Other Christian views of Adam and Eve

[krebscout]

To Imogen, Emiliana, and any others who might be more familiar with other faiths than I am:

In the LDS view, the story of Adam and Eve is not a tragedy but a very good thing, a part of the plan, a step toward progress. Do any other faiths view it this way, or was the Fall just one giant mistake? What do other faiths think would have happened if they had not partaken of the fruit?

[Emiliana]

Oooooh, this is sort of a pet theological topic of mine. Generally speaking, the Fall is considered the explanation for all of the Bad Things that Happen in the world. For many Christians it provides a sort of theodicy, or justification of God: Why did God let all this stuff happen? (Theodicy is also the primary reason I stopped believing in God, because I don't think any of these explanations are good enough.)

In the conservative Protestant view I grew up with, the Fall was a sort of cosmic screw-up. Usually the explanation is that God wasn't willing to limit people's free will, even though it would have been better in other ways if they hadn't sinned. Adam and Even COULD have avoided sinning, though. So Bad Things Happen because people made them happen, and God didn't stop them. The "what if" is actually the basis for the first two books in C.S. Lewis's Space Trilogy, in which a man inadvertently visits unfallen planets. On one of the planets, death exists, but people only die when they're very old. It's a peaceful, painless process of moving on, rather than a tragedy. I've heard other people say that death wouldn't have existed without the Fall, but those people are generally highly conservative, young earth proponents. (Because if you believe in evolution, you sort of have to believe that living things die.)

I'm not sure what Catholics would say about what would have happened without the Fall. I do know that it's generally considered the source of Original Sin, which is in turn the explanation for Bad Things Happening. There is, however, a medieval mystical view in which the Fall actually is considered a blessing because it started humankind on the path towards Christ's coming. So the mystery of the Incarnation is so beautiful, so good, that is outshines all the Bad Things that Happened because of the Fall. (I became familiar with this doctrine when I sang this song with a chorus in college.) Imogen can probably add more about contemporary views, though.

Aaaand then you have a whole host of other minority views. Marx's view is that the expulsion from the Garden of Eden represents the beginning of society, and thus of class stratification (see why I nicknamed him Marx?). I had one professor in college who argued that the "fall" is actually a coming of age story -- that humanity wasn't complete or grown up until we understood about things like death and sex and pain. He compared the Garden of Eden to a cradle, someplace that serves a purpose for awhile, but where you're certainly not supposed to stay forever. (As I understand it, this is probably closest to the LDS doctrine, isn't it?) Those are two that immediately come to mind, although I'm sure I've heard others.

[krebscout]

Thank you so much, Emiliana. It's funny, because while, yes, that is pretty close to how Latter-Day Saints view the Garden of Eden (that it's a place where you would remain in spiritual infantilism), we're also part of that "highly conservative" group who "say that death wouldn't have existed without the Fall." This is becoming more interesting to me, because I didn't realize there were such subtle differences and all the implications those might have for how different sects view...life.

[Portia]

we're also part of that "highly conservative" group who "say that death wouldn't have existed without the Fall."

I don't think evolutionary biologists at BYU think that. In fact, I'm sure of it.

[krebscout]

Oh yeah? I was always taught that in Sunday School, but then I was also taught not to play with face cards.

[Katya]

we're also part of that "highly conservative" group who "say that death wouldn't have existed without the Fall."

I don't think evolutionary biologists at BYU think that. In fact, I'm sure of it.

I don't think the opinions of evolutionary biologists at BYU are necessarily representative of standard Mormon theology.

[Marduk]

How about Bruce R.?

[Katya]

How about Bruce R.?

I think he defined Mormon orthodoxy for a certain generation, but I couldn't speak to his views on Adam and Eve.

[Marduk]

That about sums up his views (that is, that death was introduced by the fall.) Check out seven deadly heresies.

[Emiliana]

Ooooh, interesting. I didn't know that so many Mormons didn't believe in evolution. I thought I'd read a handful of Board answers that used evolution to explain various phenomena, but perhaps those were more outside the norm than I realized.

[Portia]

I don't believe in a literal Adam and Eve, and young earth or even old earth creationism goes against all my BYU training. My understanding is geological origin and evolution by natural selection with room for a Watchmaker Deity(ies). they even had a symposium celebrating darwin

[Marduk]

Ooooh, interesting. I didn't know that so many Mormons didn't believe in evolution. I thought I'd read a handful of Board answers that used evolution to explain various phenomena, but perhaps those were more outside the norm than I realized.

I think this is largely generational. Bruce R.'s opinions (as Katya pointed out) dictated a lot of Mormon thought, for a generation or so. Those who grew up without him (usually) find evolution denial sort of...odd.

[Katya]

Ooooh, interesting. I didn't know that so many Mormons didn't believe in evolution. I thought I'd read a handful of Board answers that used evolution to explain various phenomena, but perhaps those were more outside the norm than I realized.

Oddly, Mormons are more culturally conservative on evolution than our official doctrine warrants. So, you'll find Mormons who are up in arms about evolution being taught in schools, even though we don't have an official stance on the matter (which certainly hasn't prohibited prominent individuals from taking firm stances, in the past). I happen to think it's an effect of being politically aligned with the Religious Right on other issues—that we end up borrowing their opinions on this matter, even though it isn't warranted.

When I took Bio 100 at BYU, we got a whole handout of doctrinal quotes about evolution, which basically boiled down to "Yes, you will be learning about evolution in your BYU science classes. No, that doesn't mean that you have to lose your testimony over it." I never had any issue with evolution, but I was raised in a relatively liberal household. (And I think that Board writers, by definition, have to be able to defend their publicly stated opinions, which means that any uninformed opinion about evolution and LDS doctrine is going to be shot down pretty quickly by Board readers, if not by other writers before an answer even posts.)

[Emiliana]

Who is Bruce R., exactly?

[Marduk]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bruce_R_McConkie

He wrote many books that specified answers to questions that were never really answered by standard Mormon liturgy. For this reason many loved him and loathed him. His by-the-numbers way of responding to questions left many who hungered for answers to these questions very happy, that they could now have a semi-authoritative voice dictating a specific point of doctrine. On the other side, many found his answers implausable, or simply out on a limb, and therefore disliked him.

He also, as my father says, "did not suffer fools lightly." There was never really any room for those who disagreed with him (speaking about him specifically, not necessarily the church writ large) and this frustrated even more people. That he did this all with a dry and at times ascerbic wit polarized even more.

[Imogen]

Ok, so I finally got my thoughts together on this:

In the Catholic faith, we believe that God made us out of love and could have made us without the ability to sin (concupiscence), but that would have made our love for him hollow and meaningless. So, God made us with free will, and gave us rules we should have lived by, but we chose not to. The choice to sin has stained all future generations with original sin, which is why we need baptism (it washes away the stain of original sin, but does not take away our propensity to sin so if the child dies, it dies without sin). Anyway, I'm sort of a perfect example of concupiscence because I'm not baptized. Once I get baptized, my previous sins will be washed away.

So, we think the fall could have been avoided, but now we have to work with what we've got, essentially.

[Digit]

How is any version of evolution reconcilable with a notion of there not being death before a Homo sapiens named Adam consuming a fruit from a particular tree in a garden? Not that I know whether or not the majority of theists who subscribe to the concept of theistic evolution also include there not being death before that event as a sticking point, but just about every LDS person I ever heard say anything about it believed that the fall of their Adam introduced death into the world. So yeah, no idea how a God using evolution as a tool before there was death could work, as death is an inseparable component of evolution.

[Marduk]

Simple, Digit: they believe that mankind is exempt from evolution.

[Emiliana]

Ok, so I finally got my thoughts together on this:

In the Catholic faith, we believe that God made us out of love and could have made us without the ability to sin (concupiscence), but that would have made our love for him hollow and meaningless. So, God made us with free will, and gave us rules we should have lived by, but we chose not to. The choice to sin has stained all future generations with original sin, which is why we need baptism (it washes away the stain of original sin, but does not take away our propensity to sin so if the child dies, it dies without sin). Anyway, I'm sort of a perfect example of concupiscence because I'm not baptized. Once I get baptized, my previous sins will be washed away.

So, we think the fall could have been avoided, but now we have to work with what we've got, essentially.

This is a much fairer, more cogent explanation of the view I referred to as a "cosmic screw-up." Thanks, Imogen.

Simple, Digit: they believe that mankind is exempt from evolution.

Huh, interesting. I was with Digit in assuming that people who didn't believe in evolution couldn't logically hold that there was death before Adam and Eve, but this makes sense.