What race were Adam and Eve?
 

What race were Adam and Eve?

This is a serious question. I'm perplexed as to why they are portrayed as caucasian in Mormonism, whereas all the evidence suggests that the earliest humans were indeed black.

Do you believe in a literal Adam and Eve?

Missourian.

Sure. there is a guy named Adam in my ward and I knew a girl named Eve in high school.

Every species has a common ancestor. It's a scientifically proven fact that all humans descended from a single female in Africa (who scientists also term "Eve"), and that's no big surprise.

I think it's critically important that the Church recognize the fact that Adam and Eve most certainly were "black" and that this be adopted into our representations of Adam and Eve. There's nothing wrong with telling the truth. When was the last time you saw a major figure in our theological history represented by an actor of color?

Do you believe that Adam and Eve lived in and around Adam-Ondi-Ahman, Missouri?

Just admit that the concept of a black Adam and Eve offends you.

<yawn>

Why not answer the question? I don't think there is any logical basis to conclude what race Adam and Eve were.

Certainly, if Adam and Eve were literal beings that also lived in present-day Missouri, then that calls into question your dogmatic assertion that they were black.

To believe that Adam and Eve weren't literal beings nor did they live in present-day Missouri is to essentially claim that multiple scriptures and multiple statements by Apostles and Prophets, who clearly referred to both conditions in a literal context, as being wrong.

I answered "other", I didn't answer "white".

A. I told you that I believed they were literal beings, so I don't know what your problem is.

B. If they lived transiently in Missouri, then what influence does it have on whether they were white or black? You could just as easily argue that they would most likely have been black if they lived in the St. Louis.

OK. What is "other?"

The fact is that original human beings were black. That's a scientific fact.

how do we know?

Do we have melanin samples from the Leakeys?

Let's try this again: were Adam and Eve from Missouri? Yes or no?

A scientific fact, eh? Heh, you really whip yourself into a frenzy over minituae, Sooner.

Why do you care? I find myself oscillating between interested, puzzled, and frustrated regarding these discussions on CG. Why the need to reconcile everything with science? There is no question that God operates per the laws of nature, but I certaily don't feel the need to understand everything. In fact, if we DID understand it all, where would faith come in?

What is wrong with "I don't get it but I don't need to because I have a testimony."

Race is a modern construct.

Missouri is a modern construct.

"Adam" is first used in Genesis to refer to humankind, although later it is used as a proper noun (different translations start thinking of it as a proper noun in different places, some as early as Genesis 2).

If the earliest humans were the color black or brown that's great.

I'm trying to think of a more irrelevant factoid to my faith than the race of Adam and Eve and .... it's just ... not ... coming.

It certainly is not scientific fact. I am still having a good chuckle over that one.

This question is easy...


Adam and Eve are from the human race.

Other than that, I agree with what FM said:

What exactly is that supposed to mean? Whatever else Missouri may or may not be, it isn't in the modern construct of Africa.

just a guess, but he may be saying the same thing as when he says not all things in Mormonism, in his opinion, are literal.

Other is the only answer.

Race is a modern social construct. As those constructs did not arise out of the time to which we attach an Adam or an Eve, it is impossible for those labels to apply.

What was the pigmentation of their skin? How the hell should I know?

Or more importantly, why the hell should I care?

Come on, Arch, get with the program. It's a scientific fact.

Just trying to clarify that the Garden of Eden, however considered by any Mormon I've ever spoken with, did not exist concurrently with the legally defined, modern state of Missouri.

A journalist or two of late have failed to distinguish between the geography that is now enclosed within the state of Missouri and the state itself. To say, "Mormons think the Garden of Eden was in Missouri," is, strictly speaking, false. That Mormon leaders have repeatedly taught that it was in the place that is now within the state of Missouri, is true.

Well, Missouri isn't Africa.

1. You believe that the first humans came from Africa

ergo

2. Adam and Eve were black


Would you care to argue that the aboriginal peoples of North America were black?

I don't know what race Adam and Eve were (assuming you could even assign them to one to begin with), but your reasoning on this subject is questionable at best.

I must admit I am a little bit uncomfortable with this trend on cougarguard as well. But, maybe, for different reasons. It seems like lately (I don't mean to single out soonercoug; I don't think this is caused by anyone one in particular) is to turn everything into some litmus test between liberal and conservatives (theologically speaking). All that does is lead to the same discussion that we have had on the guard many times over. The "conservatives" stand-up for what the believe are core parts of the gospel and the "liberals" paint the conservatives as anti-intellectual. It then devolves in pointless name calling or into a discussion about changing the oil of your car.

I think that a discussion of Adam and Eve would be good and appropriate. Coming to grips with what evolution, the fossil record, and other empirical evidence says in relation to how one should understand Adam and Eve is an important exercise. Also, I think a discussion of the theological implications of Joseph Smith moving the founding stories of creation and covenant to the American continent really interesting. I think a discussion of what that tells us about Joseph Smith's theological impulses and Mormonism would be interesting in well. I think there is lots of room for interesting discussion, but all we are doing now is dividing people into silly theological camps.

This discussion would be more interesting. Start with your thoughts. Polemics and polarization do not lead to increased understanding. See ya soon.

Men rejoice at being led like cattle again, with the terrible gift of freedom that brought them so much suffering removed from them . . . . We will convince them that they will only be free when they have surrendered their freedom and submitted to us . . . . Freedom, free thought, and science will lead them into such straits and will bring them face to face with such marvels and insoluble mysteries, that some of them, the fierce and rebellious, will destroy themselves, others, rebellious but weak, will destroy one another, while the rest, weak and unhappy, will crawl fawning to our feet and whine to us: “Yes, you were right, you alone possess His mystery, and we come back to you, save us from ourselves!”

--The Grand Inquisitor

i thought adam and eve were from another planet.
Kolobians I thought.

I most definitely do not believe they lived near present day Missouri. I am actually writing a paper debunking this tradition for a class. I'd be happy to share it with anybody who wants to see it.

You wholly discount the role of the Holy Ghost. Were it not for that, this would apply.

Pearls before swine I suppose ...

I don't really like the way SU went about his point but I am somewhat symphatitic to it. Referring to testimony has its place and I thought your use of it was within that place. However, I often find that appeals to to testimony are used as a bludgeon to end debate or to signal to others that they clearly aren't on the Lord side or that their testimony is somehow lacking (I don't think that is what you were doing). Testimony, to a large degree, is a tactical nuclear weapon, in a conventional weapon war.

The very fact that you're using a war metaphor illustrates the problem we have IMO.

I'm all in favor of non-nuclear religious discussions. I've been a strong advocate of disarmament. ;)

Well, sometimes a metaphor falls flat, but at least Tex enjoyed it.

Adam had 900 years to move from Missouri to Africa, I'm sure he could've done it.

http://www.ig.utexas.edu/research/pr...ges/pangea.jpg

Didn't Pangaea split millions of years before hominids were trudging through the mud of Olduvai Gorge?

don't know

You hear this argument in Mormon circles: that Adam migrated to Missouri to finally bless his posterity which was possible because of the single land mass and Adam living a long time. At least I have (it seems like Chino was joking about it but I have heard people seriously advance this argument). I have also never understand how this works for people or the kind of underlying assumptions they are making about the geology and biology. I think Pangaea is hypothesized to have split apart from 250 million to like 50 million years ago and the first fossil record of a homo-sapien is dated to about 250,000 years ago.

gene variety is greater in Africa than anywhere else