A non-literal view of how mortality came into the world?

[theplains]

The following article seems to cast some doubt on the literal aspect of 2 Nephi 2:15-19

https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/ensign/1982/06/christ-and-the-creation.p2?lang=eng#p2

As to the Fall itself we are told that the Lord planted "the tree of knowledge of good and 
evil" in the midst of the garden. (Moses 3:9.) To Adam and Eve the command came: "Of every 
tree of the garden thou mayest freely eat, But of the tree of knowledge of good and evil, thou 
shalt not eat of it, nevertheless, thou mayest choose for thyself, for it is given unto thee; 
but, remember that I forbid it, for in the day thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die." 
(Moses 3:16–17.) Again the account is speaking figuratively. What is meant by partaking of the 
fruit of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil is that our first parents complied with 
whatever laws were involved so that their bodies would change from their state of paradisiacal 
immortality to a state of natural mortality.

What laws [plural] did Adam and Eve comply with on earth to bring about mortality?

[Pyreaux]

The partaking of the fruit seemed necessary to fulfill the commission to multiply and there by rule the earth. Evil/carnal knowledge and an awareness of nakedness seemed necessary for coitus and thus fulfill the commandment to multiply. As for literalness, some wonder if partaking of the knowledge is actually coitus itself, as to "know" [yadha]" (Genesis 4:1) is a common biblical euphemism for coitus.

Edited May 5, 2023 by Pyreaux

[CV75]

32 minutes ago, Pyreaux said:

The partaking of the fruit seemed necessary to fulfill the commission to multiply and there by rule the earth. Evil/carnal knowledge and an awareness of nakedness seemed necessary for coitus and thus fulfill the commandment to multiply. As for literalness, some wonder if partaking of the knowledge is actually coitus itself, as to "know" [yadha]" (Genesis 4:1) is a common biblical euphemism for coitus.

Spiritually-speaking, in fulfilling the commandment we know what it is to be as gods, and as our Father, generating life and choosing to love that life. The other commandment is to steward all living and other material things, including our bodies, accordingly. As a married couple, I think Adam and Eve must have acted naturally and normally before they partook of the forbidden fruit and fell; they were learning and stewarding to a paradisaical extent, having sex but not generating life as a result.

Edited May 5, 2023 by CV75

[CV75]

1 hour ago, theplains said:

The following article seems to cast some doubt on the literal aspect of 2 Nephi 2:15-19

https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/ensign/1982/06/christ-and-the-creation.p2?lang=eng#p2

As to the Fall itself we are told that the Lord planted "the tree of knowledge of good and 
evil" in the midst of the garden. (Moses 3:9.) To Adam and Eve the command came: "Of every 
tree of the garden thou mayest freely eat, But of the tree of knowledge of good and evil, thou 
shalt not eat of it, nevertheless, thou mayest choose for thyself, for it is given unto thee; 
but, remember that I forbid it, for in the day thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die." 
(Moses 3:16–17.) Again the account is speaking figuratively. What is meant by partaking of the 
fruit of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil is that our first parents complied with 
whatever laws were involved so that their bodies would change from their state of paradisiacal 
immortality to a state of natural mortality.

What laws [plural] did Adam and Eve comply with on earth to bring about mortality?

If we are speaking strictly figuratively, I think the change in bodies becomes a symbol of two "naturally paradisaical" people who have become "one flesh" in an eternal marriage ("paradisaical immortality") bringing forth many bodies that are not yet married, i.e., not in a state of eternal marriage, which by comparison is "natural mortality."

Figuratively, the laws Adam and Eve complied with in the paradisial earth to bring about the telestial/mortal earth, and the laws to for them (and us) to obey in the telestial/mortal earth to bring about our return to paradise (The Millennium) and God's presence (exaltation) are the laws of Redemption (the plan of happiness) that were prepared from before the foundation of either the paradisiacal or mortal worlds. I would say in summary, the law of choosing light over darkness and repenting accordingly with the aid of a greater Intelligence. As the stakes get higher (as the estates progress from premortal through this life), the required aid becomes greater.

[teddyaware]

1 hour ago, theplains said:

The following article seems to cast some doubt on the literal aspect of 2 Nephi 2:15-19

https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/ensign/1982/06/christ-and-the-creation.p2?lang=eng#p2

As to the Fall itself we are told that the Lord planted "the tree of knowledge of good and 
evil" in the midst of the garden. (Moses 3:9.) To Adam and Eve the command came: "Of every 
tree of the garden thou mayest freely eat, But of the tree of knowledge of good and evil, thou 
shalt not eat of it, nevertheless, thou mayest choose for thyself, for it is given unto thee; 
but, remember that I forbid it, for in the day thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die." 
(Moses 3:16–17.) Again the account is speaking figuratively. What is meant by partaking of the 
fruit of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil is that our first parents complied with 
whatever laws were involved so that their bodies would change from their state of paradisiacal 
immortality to a state of natural mortality.

What laws [plural] did Adam and Eve comply with on earth to bring about mortality?

It does no good to speculate about about what might or might not be the figurative elements within the creation story, for the very reason that such speculations are speculative and speculation is a poor substitute for revealed truth. This is why the three creation accounts in the LDS scriptures, and virtually every General Conference address that addresses this subject, invariably present the accounts as literal.

There’s enough enlightening truth in the three LDS creation accounts to teach the principles that need to be taught within the framework of the gospel of Jesus Christ and the plan of salvation. Since the three creation accounts are sufficient vehicles to teach the important doctrines that need to be understood in order to obtain salvation, veering off into speculative theology and soteriology amounts to nothing less than a frustrating fools errand that looks beyond the mark.

[Benjamin McGuire]

14 minutes ago, teddyaware said:

There’s enough enlightening truth in the three LDS creation accounts to teach the principles that need to be taught within the framework of the gospel of Jesus Christ and the plan of salvation. Since the three creation accounts are sufficient vehicles to teach the important doctrines that need to be understood in order to obtain salvation, veering off into speculative theology and soteriology amounts to nothing less than a frustrating fools errand that looks beyond the mark.

And of course, this wouldn't be a problem if people didn't then try to use those accounts to teach "the truth" about everything else - as if these literal readings, from way in the distant past, should trump the light and knowledge that has come into the world since that time. These accounts are more than enough to understand the context of salvation without insisting that we should also use them to deny the understanding of the universe and the history of the earth that we have developed in the centuries of knowledge we have uncovered since their writing.

[pogi]

38 minutes ago, teddyaware said:

It does no good to speculate about about what might or might not be the figurative elements within the creation story, for the very reason that such speculations are speculative and speculation is a poor substitute for revealed truth. This is why the three creation accounts in the LDS scriptures, and virtually every General Conference address that addresses this subject, invariably present the accounts as literal.

Are you suggesting that the church should not have published the article then?

I am unclear though, are you suggesting that everything in the accounts are presented as being literal?  Or, are you suggesting that they are literal accounts that have figurative elements in them that we shouldn't speculate about. 

 

 

 

[theplains]

On 5/5/2023 at 2:29 PM, teddyaware said:

It does no good to speculate about about what might or might not be the figurative elements within the creation story, for the very reason that such speculations are speculative and speculation is a poor substitute for revealed truth. This is why the three creation accounts in the LDS scriptures, and virtually every General Conference address that addresses this subject, invariably present the accounts as literal.

I would say 2 Nephi 2 makes no sense if not interpreted in a literal way.

[teddyaware]

1 hour ago, theplains said:

I would say 2 Nephi 2 makes no sense if not interpreted in a literal way.

I wholeheartedly agree You’re confirming the legitimacy of my point. Whatever the details of the full creation account may turn out to be, when God reveals the fullness of how the creation actually unfolded, the fact of the matter is that the portion of the account that God has thus far revealed in the scriptures calls on believers to view and discuss the three scriptural accounts in a literal manner until the fulness of his mysteries are revealed. There’s more than enough truth revealed in the present scriptural creation accounts to enable believers to understand what they need to know in order to comprehend the saving principles of the gospel of Jesus Christ.

[Benjamin McGuire]

1 hour ago, theplains said:

I would say 2 Nephi 2 makes no sense if not interpreted in a literal way.

I think that there is some confusion on your part over the terms literal and non-literal.

First, literal means (by definition) using the normal sense of the words when you read. Non-literal means understanding the text in a way that doesn't use the normal sense of the words. The "tree of life" is understood literally when it is read as referring to a tree.

Your OP is titled: "A non-literal view of how mortality came into the world?" But, views themselves cannot be either "literal" or "non-literal". What you really mean to discuss is a view of a non-literal understanding of the text.

When we apply this to the text of 2 Nephi 2, we have to recognize that the distinction isn't actually between a literal and a non-literal meaning of the text. We tend to use these terms because people tend to understand what we mean - but - sometimes clarity is necessary.

What does the text claim to be in a literal sense? 2 Nephi 2 claims to be an instructional lecture given by Lehi to his children at least 2,500 years ago. That is the literal meaning of the text. And we can believe this literal meaning of the text, whether or not we believe that the Garden of Eden narrative that Lehi uses in his instruction is a figurative or literal account. The distinction you are trying to make between a literal and non-literal reading isn't relevant to the way that we interpret 2 Nephi 2. Or, to illustrate, I can believe that the Garden of Eden narrative in Genesis should be read figuratively. I can believe that 2,500 years ago, Lehi believed that the Garden of Eden narrative account in Genesis should be understood as literal - and used its literal interpretation in his instructions to his children. And this interpretation of 2 Nephi 2 is still a literal interpretation of the text.

An even more complicated example would be the vision of the Tree of Life that Lehi and Nephi see. Nephi interprets the dream in a figurative way (the tree of life, the fiery sword, the rivers all representations of something else - they are symbols). But when Nephi describes his non-literal understanding of the vision in the text, he does so quite literally. So, for example, 1 Nephi 11:21-22 where we read this: "Knowest thou the meaning of the tree which thy father saw? And I answered him, saying: Yea, it is the love of God, which sheddeth itself abroad in the hearts of the children of men; wherefore, it is the most desirable above all things." There is a symbolic interpretation of the tree of life (which is be definition non-literal) but, the symbolic nature is discussed explicitly - and so Nephi's description is meant to be understood literally (and not non-literally). And so when we read the text, we develop a literal understanding of a figurative interpretation of the vision. At some point the labels stop being all that useful.

I think that there are lots of ways to understand 2 Nephi 2 in a literal way and at the same time believe that the descriptions of the Garden of Eden and the fall of Adam are themselves more symbolic than they are historically accurate descriptions of the past.

Finally, there is this problem in that the distinctions we make between literal and non-literal is a modern distinction, and this distinction wouldn't necessarily make sense to Lehi, speaking to his children, two and a half millennia ago. There is no value in trying to force these accounts into our own models of understanding. Was Lehi intending for us to read his instruction to his children literally? Was Lehi intending for us to read his instruction to his children non-literally? Those two questions are less questions than they are assertions about what Lehi was trying to do - they make no sense.

[mfbukowski]

On 5/5/2023 at 12:47 PM, pogi said:

Are you suggesting that the church should not have published the article then?

I am unclear though, are you suggesting that everything in the accounts are presented as being literal?  Or, are you suggesting that they are literal accounts that have figurative elements in them that we shouldn't speculate about.

I think we are forgetting that before 1990, it was announced in the endowment presentation that all was "figurative insofar as the man and woman are concerned". 

What was NOT  about the man and woman?

Parts of the presentation which were supposed to be memorized were removed. ( "Penalties")  But all the old folks I know, including myself, cannot erase - 33 years later- the words and gestures that have now been erased.  That's OK!

SO were those removed portions literal or figurative???  Necessary or not??

The thing we have to remember is that this church RUNS on changing revelation!

What is now literal today may be figurative tomorrow or vice versa!

Testimony  Testimony Testimony!

We are to become our own prophets!

This life is ALL just a course on communication with God : learning how to THINK properly about God!

It's not about memorizing alleged "facts", it's about is CREATING our own "worlds", while getting advice from those more experienced in what we are trying to learn, including the "still small voice" within.

It's not about meta narratives, it's all hermeneutics 

 

[pogi]

3 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

I think we are forgetting that before 1990, it was announced in the endowment presentation that all was "figurative insofar as the man and woman are concerned". 

What was NOT  about the man and woman?

Parts of the presentation which were supposed to be memorized were removed. ( "Penalties")  But all the old folks I know, including myself, cannot erase - 33 years later- the words and gestures that have now been erased.  That's OK!

SO were those removed portions literal or figurative???  Necessary or not??

The thing we have to remember is that this church RUNS on changing revelation!

What is now literal today may be figurative tomorrow or vice versa!

Testimony  Testimony Testimony!

We are to become our own prophets!

This life is ALL just a course on communication with God : learning how to THINK properly about God!

It's not about memorizing alleged "facts", it's about is CREATING our own "worlds", while getting advice from those more experienced in what we are trying to learn, including the "still small voice" within.

It's not about meta narratives, it's all hermeneutics 

 

I agree.  I am not sure if @teddyaware does though.  He seems to think the revealed account in scripture is literal.  I wonder how he reconciles that with the "figurative" statement in the temple pre 90. 

I would like to know if he really thinks that Eve was created from one of Adam's ribs, which several prophets have suggested is figurative.  I am wondering if he takes it all literal, or if he thinks it is a literal account with figurative elements (like the rib, etc.) 

[theplains]

On 5/9/2023 at 1:04 PM, Benjamin McGuire said:

I think that there are lots of ways to understand 2 Nephi 2 in a literal way and at the same time believe that the descriptions of the Garden of Eden and the fall of Adam are themselves more symbolic than they are historically accurate descriptions of the past.

Does the commandment to Adam and Eve to not eat from the forbidden tree denote symbolism (a non-literal
event) whereas the other commandment to be fruitful and multiply denotes a literal/historical event?

[Benjamin McGuire]

5 hours ago, theplains said:

Does the commandment to Adam and Eve to not eat from the forbidden tree denote symbolism (a non-literal event) whereas the other commandment to be fruitful and multiply denotes a literal/historical event?

They are all symbolic.

Consider a different issue - Genesis 1:16 tells us:

Quote

And God made two great lights; the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night:

Except, we now know that the moon isn't luminescent. It isn't a light. It merely reflects light, much as the earth reflects light (the earth also appears to be a great light to those standing on the moon). This was one of the major discoveries of 1959 - that the moon had a 'dark side'. And the idea of 'ruling' - it seems to me to be a difficult thing to find a way to understand this literally. How does the moon "rule the night"? What does "ruling" even mean in this context. The fact that we can ask these questions tells me that the language is figurative (and not literal).

This is a text that is thousands of years old. It precedes anything that we would call history. It wasn't written to spell out a "literal/historical event" because those earliest writers and readers didn't have such a distinction. It is a modernist idea to make this text into a literal/historical event. And it is just as much a modernist idea to show how such a way of reading means that the text becomes incoherent in places. The challenge is that people fixate on the idea of being literal or figurative without allowing that texts can be completely oblivious to such a distinction. We take no other texts that are this old and say about them - see how this describes a literal/historical event. So why do we do it here? Only because we have come to the text with a pre-existing set of beliefs about its interpretation - beliefs that are quite modern in nature. It is these beliefs cause us to read the text in a certain way. And if it seems that these beliefs tend to pit religion against science - this is more than partly because people didn't like what science was teaching us, and started using the biblical text as a way of trying to make the science into heresy.

So why should we accept any of the Genesis narrative as describing some sort of literal/historical event? It certainly doesn't have any significant impact on the practice of our religion.

[theplains]

On 5/11/2023 at 5:07 PM, Benjamin McGuire said:

How does the moon "rule the night"? What does "ruling" even mean in this context. The fact that we can ask these questions tells me that the language is figurative (and not literal).

The moon ruling the night is symbolic language in that at night, in its strength, it is literally the
brightest object in the sky.  It's glory, so to speak, is said to be a terrestrial glory even though
many stars in existence are thousands of time larger than our own Sun (another star).

[Benjamin McGuire]

39 minutes ago, theplains said:

The moon ruling the night is symbolic language in that at night, in its strength, it is literally the brightest object in the sky.  It's glory, so to speak, is said to be a terrestrial glory even though many stars in existence are thousands of time larger than our own Sun (another star).

But this is the exact definition of a non-literal meaning. The moment we say that the language is 'symbolic', we no longer have a literal reading of the text.

[Dario_M]

Everything that happens happens with a reason i believe. You can see it this way "it's meant to be"

Allthough i'm not really a believer of the Adam & Eve Theorie i do believe though that all the things that happen are supossed to happen. How sad it may be. How unfair it may be. How wrong it seems to be  (even for me, things that are happening are sometimes so hard to accept). But it's all supposed to happen. Otherwise God would never allow it to happen in the first place you know. 

Edited May 25, 2023 by Dario_M