- This topic is empty.
-
Posts
-
How do you reconcile evolution with Adam and Eve? Pretty easy for me, Adam and Eve weren’t actual people but represent all of us. The story of Adam and Eve is not literal in any respect as far as I am concerned, but there are truths contained therein. I actually think the temple makes this all very clear – they practically come right out and say so. That said, I also believe there is a point where the evolved beings became human, perhaps even from one generation to the next. I wouldn’t go so far as to say there were only two who fit that category at one point in time, but I suppose it is possible.
By taking it all mythologically and figuratively, and by placing “The Fall” at the time when we chose to follow HF’s plan in the pre-existence. Everything we have in our scriptures, including the oft-quoted Lehi statement, fit that construct. There is at least one really good thread about this in our archives. If I get time, I will find it and provide the link.
From years ago: Science and the Gospel(32 comments) – http://forum.staylds.com/viewtopic.php?f=9&t=522&hilit=evolution Question about the Apple(22 comments) – http://forum.staylds.com/viewtopic.php?f=6&t=694&hilit=evolution The Problem with Evil & Free Will(54 comments) – http://forum.staylds.com/viewtopic.php?f=9&t=659&start=50&hilit=evolution Reactionary disrespect for science and intellectual freedom(40 comments) – http://forum.staylds.com/viewtopic.php?f=6&t=1275&hilit=evolution More recently:
Compatibility of Science and Religion(17 comments) – http://forum.staylds.com/viewtopic.php?f=9&t=4473&hilit=evolution There are more. You can find them by using the Search function at the top, right of the page and typing “evolution”. I also would suggest typing “Adam and Eve”, but I haven’t done that for this comment.
Adam means man, Eve means woman in Hebrew. They are stand ins for us all. It is a metaphor for childhood (garden), discovering free will, and having to deal with the consequences, but childhood cannot be revisited (expulsion) as a result of adult knowledge. Other metaphorical aspects – the replacement of parental affection by romantic, the naming process (language learning) and oddly, their sudden shame of nudity as they progress.
I once asked a BYU biology professor about how to reconcile evolution with the Garden of Eden. He said he didn’t know. I was like, “Whadda mean you don’t know?” And he said he didn’t know. I think that the story of the Fall is more powerful as a myth and a metaphor than as a literal historical story. I think that the process of experiencing sorrow thorough knowledge gained is an experience we go through repeatedly in our lives.
It’s easy when you understand that Moses even in the orthodox Jewish realm was one of the few Jews who knew how to read and write. That everything he write down was passed to him orally for many many generations. Also that he write a the first portion if the book very late in life after they were in Jerusalem from memory of the oral tradition passed down to him. Given all those limitations, I give him a huge break on a my rid of things. They are things he write from memory which was passed down and kept in his brain for decades before he write it. Not to mention that the 5 Books of Moses we’re written by 4-5 different people.
Given all those limitations not such a big deal after all. Also I refuse to believe or worship a god who plays mind trucks with evidence in comparison to books written in such a manner.
The difference between the Rabi’s and I is that I don’t hold that oral tradition is 100% exactly accurate.
InquiringMind wrote:I think that the process of experiencing sorrow thorough knowledge gained is an experience we go through repeatedly in our lives.
Like!
:thumbup: InquiringMind wrote:I think that the story of the Fall is more powerful as a myth and a metaphor than as a literal historical story.
That is my take as well. I think taking it as a metaphor makes it a story about US. Taking it as literal makes it a story about people who lived ages ago, under circumstances we can’t relate to.It is very freeing not to have to explain away evolution. It is very enlightening to move the Adam/Eve story into the realm of the spiritual.
The Adam and Eve story is easy for me to reconcile by rejecting it as literal history and embracing it as a parable because it is obviously a fable, even though leaders in the past have said the entire account is literal. The BoM and BoA are the real challenges for me. Mainly because the veracity of the church and our claim to priesthood authority hinges on the historicity of these texts, not so with Adam and Eve. Even so, I believe the BoM and BoA are “more powerful as a myth and a metaphor than as a literal historical story”, but it would be heartbreaking and further undermine the authority of the Q15 if it turns out that they’re only inspired fiction. Quote:Mainly because the veracity of the church hinges on the historicity of these texts.
Not really. I know that is a difficult issue, but the veracity of the Church doesn’t hinge on it. If that was the case (veracity hinging on literal historicity), we would need to reject pretty much every major religion that has existed throughout history. For example, there is no way the Bible is historically accurate in its entirety, but I don’t reject Christianity as a result of knowing that.
That, however, is a separate issue with which we have dealt and can deal in different threads. Let’s not pursue it in this one.
Curtis wrote:Quote:Mainly because the veracity of the church hinges on the historicity of these texts.
Not really. I know that is a difficult issue, but the veracity of the Church doesn’t hinge on it. If that was the case (veracity hinging on literal historicity), we would need to reject pretty much every major religion that has existed throughout history. For example, there is no way the Bible is historically accurate in its entirety, but I don’t reject Christianity as a result of knowing that.
I think I understand what you are saying, Unknown. If the BOM and BOA are not literal then it opens the door to the first vision and the visitation of angels for the restoration of the priesthood likewise being metaphorical.
To Curtis’ point – pretty much every major religion has the same type of issues. Unfortunately for many of us – we have grown up expecting much more from our church than from the other churches. It requires a significant adjustment to expect about the same amount of divinity and failings in our church as in most other churches.
Thanks everyone. I was thinking about this again and recently spoke to a bio student at byu who said that many professors do teach evolution as fact and that it doesn’t conflict with religion, but that it is “Gods way of getting the job done”. I agree and like the idea, but there definitely are conflicting messages in the church on the issue. In the byu evolution packet they quote FP statements all declaring the literalness of Adam and Eve. I really like the last section here as it seems to suggest that yes, maybe evolution was how God created man and that the main purpose of the church is to teach the why, and leave the question of how to science.
Quote:The scriptures tell why man was created, but they do not tell how, though the Lord has promised that he will tell that when he comes again (D&C 101:32-33). In 1931, when there was intense discussion on the issue of organic evolution, the First Presidency of the Church, then consisting of Presidents Heber J. Grant, Anthony W. Ivins, and Charles W. Nibley, addressed all of the General Authorities of the Church on the matter, and concluded,
Upon the fundamental doctrines of the Church we are all agreed. Our mission is to bear the message of the restored gospel to the world. Leave geology, biology, archaeology, and anthropology, no one of which has to do with the salvation of the soul of mankind, to scientific research, while we magnify our calling in the realm of the Church….
But then they seem to refute that possibility in the last paragraph:
Quote:Upon one thing we should all be able to agree, namely, that Presidents Joseph F. Smith, John R. Winder, and Anthon H. Lund were right when they said: “Adam is the primal parent of our race” [First Presidency Minutes, April 7, 1931].
My friend suggested that perhaps they meant that at some point our animal ancestors had evolved sufficiently enough for God to say “It is Good”, and breathe into him his soul, in the twinkling of an eye sort of way. I like the idea, but the literalness of Adam and Eve being placed in the Garden of Eden is still taught and leaves a lot of members in an awkward position when expected to believe it.
My son, currently serving a mission, came home from BYU firmly believing in evolution.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.