Difference between revisions of "Question: Can Latter-day Saints have a non-literal view of the creation story, or have a somewhat more mythic view of the first five books of Moses given the Church's teaching of a historical Adam?"

Revision as of 21:50, 7 March 2019

FAIR Answers—back to home page

Question: Can Latter-day Saints have a non-literal view of the creation story, or have a somewhat more mythic view of the first five books of Moses given the Church's teaching of a historical Adam?

This is an issue that has been a challenge for the Church since the beginning

This is an issue that has been a challenge for the Church since the beginning. It is also an issue that isn't unique to Mormonism (so we can find lots of interesting insights elsewhere). The problems that we have are caused by several distinct issues. So let's outline the three main issues, since every attempt to answer these questions (every explanation of how to understand Genesis) works to deal with these issues in different ways.

1: The philosophy of history

This one is a really important. This idea means that when we approach the "historical Adam" we have to be aware that there are many different ways to understand the material as history. And that our notion of history is very different today from the sense that history had when the Old Testament was written. Even more to the point, what we try to achieve with history, and in fact our sense of "telling the truth" is very different from what the author of Genesis was trying to achieve and what that author believed constituted "telling the truth". This isn't bad except when we try to assert that we should understand the history of the Old Testament in exactly the same way that we understand history now. Or that the notion of truth as we understand it corresponds exactly to the meaning of truth as they understood it. When we do confuse our own understanding for the intentions of the authors of that history, we inevitably also make mistakes in understanding what should be seen as literal or non-literal in a text.

2: The issue of the first man

We all recognize that there has to be a beginning point. We call the first man and woman Adam and Eve. But, there is necessarily something that is entirely different in their beginning than in ours (by definition as the 'first'). In some ways, this creates for a flexible understanding. We want to understand how they are like us, and at the same time try to understand how they are different from us. This goes back to that issue of what the text is trying to tell us. We have a great many interpretations of the Genesis story of Adam and Eve which treat different parts of the story as metaphorical and other parts as literal - and in many cases, two interpretations can choose completely opposite understandings of any specific detail in this way and come up with two very different outcomes. When we come to this as individuals, often we have to make decisions as to how we understand certain elements (more on this a little later), but you can see that inevitably, very, very few people have a completely literal understanding of the Genesis account of Adam, just as very, very few have an entirely metaphorical understanding of the Genesis account of Adam. Most of us sit comfortably in between. Part of the LDS view of Adam comes from this historical figure as a historical figure. But part of the LDS view comes from the ways in which Adam is just like ourselves - and often this comparison, intended by the text, is presented as metaphor.

3: There is always a host of doctrinal concerns

These inevitably occur because of the previous two issues. As a text, Genesis has to be read and interpreted in some way - and there are lots of ways it can be. Some of those interpretations conflict with knowledge obtained from other sources - like scientific knowledge. One of the great debates of the past (and to some extent even the present) is how we place authority in these sources of information (a process we call epistemology). In one view, we try to understand the time period of Genesis literally, and the age of the earth then as being finite (a mere few thousand years) leading to a position known as Young Earth Creationism. This is a popular view among many Christians (and within the Church). On the other hand there are those who recognize that the earth seems to be very old, complete with a long fossil record of life. If this information is weighted accordingly, then the age of the earth is very great, and likewise, the Genesis account needs to be interpreted as being less literal in the sense that it does not intend to provide the age of the earth in a strictly literal sense. These doctrinal issues are often much larger debates that engage the text of Genesis to their own ends - issues like evolution, the age of the earth, the fall of man, the question of death before the fall, and so on.

An Off-the-Cuff Reconciliation of Evolution with Doctrine

It should be noted that it has been revealed that we don't know all things pertaining to creation and that those things will be revealed at the second coming (D&C 101: 32-33). We are also commanded to learn of all things so that we can be more perfectly instructed in things pertaining to the Gospel. Our theology is not threatened by science, it embraces it so that we can better understand what has already been revealed and what might be revealed in the future (D&C 88: 78-79). Thus we should study every scientific theory without fear.

More Core or Non-Negotiable Propositions

There are a few things that might be more essential than others and non-negotiable when working out evolution.

1. Adam and Eve being literal historical people (D&C 137:5; 138: 38-39).
2. Adam being the first in a line of priesthood-holding patriarchs (D&C 84:16; Abraham 1:3; Alma 13:7-9; )
3. Adam's "fall" being what started the around 7000 years of the earth's temporal existence^[1] (Doctrine and Covenants 77:6). We don't know who out of all the human-like creatures on the earth God would have preferred to have chosen. The Church has no official position on the issue of Pre-Adamites or human-like looking creatures before the fall of Adam and Eve.
4. Adam and Eve being the first of God's spirit children that he intended to become

=Less Core or More Negotiable Things

1. The Order of the Events of the Creation - The creation accounts don't agree fully in their division of creation events and the periods of time needed to complete each event. This is okay, since the ancient writers never meant to give a scientific explanation of the cosmos. Yes, this is even the case with the Book of Moses and Abraham. If the writers of Genesis didn't intend to provide a scientific explanation for the history of the earth, shouldn't we expect the same for the author(s) of Moses and Abraham? The Encyclopedia of Mormonism is most instructive on this point:

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^[2]

This assumption that the order of creation events must align with science is called "concordism" and is not necessitated by scripture.

1. Death Before the Fall and Procreation Before the Fall - on both issues the Church is neutral.
2. How Adam and Eve received their Spirits and Where the Originated From Exactly - The First Presidency gave three possibilities in a statement on the subject back in 1910:

Whether the mortal bodies of man evolved in natural processes to present perfection, through the direction and power of God; whether the first parents of our generations, Adam and Eve, were transplanted from another sphere, with immortal tabernacles, which became corrupted through sin and the partaking of natural foods, in the process of time; whether they were born here in mortality, as other mortals have been, are questions not fully answered in the revealed word of God.^[3]

1. The Literality of the Garden Narratives - How the events in the garden are to be understood is quite flexible since the accounts differ between Genesis, Moses, Abraham, and the Temple. For why, see the statement above from the EOM. We have no evidence from the Lord that he intended all of the creation accounts to line up, in fact, we have evidence to the contrary in D&C 101:32-33. Biblical scholars have long posited that the Book of Genesis is the combination of two accounts, both with a different interpretative/rhertorical intention.
2. Adam's age/ How long he lived for. The flexibility comes because it is in debate as to how to best interpret the ages of antediluvian patriarchs.

Some may object to the areas of flexibility and more rigidity claimed by the author, basing their assumption of the Book of Moses and Abraham needing to be restorations of scientific fact. In neither case do we have historical evidence from either Joseph or the Lord that the Book of Abraham and/or Moses represent pristine, scientifically accurate, word for word restorations of lost urtexts from the prophets.^[4]. If they were written by the original prophets, we would expect God to speak to them as he did to other ancient authors such as those that wrote Genesis.

Thus, the scenario might play out that God created the world and that he did it over any period of time. The creation may have included death, disease, and procreation of different species prior to a time when he chose to elect or send the first of his Spirit children to the earth in Adam and Eve. They lived for a time (exactly where we're not sure). They perhaps lived in an Edenic setting where there was no death inside of. There was likely death outside of it. They were tempted by the Devil (D&C 29:36,40), partook of fruit (29:40), and fell sometime around 7000 years ago. They were taught repentance and redemption (29:42), and were given the priesthood that they passed onto their children--the record of which passing of authority we likely do not have a complete, detailed account of.

This reconciliation comes from the best interpretation of the author of the article and is only meant as to help put interested readers in a helpful direction but does not represent the official view of the Church. The author has attempted only to summarize those things made explicitly clear in scripture that may cause some trouble for members of the Church dealing with the question.

Notes

1. ↑ Some may object to this by saying that that date should be exact to the reception of the revelation by Joseph. But such an interpretation isn't entirely warranted. The revelation does not seem to intend to give specifics.
2. ↑ William E. Evenson "Evolution" in Encyclopedia of Mormonism (ed.) Daniel Ludlow, (New York, NY: MacMillian Publishing, 1992)
3. ↑ Editorial (unsigned) [Joseph F. Smith as president of the Church and Edward H. Anderson were editors], "Priesthood Quorums’ Table," Improvement Era 13 no. 4? (April 1910), 570.
4. ↑ Matthew Roper has gathered a lot of evidence supporting the Book of Moses that is pseudepigraphical. The difficulty in deciding what the Book of Moses truly is comes from the first verse where we don't know A) If the author of the verse is Joseph or another ancient writer and B) whether they meant to attribute words to Moses pseudepigrahically or record the literal words of Moses. With such ambiguity, we are free to choose our position on the matter. The Book of Abraham does not have to be a pristine urtext from him to be authentic either.