Adam and Eve's creation

[Happy_LDS]

In Genesis we learn about the creation of Adam and Eve, do you think God created them literally from the dust or is just figurative?

[Clifton]

Well, their bodies were probably created from elements here on Earth and since I believe organic stuff comes from dirt and returns to dirt (dust to dust), they probably were created from dust (meaning elements to me).  Are we not created from the elements, the dust of the Earth?

Now, if they didn't come from Earthly elements, they could have been transplanted from another world, as some have suggested, but that opens up a whole new question probably.  If not literally created, then what other options are there? Born? From whom?

Clif

[livy111us]

Figurative.  I am a little liberal when it comes to a few Biblical stories, this being one, Noahs flood being another.  We are not bound by doctrine to accept them at face value, and many past leaders have agreed that we just don't know.  I don't have a problem with accepting evolution as a tool that God used to create man.

[Happy_LDS]

Maybe you can start a thread about Evolution through an lds perspective, that will surely be both entertaining and controversial. lol I am not sure about whether to believe it was literal or not but I think I recall past leaders making some sort of statement that it was in fact literal.

[livy111us]

Any reading from Joseph Fielding Smith and Bruce R.  McConkie will tell you that evolution is a theory from satan.  But then again, they were not speaking in behalf of the church and were expressing their own opinions.  James E Talmage and John A Widstoe believed that there were truths in evolution.  The First Presidency addressed this issue a few times at the beginning of the 20th century taking more of the side of Smith and McConkie, however, not to that extreme.  Lately, leaders of the Church have been much more open to the idea.  The late Gordon B Hinckley actually helped edit some papers on evolution, and made several statements taking a neutral stance.  If you take a biology course at BYU, you will hear something very different than what President Joseph F.  Smith taught.  There is a neat little book out in Deseret Book right now on evolution and the Church.  I'd recommend it to anyone.

[gospeldoc]

I'm with Joseph F Smith and Bruce R McConkie on this one.  The scriptures I believe are plain on the creation of Adam and Eve.  In Luke 3 it says Adam was the son of God.  It says the same thing in Moses it says the same thing.  In Abraham 1 it says that Adam was the firstborn.  And in Acts 17 it says we are the offspring of God.  This all explains a lot since we know we have the potential to become like God.  Where do we get that potential unless we are his offspring both physically and spiritually.  And Obviously if God is our great ancestor then we didn't descend from apes. 

[tubaloth]

In Genesis we learn about the creation of Adam and Eve, do you think God created them literally from the dust or is just figurative?

Figuratively, mostly because the account Moses was giving the people, were a people that only had the lesser law, and lesser priesthood.  The version we have (in both Moses and Genesis) is a dummied down version for the audience it was given. 

The Temple (and Abraham) adds more light to our knowledge but still is only what we can handle now.

James E Talmage and John A Widstoe believed that there were truths in evolution.

Which was also there opinion.  I have read some of Widstoe that he sounds for it, and some he sounds against it.  Its strange.

The First Presidency addressed this issue a few times at the beginning of the 20th century taking more of the side of Smith and McConkie, however, not to that extreme.

I would agree, they walk the line pretty well. 

Lately, leaders of the Church have been much more open to the idea.

Open in the sense of not commenting on it I guess?


For me going down the path of Evolution just starts in a way pitting scripture against science.  Even then in a way we do the same thing we are doing here, trying to figure out how specific we take such scripture. (Which can be a slippery slope) 
I think in the case of how man came to be the Church has spoke, people can take that teaching or not.  But that is the Church’s view.  The rest of the world, animals and I guess everything else that evolution can be grouped with is up in the air. (Not enough revelation)

[Happy_LDS]

It is hard to answer because in the Temple ceremony prior to 1990 (one of the few changes) it mentioned it was figurative but if you go to the Temple nowdays (without paraphrasing) you will know whether the actual church position nowdays is if it is figurative or literal.