The C-F-A and a Non-literal Adam and Eve

Last updated on: February 19, 2008 at 12:26 pm by lxxluthor

The C-F-A and a Non-literal Adam and Eve 2008-02-19T12:26:34-05:00 lxxluthor

LOGO Patheos Explore the world's faith through different perspectives on religion and spirituality! Patheos has the views of the prevalent religions and spiritualities of the world.

This past Sunday I taught my 14 year old SS class about the Atonement from 2 Nephi 2 (we’re a week behind). A strange thought occurred to me after class concerning the possible effects of a non-literal or symbolical reading of the Adam and Eve story on the way we (or at least I) understand the Atonement.

One of the things I taught my class stems right from my missionary days, namely that the Atonement directly undoes, in effect, two outcomes of Adam’s Fall: physical and spiritual death. I’ve learned much about the Gospel since my mission and many of my views from the time have changed, but I’ve always retained this basic truth.

The reasoning is thus: because of Adam’s choices all mankind has become subject to physical and spiritual death through no choice of their own. This unfair situation is corrected by the Atonement and is explicitly taught in 2 Nephi 2.

8 Wherefore, how great the importance to make these things known unto the inhabitants of the earth, that they may know that there is no flesh that can dwell in the presence of God, save it be through the merits, and mercy, and grace of the Holy Messiah, who layeth down his life according to the flesh, and taketh it again by the power of the Spirit, that he may bring to pass the resurrection of the dead, being the first that should rise.

10 And because of the intercession for all, all men come unto God; wherefore, they stand in the presence of him, to be judged of him according to the truth and holiness which is in him. Wherefore, the ends of the law which the Holy One hath given, unto the inflicting of the punishment which is affixed, which punishment that is affixed is in opposition to that of the happiness which is affixed, to answer the ends of the atonement—

25 Adam fell that men might be; and men are, that they might have joy.

26 And the Messiah cometh in the fulness of time, that he may redeem the children of men from the fall. And because that they are redeemed from the fall they have become free forever, knowing good from evil; to act for themselves and not to be acted upon, save it be by the punishment of the law at the great and last day, according to the commandments which God hath given.

The emphasis is mine but the point is clear. All men are resurrected and brought back into the very presence of God to be judged, a complete overcoming of the Fall for every individual. Neither is said to be conditional (though remaining in the presence of God is said to be very conditional).

Now for the problem. As my previous posts have shown, I’m often not a literalist when it comes to reading the scriptures, especially the OT. For example, I do not read the Flood story literally, I think that it happened but has been blown out of proportion. I read the Creation account very symbolically and I personally hold to the belief that science gives us today about the age of the Earth and how it was formed. I believe that God began or put life here but I also believe that our findings about the evolution of animals over the millenia also reveals to us about how our current animals got to their present forms. A non-literal reading of the Creation allows me to believe the Bible and our science.

However, I stop short on Adam and Eve and the evolution of man. The only official statement by Church leaders on the issues of creation and evolution that I am aware of (Origins of Man, I think) states only that man did not evolve. I struggle personally to understand exactly how we fit into the whole scheme of things, having not yet found an answer that I find satisfactory in addressing both science and faith. So as of right now I’m a fence-sitter.

On the other hand, many of my fellow LDS friends are not. They read the Adam and Eve story completely symbolically. For many of them, it is a metaphor of the awakening of mankind to consciousness. Adam and Eve were not historical figures in any way. While I am not nearly ready yet to join them in their beliefs, I can see their points and try to consider them seriously. I’m not about to hash them all out here as this is not the direct point of my post but this view point has a direct effect on my understanding of the Atonement and the Fall.

It is not at all difficult once a non-literal or non-historical Adam and Eve are accepted to view the Fall in the same light. The Fall becomes an explanation for the difficult state of mortal life and our separation from God.

Fair enough, but this does considerable damage to our understanding of the Atonement as I explained above. If there was no Adam to explain the cause of our fallen and mortal state then the Atonement does not undo those effects. It may still undo physical and spiritual death but what then are the causes of those great obstacles? I don’t believe that I’ve ever heard anyone offer a satisfactory explanation for them beyond the traditional Fall story.

What I have heard is that the Fall story is necessary to extricate God from any wrongdoing in the Creation of man. After all, God could not possibly be the creator and cause of this miserable life we suffer through, right? I know that sounds sarcastic but the truth is that I honestly pose this question myself. This world is imperfect, we are imperfect, and things are decidedly unjust. Traditionally, that is why God let Satan do what he did. What are we to understand about Satan, the third of the hosts of heaven, or anything from our premortal existence? And this is really just one area in which our theology gets a serious hit if the Creation and Fall are not literal.

If it is true that God did not require an Adam to Fall to curse the world and bring about the conditions that we experience (as 2 Nephi 2 avows) then I will have to seriously reevaluate my view of God, his nature, his character, and that of the universe. And I’m not unwilling to do that but I definitely would need some serious reasons for undertaking that endeavor.

Our current explanations of these events take care of most of the problems a non-literal reading presents. It’s not perfect but they are not without great merit and support. And I think that anyone trying to convince others to understand Adam and Eve as non-literal entities (or at least have us take them seriously) has a lot of explaining to do. In fact, they have a huge chunk of theology to rewrite, theology that our scriptures and prophets have purported and supported forever.

Is anyone willing to take up the gauntlet? I find myself in the position of being just outside mainstream understanding on many similar issues (like the ones I mentioned at the start of the post) because I am willing to think about other view points and non-traditional stances seriously. But at present, I do not find such a stance to be tenable. It brings into question too much of what I already hold to be as close to the truth as I’ve found without offering enough in return to make up for what it takes away.

Atonement

Book of Mormon

Doctrine

Previous Post

February 17, 2008

Welcome Jondh and Yellow Dart

Next Post

February 22, 2008 Exchanging Orthodoxy for Orthopraxy

Browse Our Archives

Select a Category 2013 Scriptures Administrative Apologetics Atonement Bible Book of Mormon Book Review BYU Doctrine Extra-Biblical Literature Family Feminism Guests History LDS Church History Leadership Marginalia Metaphysics Mormon Culture Mormon Studies Personal Issues Political Philosophy Politics Scripture Sexuality Speculation Spotlights Studying Religion Ten Tidbits The Tenure Track Theology Tips on Applying Series Tips on Being an Independent Scholar Uncategorized

Select a Month June 2017 April 2017 March 2017 February 2017 December 2016 November 2016 October 2016 September 2016 August 2016 July 2016 May 2016 April 2016 March 2016 February 2016 January 2016 December 2015 November 2015 October 2015 September 2015 July 2015 April 2015 March 2015 February 2015 January 2015 December 2014 November 2014 October 2014 September 2014 August 2014 July 2014 June 2014 May 2014 April 2014 March 2014 February 2014 January 2014 December 2013 October 2013 September 2013 August 2013 July 2013 June 2013 May 2013 April 2013 March 2013 February 2013 January 2013 December 2012 November 2012 October 2012 September 2012 August 2012 July 2012 June 2012 May 2012 April 2012 March 2012 February 2012 January 2012 December 2011 November 2011 October 2011 September 2011 August 2011 July 2011 June 2011 May 2011 April 2011 March 2011 February 2011 January 2011 December 2010 November 2010 October 2010 September 2010 August 2010 July 2010 June 2010 May 2010 April 2010 March 2010 February 2010 January 2010 December 2009 November 2009 October 2009 September 2009 August 2009 July 2009 June 2009 May 2009 April 2009 March 2009 February 2009 January 2009 December 2008 November 2008 October 2008 September 2008 August 2008 July 2008 June 2008 May 2008 April 2008 March 2008 February 2008 January 2008 December 2007 November 2007 October 2007 September 2007 August 2007 July 2007 June 2007 May 2007 April 2007 March 2007 February 2007 January 2007 December 2006 November 2006 October 2006 September 2006 August 2006 July 2006 June 2006 May 2006 April 2006 March 2006 February 2006 January 2006 December 2005 November 2005 October 2005 September 2005 August 2005 July 2005 June 2005 May 2005

TAKE THE

Religious Wisdom Quiz