NOM

I'm sitting in EQ, listening to the group of well educated (for the most part) men talking about the Fall of Adam as it was literally a real event. They speak of Adam being a real person along with the figures in the BoM. I am just stunned to watch the mental gymnastics without any cog dis. Bizarre.

Evil_Bert wrote: ↑Sun Dec 10, 2017 12:50 pm I'm sitting in EQ, listening to the group of well educated (for the most part) men talking about the Fall of Adam as it was literally a real event. They speak of Adam being a real person along with the figures in the BoM. I am just stunned to watch the mental gymnastics without any cog dis. Bizarre.

I had a similar reaction when members of my Gospel Doctrine class were analyzing the choices of individual words attributed to Adam, Eve and God in Genesis, as if there had been a stenographer there jotting it all down. In English.

BTW what is meant in the temple when they say that the man and woman are symbolic? Does it mean that Tim and Sally from down the street are symbolically representing a real Adam and Eve, or does it mean the characters of Adam and Eve are symbols for humankind in general?

Brigham Young said,

"You believe Adam was made of the dust of this earth. This I do not believe, though it is supposed that it is so written in the Bible; but it is not to my understanding. You can write that information to the States, if you please – that I have publicly declared that I do not believe that portion of the Bible as the Christian world do. I never did, and I never want to. What is the reason I do not? Because I have come to understanding, and banished from my mind all the baby stories my mother taught me when I was a child."

Is it merely the "dust of the earth" part that he's calling a "baby story" or is it the whole narrative?

Hagoth wrote: ↑Sun Dec 10, 2017 3:59 pmBTW what is meant in the temple when they say that the man and woman are symbolic? Does it mean that Tim and Sally from down the street are symbolically representing a real Adam and Eve, or does it mean the characters of Adam and Eve are symbols for humankind in general?

Brigham Young said,

"You believe Adam was made of the dust of this earth. This I do not believe, though it is supposed that it is so written in the Bible; but it is not to my understanding. You can write that information to the States, if you please – that I have publicly declared that I do not believe that portion of the Bible as the Christian world do. I never did, and I never want to. What is the reason I do not? Because I have come to understanding, and banished from my mind all the baby stories my mother taught me when I was a child."

Is it merely the "dust of the earth" part that he's calling a "baby story" or is it the whole narrative?

I think they are just saying the people are standing in for Adam and Eve, who were real historical people in the narrative. And BY believed God came down to earth with one of his celestial plural wives. They then ate something from this earth in order to procreate human bodies, they had sex, and had Adam and Eve. BY was fitting the story into his eternal polygamy worldview. Sorry, I don't recall the reference, but this version has been passed around before, maybe from someone's journal reporting on what BY said in private.

Hagoth wrote: ↑Sun Dec 10, 2017 3:59 pmBTW what is meant in the temple when they say that the man and woman are symbolic? Does it mean that Tim and Sally from down the street are symbolically representing a real Adam and Eve, or does it mean the characters of Adam and Eve are symbols for humankind in general?

Brigham Young said,

"You believe Adam was made of the dust of this earth. This I do not believe, though it is supposed that it is so written in the Bible; but it is not to my understanding. You can write that information to the States, if you please – that I have publicly declared that I do not believe that portion of the Bible as the Christian world do. I never did, and I never want to. What is the reason I do not? Because I have come to understanding, and banished from my mind all the baby stories my mother taught me when I was a child."

Is it merely the "dust of the earth" part that he's calling a "baby story" or is it the whole narrative?

I think they are just saying the people are standing in for Adam and Eve, who were real historical people in the narrative.

And IIRC, BY believed a God came down to earth with one of his celestial plural wives. They then ate something from this earth in order to procreate human bodies, they had sex, and had Adam and Eve. BY was fitting the story into his eternal polygamy, progression to be a God worldview. Sorry, I don't recall the reference, but this version has been passed around before, maybe from the JOD or someone's journal reporting on what BY said in private. Also, given this was BY, he probably believed a celestial Adam was the God who came down to create Adam/Eve.

EternityIsNow wrote: ↑Sun Dec 10, 2017 6:11 pmI think they are just saying the people are standing in for Adam and Eve, who were real historical people in the narrative.

That seems like the obvious reason but it's kind of unnessessary, as if anyone in the session is going to need it explained to them that it's not really THE original Adam and Eve.

These smart people have likely never stopped and thought about it. It's like they haven't found out about Santa Claus yet.

I am with you on this, but there are ways to think about Adam and Eve that don't quickly result in nonsense. A lot of Intelligent Design people will accept evolution and a 4.5 billion year old earth featuring some kind of Adam and Eve as specified as the first humans with souls. Along with resisting the urge to take Genesis chapter 1-3 literally, this does have the benefit of rendering the Adam and Eve story largely unfalsifiable.

I know that a lot of Young Earth Creationists are still around in Mormonism and Christianity at large. Some are embracing Flat Earth ideas these days which is a new brand of crazy. Most Mormons probably don't think historicity of Adam and Eve very closely. It largely does not impinge on their daily lives. Even plural marriage has more effect on life decisions than whether or not Adam had a belly button.

Corsair wrote: ↑Sun Dec 10, 2017 11:42 pm I am with you on this, but there are ways to think about Adam and Eve that don't quickly result in nonsense. A lot of Intelligent Design people will accept evolution and a 4.5 billion year old earth featuring some kind of Adam and Eve as specified as the first humans with souls. Along with resisting the urge to take Genesis chapter 1-3 literally, this does have the benefit of rendering the Adam and Eve story largely unfalsifiable.

That's exactly how I did it. Even after I tossed most of Intelligent Design (really, who would design us in such a haphazard way?) and went with very gently guided evolution, I still thought of Adam and Eve as the first humans with souls. But I didn't like Elder Holland's assertion that we can't appreciate the atonement without believing their story is literally true. I found it much more enlightening to think of it as allegorical, and not care whether it was literally true.

Hagoth wrote: ↑Sun Dec 10, 2017 3:59 pm BTW what is meant in the temple when they say that the man and woman are symbolic? Does it mean that Tim and Sally from down the street are symbolically representing a real Adam and Eve, or does it mean the characters of Adam and Eve are symbols for humankind in general?

It's been a while since I've been to the temple, but I think they took that line out quite some time ago. (1990)

The temple ceremonies have not been officially interpreted beyond what's in the ceremonies themselves. This leaves participants the freedom to interpret them according to their preferences. Everyone can interpret them as they want, because the official channels have been silent on it. You could have interpreted that line as you want and there is no specific meaning. But now church leaders have removed it so I guess you shouldn't look for meaning in it at all.