What race were Adam and Eve?

[Archaea]

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?

[TheSizzle36]

Originally Posted by Archaea

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

Or more importantly, why the hell should I care?

[Tex]

Originally Posted by Archaea

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?

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

[Sleeping in EQ]

Originally Posted by Indy Coug

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 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.

[Indy Coug]

Originally Posted by SoonerCoug

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.

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.

[pelagius]

Originally Posted by FMCoug

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."

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.

[Archaea]

Originally Posted by pelagius

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 of discussion of what that tells us about Joseph Smith 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.

[SeattleUte]

Originally Posted by FMCoug

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

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

[Brian]

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

[All-American]

Originally Posted by Indy Coug

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".

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.