OK, so why do we tell it now? I think the symbolism is relevant, in particular from the perspective of Mormon theology. Here goes:

Humans evolved as evidenced by paleontology, archaeology, biochemistry, genetics, and common sense. We evolved from critters in Africa and disbursed over time. Previous migrations left Neanderthals in Europe, Homo Erectus in Asia, etc. A 2nd wave out of Africa seems apparent from DNA mapping and analysis. So, as Huntsman said, “… I believe in evolution and trust the scientists … So shoot me!” To me, with a PhD. in ecology, it is ludicrous to argue that man did not evolve. Homo Sapiens differed from Neanderthals in that they had a creative mindset. They had art, made clothing, had needles, and sculpture. That they interbred to some extent is evidenced by Neanderthal markers in our genome, but they certainly out-competed the Neanderthals and probably exterminated them. Likewise with any residual Homo Erectus groups still alive in Asia. To argue against human evolution is simply … ignorant.

Now here is the argument for keeping the old story alive. Christ spoke in parables which have layers of meaning. Yet we’re expected by some to not ascribe layers of meaning to the creation myth. A key LDS tenant is that we do not consider the Bible to be inerrant. We also believe that those billions who have not received the law cannot sin (defined as violation of the law). So now, all we have to do is elevate the conceptual level of the parable.

Adam and Eve in the Garden represent humanity before the law, living in a state of innocence. They cannot sin, not having the law. Eden is not a place, it is a STATE. A state of innocence. At some point, God ordains the first prophet, symbolized by Adam. The law, symbolized by the fruit, removes the innocence. “You shall not surely die, but have knowledge of good and evil … etc”. Now there can be sin on earth. But LDS doctrine claims that those billions who have never received the law cannot be held accountable for it. We do not require baptism of innocents (Down’s syndrome, etc). We do not condemn pagans to hell. Christ’s atonement covers them and they can make a choice in the next world.

So two things: Eden is a state and the fruit is symbolic of the low. Simple. Uncomplicated, and certainly consistent with Mormon theology.

But, since many people do not think logically, maybe some scriptural quotes will help. Personally, I don’t need them. That God exists and has modern prophets is merely common sense. I dont’ know what God does when he goes to work in the morning, but to paraphrase Givens and Givens (The God Who Weeps), a god who creates billions of humans and condemns 99.9999 percent of them to everlasting torture and suffering, is not a god worthy of worship. I reject the neo-Platonism of the Nicene creed as bilious Greek nonsense. I’ll stick with science and the LDS perspective. It simply fits the evidence better.

Now, I’m *not* trying to defend a neo-platonic God with this comment. All I am claiming is I am less interested in what “Mormon” God is than what the actual God is. Therefore, if it isn’t too much of a tangent, I would appreciate it if you could in your series argue that not only is this God a good Mormon God, but that we have every reason to believe this God is actual. Because again, to me the more interesting topic is: what God is actual and how can we know it? Not: which God is Mormon? (Though I hope it turns out they are they same.)

But despite my one issue, I am *very* excited for this series.

This is a simple paradigm shift that drops the Platonic concept of an immaterial God and the ancient view that God angrily destroys his creation and angrily throws all non-believers and sinners into a Hell of endless torment. I can’t believe in such a god. But I can believe that Joseph Smith saw an embodied God and His son, Jesus. Why not, if God exists?

There one other requirement for my belief: I cannot accept Biblical inerrancy, nor can I accept any human infallibility. Mormonism does not teach inerrancy and infallibility. So what’s the problem? Jesus taught with parables that can be understood by the faithful, but which have many levels of meaning. The scriptures reflect the state of learning and understanding of their authors. They are products of their time and place. So what’s the problem with integrating science and current knowledge into our interpretation of the ancient scriptures? A hundred years from now, this will be the prevailing LDS paradigm.

Thanks Stephen for helping.

Thanks again for the article. I enjoyed it and couldn’t agree more.