BYU religion professor Alonzo Gaskill’s book, The Savior and the Serpent (Deseret Book: 2005), has as its central aim to “liken the story unto ourselves.” This is a welcome addition to Mormon thought on the Fall; readers will have to decide whether it is one they find compelling.
Professor Gaskill answered some of my questions.
RJH: It seems that the main purpose of your book is to encourage a “liken-unto-thyself” reading of the Adam and Eve story. Is this a fair characterisation?
AG: I believe we often draw false assumptions from the story of Adam and Eve by assuming that that which is given in the temple and scripture regarding them is intended to be an account of the historical events. When you read the story as a history of Adam and Eve false doctrines develop. But, if you recognize that we are to consider ourselves as if we were Adam and Eve (and that this is intended to be our story of our fall, not a story of theirs) then the potential false doctrines are avoided.
RJH: What is literal and what is symbolic, and how do we know? You suggest on p.22, for example, that the dust/rib image should be read symbolically, but I sense that you believe that Adam and Eve actually ate a fruit. What criteria should we be using in making these determinations?
AG: I think three things must be considered in determining what is symbolic/metaphorical and what is literal:
1. Basic logic.
2. The teachings of the living prophets regarding the doctrine of the Fall.
3. A healthy does of the Lord’s Spirit.
Yes, the Brethren have implied that the dust and rib images are symbols for greater truths. I do not necessarily intend to be understood in the book at to be saying that I believe Adam and Eve ate something. My understanding is that there had to be some formal act to provoke the Fall. But, whether that consisted of eating something, saying something, doing something or pushing some very large red button labeled “Do Not Push,” I have no idea — and I think it misses the point of the discussion.
RJH: Where do you stand on the documentary hypothesis? It seems to me that the question of “contradictory” commandments (”multiply and replenish” in Gen 1 and “don’t eat the fruit” in Gen 2) would be solved if we see them as two different stories (i.e. P and J).
AG: I’m aware of the documentary hypothesis. In my mind it would be a possible explanation of the seeming contradictory commandments were it not for two elements:
1. The Brethren never consider it as an explanation (in their writings on the Fall), but they do address what they see as a seeming contradiction. So, for example, President Joseph Fielding Smith (as I quoted in the book) rewords the commandments to explain away the contradiction. So, the reader (or the practicing Latter-day Saint) has to grapple with the issue of the Prophetic office (i.e., if the documentary hypothesis was the reason for the seeming contradiction, would the Prophets and Apostles — as the ultimate divinely inspired exegetes — be inspired to know this).
2. Setting the DH aside, there is so much that supports this being about you and I instead of Adam and Eve (including statements from the Brethren) that it makes more sense (to me) that the DH is not the reason for the seeming contradiction. Rather, things are stated as they are because it is telling our story. And when seen as our story, all of these concerns fade away.
RJH: Now, let me see if I have this right. DH or no DH, you feel that the story — as a whole — should be read as one. Which is, of course, how Jews and Christians have mostly read it and how the posited redactor wanted it to be read.
AG: Yes, I would basically agree with that. I think the DH could explain away the seeming contradiction. But I feel that the overarching premise that this is our story (rather than Adam and Eve’s story) makes the DH explanation not only unnecessary, but also less likely. Comments by prophetic oracles lead me to believe that the DH is not the reason for these seeming contradictions.
RJH: What are the main lessons Mormons can learn from the Adam and Eve story?
AG: My heavens! That’s a huge question to which I believe you expect a short, succinct answer. After all, that’s what the book is about – answering the question of “What are we to learn from the Fall?” If pressed on this, I suppose I would have to say that the things I want readers to come away from the book with would be (1) an understanding of what “really” happened in Eden, historically speaking, (2) an awareness that many of the popular theories regarding the Fall and the Eden experience stem from our inclination to confuse symbolism with history, (3) and a greater tendency to see this as our story, rather than Adam and Eve’s story – thereby making our temple experience more meaningful. I feel confident in staying that anyone who reads the book will likely never look at the Fall or the Temple Endowment the same again! And because of that I think the book has something of value to offer.
December 21, 2006 at 7:45 am
My thanks to Alonzo for answering my questions
December 21, 2006 at 7:56 am
I am reading this book through for the second time and I really like it, but I have some real questions on the doctrinal part.
for starters:
AG states that Eve was not deceived in the Garden at all, and uses a quote from Jeffrey R. Holland.
James Talmage seems to clearly Indicate Eve was deceived.
Was James Talmage wrong? Was Talamge talking about the Symbolic eve (representing us) while AG was speaking of the literal?
Anyway, there are several pats of this book do which enhance my Temple Worship, so I recommend it.
December 21, 2006 at 8:42 am
would the Prophets and Apostles — as the ultimate divinely inspired exegetes — be inspired to know this
Not necessarily, I think. Joseph Smith re-worded the Bible, but we don’t necessarily assume that the re-wording refects the original text. Would it be wrong to say that prophets tend to take scriptural texts at face-value and bend them to their own use?
December 21, 2006 at 9:02 am
I’ve long thought the most fruitful take on the Fall narrative is as an Everyman story. I’m delighted to hear that DB is publishing something interesting–their reputation has not been great recently. Kudos to Dr. Gaskill and kudos to DB. Re: deceit, i think there are many ways to consider the paradoxes of human existence, and deceit is as apt a trope as any.
December 21, 2006 at 9:12 am
We have this paradigm for recognizing something as true or false. We’re supposed to study it out in our own minds, then pray.
So can you “study out” the DH, that is, can you really work on the issues and challenges inherent in that approach, without serious attention to the appropriate languages and history on which it is built?
December 21, 2006 at 9:14 am
“pushing some very large red button labeled “Do Not Push,—
I wasn’t interested in reading the book until I got to that statement. Excuse me while I go order it.
“the most fruitful take on the Fall narrative”
Please tell me that wasn’t deliberate.
And thanks to Ronan and Br. Gaskill for this interview.
December 21, 2006 at 9:16 am
I disagree, Sam, Deseret book has done some really interesting things over the last couple of years (Kimball bio, Life and Teachings of Jesus series, etc.).
This was in my queue, but fairly far down…I think I’ll be bumping it up. That said, I’m not sure I understand Gaskill’s worry over having to grapple with the issue of the Prophetic office. Whether you accept JFS or BY or one of the other irreconcilable perspectives, there is going to be some challenge.
December 21, 2006 at 9:26 am
Alonzo suggests that we can figure out this kind of stuff with:
1. Basic logic.
2. The teachings of the living prophets regarding the doctrine of the Fall.
3. A healthy does of the Lord’s Spirit.
(He’s referring to the DH, but we can expand it to any religious question methinks. Mogget would add “study it out” to #1.)
I wonder if there’s a hierarchy in his thinking. What happens when one contradicts the other? And what if the “teachings of the living prophets” contradict each other?
Anyway, it’s knotty stuff and I congratulate AG for giving it a go. It won’t be to everyone’s liking.
December 21, 2006 at 9:51 am
One thing which was probably wise on Gaskill’s part, but I was a little disappointed in was that he didn’t directly address Evolution. He kept it at a very high level.
His logic around the historical need for the fall non-contradiction needs some added clarity for me also, so If any of you have read this (Ronan, have you actually read this?), If Eve was not deceived and it was not a contradictory commandment toeat the fruit, then how is the result a transgression?
I hope I am not detracting from anyone’s onpinion of the book, as all the chapters outside of the “doctrinal history” one are much more clear to me.
December 21, 2006 at 12:18 pm
I liked the button line, too. Reminds me of those Staples commercials where peopel press a big, red button marked EASY.
And I agree that we should see ourselves as if we were respectively Adam and Eve in the story. That’s a good approach, and one of the things I like about the temple, which encourages this.
I also think that Eve was not deceived and was the moral heroine in the story, a very heterodox yet fundamentally Mormon reading (whereas Talmage’s reading is more based on conventional Protestant thinking).
I personally wouldn’t expect the prophets to reach inspired conclusions about the DH. To me that line of thinking is what trips up people who can’t understand why GBH didn’t immediately perceive that Mark Hofmann was a crook and his documents forgeries, as if all he had to do is put on his magic prophetic x-ray goggles. People actually lose their faith over this, which I have a hard time understanding. To me, GBH is not an historian and was correct to rely on the professionals to evaluate these documents. Similarly, I wouldn’t expect an ex cathedra pronouncement on the DH out of SLC just based on prophetic inspiration alone.
December 21, 2006 at 12:53 pm
Kevin, while I do not disagree with you and Mr. Gaskill, his book, in my opinion, attempts to hold a sort of prophetic inerrancy for all statements by all GA. Thus I was wondering about the point of view supplied by Talmage directly and how he would respond to it.
At this point he either ignored it in his text or wasn’t aware of it. As it is in the OT institute manual, I don’t really believe he wasn’t aware of it, so I am curious as to his treatment of it.
Hope that clarifies my curiosity.
December 21, 2006 at 12:58 pm
Great interview Ronan.
December 21, 2006 at 1:02 pm
Yes, Matt W., it does. I certainly do not hole to any sort of prophetic inerrancy notion (and I haven’t read the book, I was just reacting to the thread). I’m the kind who will just come out and say Talmage was wrong, which makes a lot of LDS very nervous, I grant you. (grin)
December 21, 2006 at 1:17 pm
I do want to reiterate that I did like the book, and the interview. Of course, if I were to interview Alonzo Gaskill, I’d ask why he looks like he is about to kill someone in his mugshot? Maybe it’s a John Tvedtnes Tribute?
And Kevin: I always appreciate your forth-rightness.
December 21, 2006 at 1:25 pm
Just to round out the Eve/deception thing, the author of 1 Timothy does think that she was deceived, that is, “seduced wholly” (1 Ti 2:14).
I’ve not read how folks get around this rather straightforward statement, but perhaps it can be done.
December 21, 2006 at 3:33 pm
Interesting discussion, thanks.
I still don’t buy into the contradictory commandment thing, but I’ll have to go read Gaskill’s take on it.
Mogget, most people just ignore it, like we do with GA statements we don’t like
December 21, 2006 at 3:50 pm
Ben,
In my view there’s no contradictory commandment because Gen 1 belongs to a different source. How do you see it? But I want to add that I’ve come to read Genesis how the Redactor intends it to be read, or at least try to. For whatever reason R wanted P and J to be read together, and of course that is how it is presented in modern scripture. Also, I invoke sensus plenior! Let us argue the sensus.
Alonzo’s reading is his own. I think it will provoke further thought. Going back to a comment Matt made: I’m delighted that the book avoid distractions about Adam’s place in history. Adam = “you and me” is about the best advice we can give a reader.
December 21, 2006 at 4:09 pm
Mogget, I’d guess “the author of Timothy” and Talmage would both be said to be speaking of the Adam and Eve story, and not to the Adam and Eve actuality.
Of course, where the story begins and the actuality ends is a very wide spectrum of debate, with the dividing line being different almost on an individual basis.
December 21, 2006 at 4:33 pm
Perhaps Eve was not deceived as to the act and its necessity but was deceived as to her punishments. My modern mind sees “he shall rule over thee” for doing something that had to be done as pretty severe.
December 21, 2006 at 4:37 pm
Molly Bennion, that is an extremely interesting comment.
December 21, 2006 at 4:39 pm
Yes indeed, a really great comment.
December 21, 2006 at 4:45 pm
“For whatever reason R wanted P and J to be read together”
Help me, I’m out of my depth here: What’s the rationale for thinking that R ever thought, “I’ll put these together because they make a coherent, non-contradictory whole” as opposed to thinking that R thought, “I’m not going to try to mediate, I’ll just put it all on the table and leave it for the reader to sort out this contradictory mess.” I’m thinking in the second instance of something like the Psalms, where we have entire psalms repeated verbatim–no effort to coordinate or synthesize, but just to record everything.
December 21, 2006 at 5:23 pm
I would like to point out that Gaskill’s response on the Documentary Hypothesis is rather odd. Saying that it can be essentially ignored because “the Brethren never consider it as an explanation (in their writings on the Fall)†rather side-steps the issue. Most of the Brethren probably don’t understand the DH or know about it, so they couldn’t be expected to comment on it or incorporate it in their commentary. They were facing the text as it is received and trying to make sense of it. Whether the DH helps or not is another matter, but their lack of awareness of it doesn’t tell us whether it is useful or not. And I don’t buy into it that just because they weren’t inspired to know about it means that it is false: there are lots of things that are true that may not matter at any given time.
Whether we like it or not, the exegetical strategies of most LDS folks, GAs included, tends to be either essentially fundamentalist (with the “translated correctly†escape clause that lets us get out of anything, including things that are in fact translated correctly), or crypto-fundamentalist. By the latter I mean that we tend to assume that there is a correct reading and that the text conceals that meaning (you try to get behind symbols), but there is still a correct meaning. In general I think crypto-fundamentalist describes Gaskill’s strategy from what I have read of him.
As another point, I would have to fundamentally reverse Gaskill’s three points in interpreting whether something is literal or symbolic (I think the dichotomy presumed here reveals the crypto-fundamentalist assumption: scripture does not need to be one or the other, why could it not be both/and?). “Basic logic†is seldom as basic as we would like to think and always rests on a priori assumptions. The spirit should be the starting point. What the Brethren have to say is valid, but should be taken with a grain of salt since we don’t hold them to be inerrant and, as in the case of the DH, they often do not know everything that might be relevant.
In any event, a lot of the determinations regarding symbolism that Gaskill makes are not based on any of the three criteria he lists. For example, in his book The Lost Language of Symbolism, he treats the Epistle of Barnabus (without crediting it) as a more or less authoritative guide to interpreting the Law of Moses’ prohibition on the eating certain animals (weasels, camels, hares, etc.) in terms of them representing various classes of immoral people, even though it probably would not pass any of the criteria for determination for today’s audience. I suppose criterion #3 is a trump card and he can claim that he was inspired to know that it was correct, but Mary Douglas’ anthropological interpretation in terms of boundary maintenance (for example) makes a lot more sense.
Finally, regarding Mogget’s question, the presumption is that the author of I Timothy knew something we don’t. I would argue that the author was part of a long exegetical tradition, but I wouldn’t put too much weight on those words. (The question reveals a fundamentally fundamentalist interpretive strategy…) The better question to ask is why the author interpreted the Genesis account in that way and how he was using it and to what point.
Best,
Károly
December 21, 2006 at 5:45 pm
15. RE: 1 Tim 2:14 And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression, just this week I noticed something about the next verse which KJV has as,
Notwithstanding she shall be saved in childbearing, if they continue in faith and charity and holiness with sobriety. (1 Tim 2:15)
This sounds as if woman can be saved by enduring the pains of childbirth, as if the reason it brought so much pain was somehow to pay for her transgression in Eden.
The JST footnote to this verse changes one word to read:
Notwithstanding they shall be saved in childbearing, if they continue in faith and charity and holiness with sobriety,
which now has the flavor of the parents being saved by providing bodies for their children and continuing in faith and charity. This view unites husband and wife in God’s work and glory (Mos 1:39) — bringing to pass their children’s immortality, by procreating their bodies that will become immortal and in fostering eternal life by lifting their children and each other in “faith and charity and holiness with sobriety” — instead of separating transgressor from innocent spouse.
This fits well with latter-day comments like DOM’s about heaven being a continuation of the ideal home on earth and HBL’s about our most important work being within the walls of our own home.
December 21, 2006 at 7:24 pm
fundamentally fundamentalist interpretive strategy
Oh dude! I am so the last person on earth that you could possibly confuse with a fundamentalist!
Actually, what it reveals is an awareness that a definitive, responsible, historical-critical, diachronic presentation of the Genesis story will have to take into account the NT insights. No serious work can ignore them — or the DH.
Better now?
December 21, 2006 at 7:48 pm
Mogget, my apologies. I read the question on I Timothy, and it seemed that you were proof texting and asking how anyone who thought Eve was not deceived could get around the text. Without knowing you or anything else you have posted, I think my reading of the question by itself was reasonable. Your response, however, demonstrates that my reading was wrong. So please accept my apologies.
It doesn’t change the fact, however, that LDS folks do, by and large, employ basically fundamentalist reading techniques. We say we don’t, because we tend not to want to be lumped with “Bible-believing evangelicals” who adhere to the doctrine that everything in scripture is literally true or can be redacted to a fixed, singular meaning, but out exegetical methods tend to be pretty similar (and similarly crude). I’m glad you don’t do this.
I have a hard time with Gaskill (and JF McConkie, who wrote the blurbs for one of his books) because their reading techniques overdetermine the text’s meaning. In my opinion, at least part of likening the scriptures to oneself is being open to the idea that meaning is not fixed, but is always in dialogue with culture, the individual, other texts, etc. Because that system is open, trying to fix it to specific meanings is a lesson in futility. That is not to say that there is no meaning, or that the text can mean anything: the fact that it is this text and not another text keeps meaning from dissolving into meaninglessness.
The irony is that Gaskill would probably maintain that in his work on symbols he is saving LDS thought from fundamentalism, but to me it looks like all he has done is recast the fundamentalist reading strategy in a way that says meaning can be in disguise, but it is still fixed. In his approach you just need the key to reread the symbolic passages as though they were literal and you are done.
December 21, 2006 at 8:18 pm
Oh no, I’m not upset. I so agree with what you’ve written. It just cracked me up, but I also wanted to set things straight.
December 21, 2006 at 9:36 pm
I’m quite out of my league on this, but I recently read Miquoting Jesus, and if I’m not mistaken, Ehrman argues that 1 Tim 2:14 made its way into the NT as a result of fights over the role of women in the Church.
Comments?
December 22, 2006 at 8:37 am
Jared, that is exactly the kind of question we need to ask about scripture. Rather than taking it as drops from heaven distilling, we need to ask why what is written was written. Just because something was written ~ 2000 years ago doesn’t change the fact that its writers were writing in response to their time and place.
As an example, if you look at the BoM, Mormon uses skin color as emblematic of broader moral issues. Realizing that he has a rhetorical usage of skin color to hammer home his points ought to make us at least question whether searches for Indians that look like Scandinavians would make any sense.
December 22, 2006 at 8:51 am
FWIW in “Savior and the Serpent”, Gaskill does give multiple views on single sources at times, allowing readers the cafeteria approach of taking what is meaningful to them. Gaskill’s books all focus on the symbolism and meaning for us, using modern scripture and modern exegesis. (By Modern I mean all in CE) He does a good job of taking sources from outside the LDS view, and incorporating them with the LDS view.
I haven’t read his other books, but this one was interesting and worth reading, especially in light of Temple worship.