Specifically, the part about the names of his descendants:
Though the order is different, the names of Seth’s descendants (for the most part) are variants of Cain’s descendants. There are Methuselah and Methushael, Mahalalel and Mehujael, Jared and Jabal, Lamech and Lamech, and Enoch and Enoch (city and all!) which leads me to the assumption that they were both taken from the same list, and fleshed out (ever so slightly) in the narrative we have in Genesis, which makes it anything but a definite, literal description of actual history..

As I see it, this is an attempt to reconcile the story of Adam (with its pretty solid scriptural backing) with evolution (with its equally solid scientific backing). I’m not sold on it, but it’s one I’ll be kicking around for a while…

Some questions though: I thought we were all descended from blacks in Africa? If not, is it true that there were others living before Adam and Eve? Hasn’t the Bible been translated so many times that what we read must only be taken literally, ‘as far as it is translated correctly’?

It seems that you’re assuming here that because it is scripture, it is literal history. Now, it may be that Adam’s story is literal. But there are many forms of narrative, with many different social and spiritual functions. Literality/history is not always a primary concern with our scriptures in the way it is with what’s produced by the history faculty at a modern university. It doesn’t seem particularly “intellectually honest” to force the ancient text to conform to modern assumptions about historiography. What people consider “history” has varied throughout time and with social context.

I’m not outright refuting what you say here. Nor am I endorsing Geoff’s speculations–I tend to think that many early OT stories (including Abraham) are a mixture of mythology and literal history that, once we take the time to investigate textual and literary praxis within historical context–and with the spirit of prophecy–teach us a great deal about our relationship with our Father.

The fact is that (as Eric has pointed out rather well) all scripture is in agreement on the “story” of Adam and Eve being a literal history. We know from scripture that Adam died when he was 930 years old. We know from scripture some of the names of his children. We know from scripture Joseph and Mary’s lineage back to Adam. We know from scripture that the story of Adam and Eve was revealed to Moses by direct, face-to-face revelation from God. (Moses saw the history of the earth from the beginning until the end.) There is nowhere in scripture where it is even implied that this story is anything other than literal history. You said in #40 that the fact that not much has been revealed about Adam is an argument for his not having really lived. If that were a valid argument, we would have to really question the validity of the doctrines of the pre-existance, of the possibility of our becomming gods, and of the reason for our very “creation” by God as physical beings. Yet I cannot recall having seen anything in your postings that questions these three doctrines. Therefore, I must assume that, where revelation is concerned, you don’t really believe deep down inside yourself that lack of sufficient information is an argument against revelation. Hence, I am left to assume (correctly or not) that what you said in #37 about the story of Adam and Eve just feeling more symbolic than literal is the real motivation for this posting and other similar postings.

Your feelings about the story of Adam and Eve being symbolic are shared by many Jews and Christians. I would venture a guess that if an honest pole were taken that not a few members of the church would also admit to sharing those feelings. Our honest feelings are important, because they are what we really base our beliefs on. Logic mearly builds on those underlying feelings to provide a structure for our beliefs. Logic allows us to believe; it does not cause us to believe. The order of progression is from feelings to logic to beliefs. Yes, I am over simplifying this in several ways. One is by not talking about the Holy Ghost. But it is important to realize that the Holy Ghost usually does nothing more than operate on our feelings and provide a structure of logic for our beliefs, which we in the church often mistakenly call knowledge. (I expect that many will disagree with this.)

I think the bottom line here is that if you feel that the story of Adam and Eve is not history but symbology, then you are bound by your own integrity to build a logical structure that builds on that feeling–which it seems to me is what you are attempting to do in this posting. However, in order to build a logical structure on which to base your belief, you must somehow logically do away with the fact that scripture is rock-solidly in support of the story of Adam and Eve being 100% literal. Therefore, in order to succeed in this, you must come up with some logical way of determining what in scripture (and in revelation) should be interpreted literally and what should be interpreted symbolically.

The problem I see with approaching this using logic alone is that I have seen so many others try to do this, and seen such twisted logic result from such attempts. Partly because of this, I have come to the strong conclusion that it cannot be done based on logic. In other words, logic is not an intellectually honest way of doing this, because there is too high a probability of our logic being wrong. I think that, as Joseph Smith learned first hand, it has to come from revelation. And by revelation, I don’t mean the usual day-to-day type of revelation that the general authorites talk about as impresssions, feelings, thoughts, etc. I mean the scary kind of standing face-to-face with God type of revelation that Moses and Joseph Smith experienced. That is because, if you are to legitimatly counter the standing-face-to-face-with-God type of revelation that Moses received, you have to have a similar type experience for yourself. You have to really know–not just believe and call it knowledge. Short of this, I don’t see any intellectually honest way of doing anything other than just saying to yourself, “Moses says Adam really lived, and all the prophets afterwards have backed him up on that, so I’m choosing to accept that.” However, in the end, belief–even belief that comes from personal revelation–is a choice that we make. We choose to accept the evidence–be it scripture, feelings, personal revelation, the word of the prophet, the appearance of an angel, whatever–or we choose not to accept it. Therefore, you could choose to simply not accept all the evidence that Adam really lived. The choice is yours.

Feel free to pick appart what I said above as you see fit. I’m not infallible. Or even a good speller.

(That was they symbolic sound of Eric falling out of his chair).

Helaman 8:18 is a good pull. It is evidence like this that keeps me from committing to the allegorical patriarchs idea. I see pretty good evidence on both side of of this issue so I remain open to the idea that either may be true. The reason I like the allegorical version is because the whole of scripture and my understanding of the theology taught there fits a little better with that assumption for me. But the evidence is not conculsive enough for me to commit one way or the other yet.

By the way, your recent posts at Small and Simple have been very good and I enjoy reading them.

Yea, and behold I say unto you, that Abraham not only knew of these things, but there were many before the days of Abraham who were called by the order of God; yea, even after the order of his Son; and this that it should be shown unto the people, a great many thousand years before his coming, that even redemption should come unto them.

Does this have any affect, or does it just bounce off again? Is it at least a good try?

And then Geoff says …..

Wow, what a great pull. I guess my theory is wrong after all. Oh well, thanks for setting me straight Eric. By the way, your recent posts at Small and Simple have been very good and I enjoy reading them.

(The above statement attributed to Geoff is not a literal quotation but is symbolic and allegorical in nature. The chances of this actually being said are roughly equivalent to the creation happening in six 24 hour periods, Adam being made from dirt, Eve being made from a rib, the ark containing 2 of every animal, and a global flood – combined)