). Or no faith. Invite them to dinner. Be rude and invite yourself to their church or even their secular LARP or to watch their favorite movie. ;0) Ask them what they believe, and why they believe it. Or what is it about that book or movie or LARP that speaks to them. Not to respnd, but to understand. A response may sprout in good time. But its surprsiing how often, in a discussion like that, you are handed something *you* need to become a better person. Friendship and genuine interest is the most impotant thing to plant in this season. And just follow the spirit as to how to mutually beneft from what they bring to the spiritual feast. They have *lots* to offer us. 

On that note: Glorious. (fx. Archuleta or One Voice Choir.). Was it Stephanie who wrote that? If so, Stephanie you're aweome.)  :0)

 

/rogueDoctrine      (at least for the next 30 seconds)

Edited July 19, 2017 by hagoth7

[hagoth7]

30 seconds have ended. :0)

One of the things taught in my mission was that if we expected to find a "Golden investigator," we had to first become one.

Had forgotten all about that until just now. That'll teach me for hanging out with missionaries. Pot stirrers.

Edited July 19, 2017 by hagoth7

[Bobbieaware]

24 minutes ago, hagoth7 said:

Sin? Or transgression?

Are we punished for transgressions? Or merely face the natural consequences associated with not adhering to any given law. (Fx. gravity.) Wasn't aware that God punished for innocent mistakes. Must have missed the memo on that one.

And *did they* really disobey? Was God the one being judgmental, or the one who said "Psst, your emperor's clothes are holey." Shame, never a good thing, (temporary/motivational guilt is a different matter) makes people *feel* like they're being jdged. Or were intetionally left with a loaded Catch 44. A onstructive choice as to which command was to be deemed more important. A decision which involved an opportunity cost and a different known consequence either way. For them, which of their choices was least harmful, and/or more benefiicial in the long wrong? Wasn't that the core narrative?

And wondering, given the recent beleif among some that there were pre-Adamites what impact for good their leaving might have had on any such inhabitants they encountered after leaving, let alone their own descendants...? What they contributed to the understanding of those around them, and what they gathered in return/exchange.

Whether it was a sin or a special category of transgression (I say this because in the scriptures sin and transgression are usually synonymous -- 4 Whosoever committeth sin transgresseth also the law: for sin is the transgression of the law. 1 John 3), the fact of the matter is that the decreed punishment Adam and Eve received was so severe that their disobedience may as well have been a sin...

7 Wherefore, it must needs be an infinite atonement—save it should be an infinite atonement this corruption could not put on incorruption. Wherefore, the first judgment which came upon man must needs have remained to an endless duration. And if so, this flesh must have laid down to rot and to crumble to its mother earth, to rise no more.

8 O the wisdom of God, his mercy and grace! For behold, if the flesh should rise no more our spirits must become subject to that angel who fell from before the presence of the Eternal God, and became the devil, to rise no more.

9 And our spirits must have become like unto him, and we become devils, angels to a devil, to be shut out from the presence of our God, and to remain with the father of lies, in misery, like unto himself; yea, to that being who beguiled our first parents, who transformeth himself nigh unto an angel of light, and stirreth up the children of men unto secret combinations of murder and all manner of secret works of darkness. 2 Nephi 9)

[Rivers]

10 hours ago, USU78 said:

And in each instance, emergence from the womb or the garden, the place we land is lonely and desolate.  It is not giving, it expects things of us, we are frequently disappointed and thwarted, and we are alienated.

I like this metaphor.  I would add that helicopter parents keep there children inside the garden.

[hagoth7]

2 hours ago, Bobbieaware said:

Whether it was a sin or a special category of transgression (I say this because in the scriptures sin and transgression are usually synonymous -- 4 Whosoever committeth sin transgresseth also the law: for sin is the transgression of the law. 1 John 3),

I'm going off an early study of the distinction between sin and transgression, rbased on Hebrew,/Aramaic (in Daniel), not Greek. Going off about 20-year memory here, so bear with me if i make a misstep in something this important.

Rebellion is "pesa". (Satan not only did wrong - by insisting he had only made an honest mistake/transgression - but then he rebelled initially by refusing correction, and when the consequence was announced, bristled and came out in complete rebelling and outright threatened messy revenge. *That* is what I understand to be rebellion.

The other issue is transgression, which is what I understood Adam to have done, stepping over the line..not indignantly, but genuinely thinking it was the right choice... innocent, well-intentioned albeit conscious trespass.  He knew, accepted, and submitted to the consequence.

In the OT,  there's a delineation between the two, that is quite clear. 

Anyone, please, respond with NT and latter-day scrip clarification/orrection, plus any crucial counsel from the brethen I might have missed 

2 hours ago, Bobbieaware said:

...the fact of the matter is that the decreed punishment Adam and Eve received was so severe that their disobedience may as well have been a sin...

Are you sure? Consider Adam was cast out...and the tconsequences were to be "for your sake." Which, to me, means for his benefit. Trials designed to help Adam and Eve learn/grow. Because Adam accepted the consequences for his actions before even taking them. 

Will likely get to other aspects of Adam's so-called punishment later.

Edited July 19, 2017 by hagoth7

[Bobbieaware]

36 minutes ago, hagoth7 said:

I'm going off an early study of the distinction between sin and transgression, rbased on Hebrew,/Aramaic (in Daniel), not Greek. Going off about 20-year memory here, so bear with me if i make a misstep in something this important.

Rebellion is "pesa". (Satan not only did wrong - by insisting he had only made an honest mistake/transgression - but then he rebelled initially by refusing correction, and when the consequence was announced, bristled and came out in complete rebelling and outright threatened messy revenge. *That* is what I understand to be rebellion.

The other issue is transgression, which is what I understood Adam to have done, stepping over the line..not indignantly, but genuinely thinking it was the right choice... innocent, well-intentioned albeit conscious trespass.  He knew, accepted, and submitted to the consequence.

In the OT,  there's a delineation between the two, that is quite clear. 

Anyone, please, respond with NT and latter-day scrip clarification/orrection, plus any crucial counsel from the brethen I might have missed 

Are you sure? Consider Adam was cast out...and the tconsequences were to be "for your sake." Which, to me, means for his benefit. Trials designed to help Adam and Eve learn/grow. Because Adam accepted the consequences for his actions before even taking them. 

Will likely get to other aspects of Adam's so-called punishment later.

The "for your sake" pronouncement only came as a result of the promise of the atonement, not as a direct consequence of the transgression. If there had been no atonement, the "first judgement" (see 2 Nephi 9) for the transgression would have remained in force in perpetuity and our first parents would have unavoidably become devils dwelling in hell forever. Members constantly confuse the consequences of the fall with the divine remediation for the consequences fall (the atonement of Christ). The "first judgement" for the transgression of Adam and Eve and the atonement that turns the horrific curse of the fall into a blessing in disguise are two totally different things and should not be conflated. The fall brought the curse of permanent physical and spiritual death into the world; the atonement serves as the antidote to the curse of the fall. Remember, the "first judgement," wherein that "awful monster" of death and hell would continue to exist and have his fearsome way, is only slain by the merciful action of God.

Edited July 19, 2017 by Bobbieaware

[hagoth7]

2 hours ago, Bobbieaware said:

...endless duration....

K. Latter-day scripture tlells us how to parse that.

2 hours ago, Bobbieaware said:

....our spirits must become subject to that angel who fell...

On its face sounds terrible.

Yet brings to mind certain Nephite missionaries...who waded into a realms they were told there was no hope of success, and willingly submitted...and even asked...to become subjects there.  Sneaky hobitses.

2 hours ago, Bobbieaware said:

....to be shut out from the presence of our God...

Understood. Been there. As have most who have experienced crushing clinical depression.  Don't recall raising my voice to heaven and uttering curses or promises of vengeance...at all.  It was a humbling, refiniing fire, and I'm grateful for it.  Ditto with a lengthy bout of anxiety that almost crushed me years ago. Ditto on a smaller scale with meds that essentially cut me off for long stretches of time, flying with no instruments, but only going on instict and best judgment...albeit sometime flawed judgment .

Jesus of Nazareth was cut off...and simply asked to understand....and subsequently surrendered.

2 hours ago, Bobbieaware said:

...and to remain with the father of lies, in misery, like unto himself...

We're each to consider ourselves as Adam. What really is the struggle between Michael and Satan? What is its nature? The terms of engagement? The figurative weapons? The objecdtive/strategy/tactics?

We know his objective. Not quite sure I know the strategy. Haven't given it thought. Tacics are usually discouragment, fear, and railing condemnation. 

What else am I mssing here?

2 hours ago, Bobbieaware said:

...who beguiled our first parents...

Are you of the opinon that I'm beguiled? If so, on what basis?

2 hours ago, Bobbieaware said:

..who transformeth himself nigh unto an angel of light...

K. Each of us in this forum shares what we genuinely believe to be light. And? How do you parse that?

2 hours ago, Bobbieaware said:

..and stirreth up the children of men unto secret combinations of murder and all manner of secret works of darkness.

I'm ocasionally called in to settings to fix messes left behind by other people's mistakes. Not create new ones. (Waiting for those who have cleaned up after me to chime in. They might have plenty to say) . Do you have an unresolved concern with this passage?

Edited July 19, 2017 by hagoth7

[Robert F. Smith]

10 hours ago, Tacenda said:

I know that you're not saying any different, but the church has not mentioned this, either they are literal, or they are not. I wish the church leaders would know which it is. Since they have been given special powers, the PH. And since Joseph spoke with God almost daily and received revelation that we can read about in the D&C...about things that were temporal, such as a plot of land and this or that. But nothing on if Adam & Eve were literal people? Why even place metaphors in there if it's literal? It takes away IMO, I guess I can be a black & white thinker, but not usually. In this case I need to know which is which. No fuzziness, no metaphor, no symbolism. I can wrap my head around a parable because it states upfront that it is a made up story to help someone understand a principle or a teaching. 

As I have repeatedly pointed out on this board (with full citations), the Brethren have often stated that the LDS temple endowment is extraordinarily symbolic, figurative, and metaphorical.  Thus eve was not formed from adam's rib, since that is only a figurative expression.  They are not formed from the dust of the earth, but both develop as embryos and are born from the womb, like all humans.  They do not eat actual fruit from a tree, nor is Lucifer an actual serpent.  The titles adam "man" and eve "mother of all living" are not names, but archetypal titles, and each of us are adams and eves when we experience the endowment.  As Anglican Bishop Tom Wright explains, the Garden is a temple, and the Garden Story is a temple story:  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fxQpFosrTUk .

 

Please don't take it that I'm being disrespectful with this post, this is just a huge disillusionment with what I was told late in life, or that I missed the memo on while attending the tmple, that we don't know how literal it is. Which btw, begs the question...what would that do to Brigham Young's teachings? And when another prophet of God says the following...

The First Presidency said in 1931,

Upon the fundamental doctrines of the Church we are all agreed. Our mission is to bear the message of the restored Gospel to the people of 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.

We can see no advantage to be gained by a continuation of the discussion to which reference is here made, but on the contrary are certain that it would lead to confusion, division and misunderstanding if carried further. Upon one thing we should all be able to agree namely, that presidents Joseph F. Smith, John Winder and Anthon Lund were right when they said: "Adam is the primal parent of our race. 

—First Presidency, Memorandum to General Authorities, April 1931.

This and similar statements were issued by the First Presidency in order to settle a hot dispute among members of the Twelve.  It does not suggest  in any way that the Garden experience was not metaphorical, figurative, and symbolic.  Perhaps you have completely forgotten your own endowment experience, Tacenda.

[Tacenda]

9 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

As I have repeatedly pointed out on this board (with full citations), the Brethren have often stated that the LDS temple endowment is extraordinarily symbolic, figurative, and metaphorical.  Thus eve was not formed from adam's rib, since that is only a figurative expression.  They are not formed from the dust of the earth, but both develop as embryos and are born from the womb, like all humans.  They do not eat actual fruit from a tree, nor is Lucifer an actual serpent.  The titles adam "man" and eve "mother of all living" are not names, but archetypal titles, and each of us are adams and eves when we experience the endowment.  As Anglican Bishop Tom Wright explains, the Garden is a temple, and the Garden Story is a temple story:  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fxQpFosrTUk .

 

This and similar statements were issued by the First Presidency in order to settle a hot dispute among members of the Twelve.  It does not suggest  in any way that the Garden experience was not metaphorical, figurative, and symbolic.  Perhaps you have completely forgotten your own endowment experience, Tacenda.

I think I have forgotten my own endowment experience almost 35 years ago, thanks Robert, sorry USU78.

Edited July 19, 2017 by Tacenda

[USU78]

24 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

I think I have forgotten my own endowment experience almost 35 years ago, thanks Robert, sorry USU78.

De nada.

This is an example of what I was referring to in the other thread about being patient with others.  Not compelling in the wrong setting discussions that might well cause offense, even though no offense is intended.  It isn't about me, it isn't about you.  

That's why I prefaced the OP as I did:  work from certain assumptions, both of which are correct.  Adam/Eve are the great progenitors  ...  and they are metaphors for our own lives.  Consider yourself to be Eve while going through the temple, as well as through the milestones in your personal life.

Erich Fromm wrote a very important book a long time ago now called The Art of Loving.  In it he describes the milestones in our person development.  I refer to his work a lot on this board, though rarely by name.  I highly recommend it.  The infant loves self and self alone.  It takes a long time for the infant to recognize the separateness of that person attached to that breast, and to love that person as a person.  Rabbi Abraham Twerski explores a variation on Fromm here:  

As the good rabbi states, we need to move beyond "fish love," which is how the child loves its mother, sometimes for life.  Only through giving of one's self to another through service, planting, as it were, a seed of that which one loves in one's self in another, can one learn truly to love the other.

Why do you think they start the deacons out passing the sacrament?  It's like they're all a bunch of little waiters, isn't it?  What's that name we call the waiters and waitresses these days?  Servers.  Right?

We are training these boys to be servers in their lives by making them servers in our worship ritual, in which the Server is served.  The Master makes us one with Him through His service to us all, loving that divine spark He thus plants in us through His service, asking of us that we plant that spark in others through our service to them.

This is why Alma Sr's outline of the baptismal covenant at the Waters of Mormon is so significant.  We are to undertake to bear one another's burden.  Serve one another.  Mourn with one another.  As Adam and Eve mourned for lose Eden, for their murdered son, for their murderer son.

Edited July 19, 2017 by USU78

[mfbukowski]

On 7/19/2017 at 8:02 AM, USU78 said:

De nada.

This is an example of what I was referring to in the other thread about being patient with others.  Not compelling in the wrong setting discussions that might well cause offense, even though no offense is intended.  It isn't about me, it isn't about you.  

That's why I prefaced the OP as I did:  work from certain assumptions, both of which are correct.  Adam/Eve are the great progenitors  ...  and they are metaphors for our own lives.  Consider yourself to be Eve while going through the temple, as well as through the milestones in your personal life.

Erich Fromm wrote a very important book a long time ago now called The Art of Loving.  In it he describes the milestones in our person development.  I refer to his work a lot on this board, though rarely by name.  I highly recommend it.  The infant loves self and self alone.  It takes a long time for the infant to recognize the separateness of that person attached to that breast, and to love that person as a person.  Rabbi Abraham Twerski explores a variation on Fromm here:  

As the good rabbi states, we need to move beyond "fish love," which is how the child loves its mother, sometimes for life.  Only through giving of one's self to another through service, planting, as it were, a seed of that which one loves in one's self in another, can one learn truly to love the other.

Why do you think they start the deacons out passing the sacrament?  It's like they're all a bunch of little waiters, isn't it?  What's that name we call the waiters and waitresses these days?  Servers.  Right?

We are training these boys to be servers in their lives by making them servers in our worship ritual, in which the Server is served.  The Master makes us one with Him through His service to us all, loving that divine spark He thus plants in us through His service, asking of us that we plant that spark in others through our service to them.

This is why Alma Sr's outline of the baptismal covenant at the Waters of Mormon is so significant.  We are to undertake to bear one another's burden.  Serve one another.  Mourn with one another.  As Adam and Eve mourned for lose Eden, for their murdered son, for their murderer son.

And what could better capture the fall of mankind than their story of loss of innocence and THEN as you so briefly but eloquently point out, the anguish, the unspeakable anguish, of the loss of a child- said to be perhaps the worst mental pain mankind can endure- and then to know that the killer was your other son!   What do you do?

We have children who go astray sometimes, and we love them, sometimes we can love them back into the fold, or into the family circle and overcome the alienation

But under these circumstances?

What events could better capture the plight of mankind and the fall from innocence this story portrays?

And as you say, I think it is essential to think in terms of these events AS stories, and as metaphors we can take into our lives.  Events are abstract- "Earthquake in Turkey Kills Hundreds" - we might pause for a moment and think "Oh! those poor people!" and get on with our day.  But then we read the next day of an individual with a name digging through rubble and finding his daughter- and we are all uplifted.  But what of the hundreds of nameless souls digging through the rubble who did NOT find their loved ones?

That is where the anguish is.  Each of those is a true event that "really happened" which caused untold- literally- human agony, but we don't know about it or feel about it until it is a "story".

One can imagine a news editor saying to a reporter "But where is the STORY?"

Unrecorded pain changes no one else's life.  But when it becomes a "story" - that is what captures human interest.  That is the power of parables which everyone knows "never happened" yet the truth- and I mean that word "truth" - is, that parables happen every day in the world around us, and we often live them ourselves- repeatedly!

So where is the line between "what really happened" and the IMPORTANCE of what really happened captured in a story?

Art imitates life and life imitates art, but events do not become memorable until they become art.  It is the images we remember.  We may not remember or care about the politics or the immediate events which caused the Berlin wall to be erected, but that wall as portrayed in art, in photos, in stories of bravery and escape, will be remembered forever.

Beliefs about events change people- events themselves do not change lives unless we are directly impacted by the events and have our own "story" to tell.

Think of 9-11.

We cannot fathom the depth of human tragedy caused by that event, but what we really remember is how it related to us personally, AND the stories which came out afterward.  We might remember where we were when we found out- we might remember watching TV and the horror we felt and then the rush of patriotism which followed for a short while, but soon forgotten.  But it is the images which stick.  It is the art which etches it into our memories.  It is the story of the passengers on the plane rushing the attackers, knowing that doing so was suicidal, and yet the did it to save others.

Those people truly gave it all for others, but knowing that their lives were already over, they dedicated their deaths to saving others.

THAT is what we remember, the story.   There is no human interest until it is created by a story which etches itself into human consciousness.

Edited July 20, 2017 by mfbukowski

[JulieM]

On July 18, 2017 at 9:32 AM, USU78 said:

For purposes of this OP and (hopefully) thread, assume both that there were a real Adam and a real Eve, fully formed and fully human, and that they are metaphor for our own lives, intended to be our guides in how to live and what our lives mean.  Metaphors abound, as we tend to infuse objects and other phenomena in our environment with meaning, even though there may not, in the strictest sense, be or have been any such meaning.  Let's please first examine the Adam and Eve story as metaphor for birth.

The Birth Metaphor.

In the womb, we are fully human, though not yet fully formed.  The volitional acts we are capable of prebirth are few, though our brains and bodies are brimming with potential.  We can chose to stick out our tongues, move around a bit, push, pull, yawn, suck our thumbs and such, but there's no particular meaning to what we choose and what we do.  What could possibly be the moral significance of having our heads up or down, our legs flexed or extended?  We feed, we respire, we excrete, but what we feed on and what we respire doesn't require any effort on our part.

And through all this our eyes are not opened.  In order to acquire opened eyes and make meaningful contact with persons and things that are not so much a part of our limited environment they just as well be ourselves, we must leave the womb.

As Adam and Eve must leave the garden.  There they did entertain choices, what and when to eat, when and how long to sleep, where to excrete, but those choices had no particular moral significance, though they were brimming with potential.  Neither did the carrying out of the assignments of naming the beasts or tending the garden carry any kind of moral significance.  Ultimately, did it matter whether they did or didn't tend it?  Or which name they gave which critter? Their environment was just as warm and giving as the womb, but it was also just as restrictive as the womb.  It didn't ask much more of them than it does of the prebirth human.

As anybody who goes through the birth process, either as active participant or close and interested observer, the whens and hows of birth are driven by the baby as much as anything else, though the environment plays a significant part.

The when of Adam and Eve's emergence into the world were driven by their volitional acts, though G-d, part of their environment, made the choice of when, how and that it was compulsory once the choice was made.

And in each instance, emergence from the womb or the garden, the place we land is lonely and desolate.  It is not giving, it expects things of us, we are frequently disappointed and thwarted, and we are alienated.

I know you're wanting this to be about Adam and Eve having been actual people who were the literal first man and woman, but how do you get around the fact that this would have involved incest?

That's always bothered me and is why I think they are symbolic, rather than literal.  

[mfbukowski]

We can’t live other people’s EVENTS

But we can live their STORIES

 

Kid in class:  “History is BORING”

Make it into a movie, and it comes alive

[Jeanne]

So..in all that I have been brought with..though non temple attendee...In The Beginning...what???  I am asking those who are LDS that may think that Adam and Eve are not historical...where is the beginning?   Just trying to understand.

Edited July 20, 2017 by Jeanne

[USU78]

2 hours ago, JulieM said:

I know you're wanting this to be about Adam and Eve having been actual people who were the literal first man and woman, but how do you get around the fact that this would have involved incest?

That's always bothered me and is why I think they are symbolic, rather than literal.  

That is an unimportant argument to engage in. MFB's last post explains why.

And that is why antiMormonism is, ultimately and inevitably, a tedious waste if time. When was the last time an antiMormon actually engaged in the issues raised by the text of the BoA? I get that they are incapable or disinclined to weep for the G-d Who weeps. But that story creates a universe where, suddenly, human suffering becomes more bearable: G-d Himself weeps at our pain. He mourns when we mourn, and He bears our burdens.

And you want to worry about archaelogical evidence for Eden.

[JulieM]

7 minutes ago, USU78 said:

That is an unimportant argument to engage in. MFB's last post explains why.

And that is why antiMormonism is, ultimately and inevitably, a tedious waste if time. When was the last time an antiMormon actually engaged in the issues raised by the text of the BoA? 

It's not anti-Mormon to use common sense and reasoning to know that if one believes in a literal Adam and Eve and that all people on earth came from them, there had to have been incest involved.  That's easy to deduce.  And that's one reason many choose to believe it's a symbolic, allegorical story.

[thesometimesaint]

I don't believe a Birth metaphor really fits the Garden of Eden story. Adam and Eve were created then placed in the Garden of Eden. They weren't born there.

[mnn727]

While I am not one that believes that the events described int he first part of Genesis are literal and historical, I do like your Birth Metaphor. 

Thank you for posting it.