If Adam and Eve are not real and if no literal fall

[_Pollypinks]

Yes, I believe God omnipotent. Yes, I believe God perfect. I have no scholarly reasons for believing this. Magic words fundamentalists shove down our throats: "I accept Jesus Christ as my personal Savior and dedicate my life to him." Or thereabouts. If you don't recite some version of that, they just crap themselves to death until you do. But my mind tells me that a perfect God already knows what beliefs and goodnesses are already in my heart, and why do I have to recite these ideas to anybody? And, why do my universalist scriptures take second place to everybody elses?

[Guest]

and always WAS outside of creation because he cannot be in the presences of evil (if you will). Which might explain why in the Genesis story, we see a God who is positioned away from Adam and Eve and the only evidence we have that he is there is his voice.

If Jesus was predestined to be the Savior of mankind and if human beings were destined to fall because of our imperfect nature, then the Garden story could be literal or metaphorical.

Jersey Girl, I agree with your observation that Jesus was always planned to be our savior. I view it that our mutual involvement, humans and God in Jesus, is necessary to us humans finding our true self and eternal life. I do not think that hanging out in Eden with Jesus would be anything close to our true destiny.

I am not sure why you mentioned God not being able to tolerate the presence of evil. I have heard that said before but am puzzled. Jesus walked the earth and was willing to be cozy with people who were not free of corruption. Dear me he washed the feet of his friends, handling those bare feet with his own hands. That does not sound like the act of God unable to bare the presence of evil.

One think about the atonement I love is that it shows God not only can bare the presence of evil but out of love does so.

[_huckelberry]

and always WAS outside of creation because he cannot be in the presences of evil (if you will). Which might explain why in the Genesis story, we see a God who is positioned away from Adam and Eve and the only evidence we have that he is there is his voice.

If Jesus was predestined to be the Savior of mankind and if human beings were destined to fall because of our imperfect nature, then the Garden story could be literal or metaphorical.

Jersey Girl, I agree with your observation that Jesus was always planned to be our savior. I view it that our mutual involvement, humans and God in Jesus, is necessary to us humans finding our true self and eternal life. I do not think that hanging out in Eden with no Jesus would be anything close to our true destiny.

I am not sure why you mentioned God not being able to tolerate the presence of evil. I have heard that said before but am puzzled. Jesus walked the earth and was willing to be cozy with people who were not free of corruption. Dear me he washed the feet of his friends, handling those bare feet with his own hands. That does not sound like the act of God unable to bare the presence of evil.

One think about the atonement I love is that it shows God not only can bare the presence of evil but out of love does so.

[_huckelberry]

Jason Bourne,stated
"Hmmm. I see reading ahead in this thread that there are a couple poster-Huck and Aristotle, that seem to buy into this. But hey they are both Ex LDS so they may just be all mixed up! Ha! "

I hope I am right in reading a bit of good humor in that comment.

I have in past wondered if there was escape from the danger of being perpetually mixed up by Joseph Smith. There have been several periods of time in my lfe in which I persued an extended study of the history of Christian doctrine. It can be a huge subject so I hardly know everything. I have read a variety of theology books, original authors from different time periods and points of view. I no longer fear gettng mixed up on which view are LDS. I have a pretty clear picture of the divides. However I have read enough to have met different views and different constructions. I can no longer imagine there is a single correct traditional doctrine. There are instead a variety of ways humans have tried to understand the way Christianity is a part of our human life.

The thing I like about the limitations of the Bible is that the Bible cannot be an authority replacing the need for our own thinking and study of the real world which God created for us. Because the Bible does not know everything we need to think and respect the learning processes of history and science. Consider the example of geneologies in the Bible.They are at best a tiny fraction of the history of humans. To find the real history we must extend that knowledge , learning and thinking, not content to rely upon ancient authorities.

I believe the Bible contains real guidance about the interrelationships between God and humans. I believe it contains records of many real events. However it is all writen by people with limited knowledge so to make best use of the Bible we must continue the learning process to flesh out the invitation to live in the Spirit contained in the Bible.

[_huckelberry]

Jason Bourne,stated
"Hmmm. I see reading ahead in this thread that there are a couple poster-Huck and Aristotle, that seem to buy into this. But hey they are both Ex LDS so they may just be all mixed up! Ha! "

I hope I am right in reading a bit of good humor in that comment.

I seem to have duplicated.

we need to think and respect the learning processes of history and science. Consider the example of geneologies in the Bible.They are at best a tiny fraction of the history of humans. To find the real history we must extend that knowledge , learning and thinking, not content to rely upon ancient authorities.

[_Jason Bourne]

Jason Bourne,stated
"Hmmm. I see reading ahead in this thread that there are a couple poster-Huck and Aristotle, that seem to buy into this. But hey they are both Ex LDS so they may just be all mixed up! Ha! "

I hope I am right in reading a bit of good humor in that comment.

I seem to have duplicated.

.

Yes it was meant in good humor.

[_Jersey Girl]

Just saw this...

Jason Bourne

Oh I can assure you you are not very Orthodox :-)

How so oh wise one?
:-)

[_cksalmon]

My understanding of Christianity is the Jesus intends to save us from evil not some fall. From a fall??? that's silly.

ὥσπερ γὰρ ἐν τῷ Ἀδὰμ πάντες ἀποθνῄσκουσιν, οὕτως καὶ ἐν τῷ Χριστῷ πάντες ζῳοποιηθήσονται.

My hunch is that Paul may be less sophisticated than you, Huck.

[_Nightlion]

I have asked this a few times on this board. I have gotten a few answers here and there. But I want to post this again.

It seems to me that for Christians the fall of Adam is a critical factor in creating the need for a savior. It certainly seems to be for Latter day Saints and has been argued as such by some of the more literal and orthodox LDS leaders such as McConkie and Joseph Fielding Smith.

But I am not necessarily interested in only orthodox LDS views on this but also in orthodox Christian views. For example, Hoops seems to hold to a literal flood. So I assume Hoops believes in a literal Adam and Eve and a literal fall. Other orthodox Christians here I think have been able to do wrap their head around a figurative Adam and Eve and fall of man and still hold to a literal Jesus as our Savior belief.

So what of it?

1: Do you believe Adam and Eve were literally the first man and woman?

2: Do you believe that there was a literal fall of Adam and that if Adam had not fallen that the human race would be living in a paradise state today?

3: If Adam and Eve were not literally real and there was not a literal fall of man then what implications does this have on the orthodox Christian teachings of original sin as well as the need for Jesus Christ to save us?

4: For LDS what implications does no literal Adam, Eve and fall have for the LDS doctrine of the need for a Savior, the idea of opposition in all things and the idea that Adam fell that man might be.

Sorry to have ignored this so long. I been away from a computer for a couple of days.

Yes Adam and Eve were real, the Garden of Eden was a fact, there was an actual fall, and we need a Savior. This is what I believe.

We could look at it from the long view of an eternal round. That might help. Why does God desire an atonement event? To subject each generation of the heavens to the 'new' Christ. Every generation of the heavens from their respective beginning to its end turns the cog in the one eternal round one click. At the moment where the click kicks in many things change.

There are two witnesses for this, Joseph Smith and Jesus Christ. Both testified that Jesus will inherit what the Father had before and that they tread in the tracks of one another. Joseph said as much in the King Follett discourse and Christ said as much in John 6 about what and if the Jews were to see him ascend up to where he was before.....meaning, I believe, sitting upon the very throne of power.

For Christ to have been sitting upon the very throne of power before and he will be glorified with that same glory again as his Father (a third witness) said that he had both glorified his name and would glorify it again, by bringing up Christ to sit upon his throne, I believe. This changing of the guard so to speak REQUIRES a covenant submission to the new head. That is the gospel.

Why should Jesus Christ be awarded such a distinction unless he proves himself first. This is the exercise that the Eternal God improves upon each generation, to answer to the ends of the law and of himself set in order all things of his kingdom to both justify and sanctify the same.

At the same time as God clicks from on generation of the heavens unto the next the exalted ones who continue the seeds of life, both in the world, and out of the world, meaning both spiritual body seed procreation and after that physical seed procreation click from resurrection to resurrection or from exaltation to exaltation. For they are called gods ONLY because they also continue in this way even as the Eternal God continues on his round course, all three following one another as they go from glory to glory.

The LDS Church could have been thirty years wise to this understanding if they had not rejected it back in the day. Look at the misery and loathing heaped up because they refused the gifts of God from one of the least of his servants. Oh well. Plodding along now.

How does an exalted being continue from exaltation to exaltation without a literal fall from exaltation? The fall is implicit. The female finishes all the hosts thereof in the conceptions of spirits that she is capable of. Now she is depleted because females do not generate seed they ovulate seeds that they already have. This is why the woman in the Garden KNEW that she needed to fall to have her seed multiplied and replenished. The serpent was only there as a token sign unto that which these would fall into and need redemption from both death and hell once again. This subjects them to the new Christ. And everything can be finished and perfected in the end.

Of course none will so much as validate my advanced theology by engaging in its development. Well, I am certainly used to that. And the loss of faith having less spiritual assets than necessary to combat the wiles of the devil and his doubtful troupe carries on.

[_daheshism]

Joseph Fielding Smith was both ignorant and a LIAR (yes...he was). Bruce R. McConkie was an extremely self-righteous and ARROGANT man, also quite ignorant as his father-in-law, but he was HONEST.

Joseph Fielding Smith deliberately changed Mormon history, taking out all reference to pre-Adamites. He was NOT an honest man at all. Just an ignorant dupe.


1: Do you believe Adam and Eve were literally the first man and woman?

DARRICK: No!

2: Do you believe that there was a literal fall of Adam and that if Adam had not fallen that the human race would be living in a paradise state today?

DARRICK: "Fall" of Adam means "fall of all men" and "fall" of Eve means "fall of all women". Meaning that Adam (all men) and Eve (all women) "fall" from the State of Innocence to a State of Sinfulness.

3: If Adam and Eve were not literally real and there was not a literal fall of man then what implications does this have on the orthodox Christian teachings of original sin as well as the need for Jesus Christ to save us?

DARRICK: The parable of Adam and Eve is probably based upon the real historical story of Aye and Khiyah of Egypt. The parable is about how Men "fall" from a state of innocence and how women also "fall". It's a PARABLE about the "fallen nature" of men and women when they hit puberty.

4: For LDS what implications does no literal Adam, Eve and fall have for the LDS doctrine of the need for a Savior, the idea of opposition in all things and the idea that Adam fell that man might be.

DARRICK: The "literal" Adam was Aye. The "literal" Eve was Khiyah. The father of Nefertiti, and the daughter of Nefertiti. Real literal people. The Blood of Jesus somehow "reverses" the effects of the "Fall". Meaning we are brought back to a "state of innocence" like we have before we "fall". Again....

1. Adam and Eve were not white Anglo-saxons ruddy skinned Egyptians.
2. They were NOT the first humans on earth. They lived about 1800 b.c.
3. The "rib" was not a literal "rib". In Hebrew "rib" means "rib" or "beam" or "penis". Eve came from the "rib" of Adam...meaning she was his daughter or grand-daughter.
4. Adam is aw-dawm in Hebrew "to be/show redness".
5. The "serpent" in the Garden was not a talking snake, but the "cobra crown" symbolic of the "Wisdom of the Gods" by which the Pharoahs ruled. "Eve" was "tempted" by the Serpent, and then "tempted" Adam with her "forbidden fruit" in order to get the Crown.
8. Brigham Young called the story of Adam and Eve "a children's rhyme". You'll never find THAT in Church manuals, because Church leaders DO NOT WANT YOU TO KNOW that! They want to make is "appear" that the Church teaches that Adam and Eve were the first man and woman, and THIS HAS ALWAYS BEEN SO. But...it hasn't. The Church is LYING again, via "omission" of facts.
9. Spencer W. Kimball wrote in the ENSIGN that "the rib story of course, is figurative". Of what? If the "rib" is figurative, cannot the "talking snake" and "forbidden fruit" also be "figurative"? Yes! But...again, the Church leaders want that COVERED-UP!!!