Confusion about Adam and Eve:

[Anonymous]

Jeff Walsh wrote:

Parley P. Pratt wrote…At length a Moses came, who knew his God, and would fain had led mankind to know Him too, to see His face, but they would not receive His heavenly laws or abide His presence.

Thus the holy man was forced to veil the past in mystery, and in the beginning of his history assign man to an earthly origin. Man moulded from the earth as a brick!!!!!!, Woman manufactured from a rib!!!!!!, thus parents would fain conceal from budding manhood the mysteries of procreation, or the scource of life’s ever flowing river, by relating some childish tale of new born life , engendered in the trunk of some old tree, or springing with spontaneous growth life mushrooms from the heaps of rubbish. O MAN! WHEN WILT THOU CEASE TO BE A CHILD OF KNOWLEDGE? MAN AS WE HAVE SAID, IS THE OFFSPRING OF DEITY. The entire mystery of the past and the future, with regard to his existence, is not yet solved by mortals

the last comment is really important. that scripture is veiled in mystery, that truth is revealed line upon line, that the entire mystery is yet to be solved…these are extraordinarily important concepts.

i commend you on your ability to pick and choose among scientific opinions to justify a literal interpretation of scripture. you are quite talented at this, seriously, and with no condescension intended. i choose to select from scriptural symbols to grasp the divine, while acknowledging that if something does not work within this world according to natural law, it may not be literal. perhaps neither approach is ideal, but I hope we share the idea that there is room in the Church for people of both persuasions. As you acknowledge that there are hidden meanings, i would ask, rhetorically, how does one sort between the literal and the figurative? because there is no objectve method for this decision, i would suggest that personal revelation, the sense of faith-based insight that comes to my mind and heart after legitimate study of the issue.

cwald wrote:

Well Jeff, that is interesting. You sound like a very fundamental and traditional Mormon. I have no problem with your faith, and your belief in a literal Adam and Eve and the whole Noah’s Flood thing. But you won’t answer my question.

Do I have to believe it? Is there room in this church for those like Wayfarer and myself who just cannot accept a literal translation of the Bible stories you have mentioned, and perhaps see it as only mythology meant to teach man spiritual truths about the nature of humans and their relation with the gods?

i like what you said above in another post, “I don’t know”.

sometimes, apologetics can be seriously damaging. the speculation about why blacks couldnt have the priesthood, when they would get it, and their ongoing slave status in the CK were flat out wrong doctrines, yet preached with the same certainty Jeff is proposing with his literal genesis worldview. i dont think there is a lot of harm in a literal genesis worldview, except where it rejects the legitimate benefits deriving from accepting evolution, for example.

not knowing is the honest answer. not knowing, according to laotzu, is true knowledge. not knowing, we can have a speculative discussion, exploring possibilities, and sharing creativity, without the summary rejection of our ideas from “the smartest guy in the room”. the key of practicing “not knowing” is that it cuts both ways — the certain atheist is as obnoxious as the certain fundamentalist. so regardless of my theological position or lack thereof, “not knowing” is the way to express belief without disparaging the belief of the other. this does not diminish the passion with which we hold to our beliefs, but they are just that: beliefs, not knowledge–hence, the raison d’etre of “Faith”.

GBSmith wrote:

I remember an Ensign article in the last 10-12 years on the flood and at one point the author said something to the effect that no true Latter-Day Saint would not believe in a literal world wide flood. Well, I didn’t then and I don’t now and I realized that believing this sort of thing has precioius little to with staying LDS. It doesn’t get the home teaching done or a roof on someone’s house or food for a single mom or dad that’s out of work. It doesn’t get the girls to girls camp or boys to their summer 50 miler or comfort someone who’s lost a spouse, a child, or a parent. It has nothing to do with trying to be a decent person or a good neighbor or a better spouse or parent. So until someone tells me I have to believe in this version of things, I won’t and if possible try to be what I’m supposed to be, that is an LDS version of a Christian. I’ve not made it yet but then I’m still above ground and there’s still daylight.

lovely comment. whenever someone defines what it means to be a “true” LDS, or more particularly, to define what is not “true”, i get suspicious. i believe that a true LDS is true to the extent they proclaim and attempt to follow christ. and none of us are there yet… so these are the weightier matters: living and loving in the here and now.

[Anonymous]

Thanks Jeff, that is good to know, and I appreciate it. We need more church leaders like yourself who are opened mined and tolerant of us “heretics.” 🙂

[Anonymous]

jeffwalshgen wrote:

Hi cwald I seem to be ruffling too many feathers jeff

no, you’re not ruffling feathers, you’re passionate in your beliefs, which passion i respect, but when you insultingly dimiss opinions you dont share, you’re not fostering dialogue.

dont give up…

[Anonymous]

jeffwalshgen wrote:

if there were areas we could learn from each other I would find this very uplifting and valuable.

:thumbup:

cwald wrote:

I think you should stick around a bit because I have tried to have these conversation on sites like LDS.net, and they just kick me off because I have a different opinion. I don’t think anyone here wants to do that. You can have a different opinion here, and I think it is important to have folks who are a tad bit more “tradition” than myself to make me think and keep things in perspective.

:thumbup:

wayfarer wrote:

I hope we share the idea that there is room in the Church for people of both persuasions.

:thumbup:

I find these examples more inspiring to me than any knowledge of whether Adam and Eve were real or like in the temple, symbolic, figures.

I’ll quote Elder Nelson one more time…

Quote:

Though our understanding of the Creation is limited, we know enough to appreciate its supernal significance. And that store of knowledge will be augmented in the future. Scripture declares: “In that day when the Lord shall come [again], he shall reveal all things— [D&C101:32-34]

…

As beneficiaries of the divine Creation, what shall we do? We should care for the earth, be wise stewards over it, and preserve it for future generations. And we are to love and care for one another.

[Anonymous]

Thanks for your last comment, Jeff. All I can say is, “Amen – and amen.”

I’ve said elsewhere that the biggest problem with internet communication is that all we have are words on a screen. We can’t see each other’s faces and read emotions fully – so we often end up reading into comments things that were never intended. I’m glad – very glad – that we had the chance to have this particular “threadjack”.

[Anonymous]

cwald wrote:

us “heretics.” 🙂

What you talkin’ ’bout, Willis?

I’m completely orthodox.

It’s the rest of the church that has heretical views…

😆 😆 😆 😆 😆 😆

[Anonymous]

cwald wrote:

Ray and Brian have chewed me out many many times

True Story 🙂

You’re a good sport Cwald.

[Anonymous]

GBSmith wrote:

I remember an Ensign article in the last 10-12 years on the flood and at one point the author said something to the effect that no true Latter-Day Saint would not believe in a literal world wide flood. Well, I didn’t then and I don’t now and I realized that believing this sort of thing has precious little to with staying LDS. It doesn’t get the home teaching done or a roof on someone’s house or food for a single mom or dad that’s out of work. It doesn’t get the girls to girls camp or boys to their summer 50 miler or comfort someone who’s lost a spouse, a child, or a parent. It has nothing to do with trying to be a decent person or a good neighbor or a better spouse or parent. So until someone tells me I have to believe in this version of things, I won’t and if possible try to be what I’m supposed to be, that is an LDS version of a Christian. I’ve not made it yet but then I’m still above ground and there’s still daylight.

I want to be like this when I grow up

[Author]

Posts