Comparing Creation Accounts

I recently discussed a little bit of Biblical scholarship and its bearing on the creation story in Genesis. Taking a more allegorical or poetic view of the Genesis creation account--particularly considering its cultural context and current scientific understanding--is a tempting way to go. However given that the other LDS creation accounts build upon the Genesis framework, one might be excused for hesitating before throwing Genesis into the bin of pre-scientific mythology. Furthermore, the accounts in the Book of Moses and the Book of Abraham bill themselves as the words of God. After relating the familiar account of the creation and the episode of the Garden of Eden, Moses 4:32 states:

And these are the words which I spake unto my servant Moses, and they are true even as I will; and I have spoken them unto you.

Even among believing LDS scholars there is debate over the extent to which Joseph's "translations" consisted of restoring original text versus adding prophetic insights or clarifying difficult passages. But even when the creation accounts are taken on their own terms, we find that the Moses passage quoted above need not be interpreted as endorsement of an overly-literal approach.

Continue Reading

Latter-day Saints inherited the Genesis account as part of their Christian background, and the accounts of the Book of Moses, the Book of Abraham, and the temple were received over a period of time, in that order. Although there are obvious similarities between them, there are some interesting differences as well [1].

Genesis --> Moses --> Abraham --> temple

As we move from Genesis to the temple, the days of creation become less important. Although the days of Genesis and Moses have a literal sense to them, Abraham begins to blur the lines of interpretation by also refering to them as times. In the temple account the days have no astronomical or time significance at all. Furthermore the creative acts of each day are divided somewhat differently in the temple account, resulting in a slight change of order that is more consistent with the scientific scenario. A couple of other details of the temple account--that I leave as an exercise for the reader--also seem more consistent with science.

My point here is that regardless of how accurately the various creation stories reflect God's words, none can be held up as the gold standard of reality without clashing to some degree with other accounts. When we also consider the fact that at least some elements of the Garden of Eden story (creation from the dust, creation from a rib, opposite trees and fruit) have been identified as figurative by Church leaders such as Brigham Young, Spencer W. Kimball, and Bruce R. McConkie, it becomes clear that Moses 4:32 cannot constitute an endorsement of scientific accuracy.

So if the creation accounts as recorded in Genesis, the Book of Moses, and the Book of Abraham do not reflect scientific accuracy, what are they? My suggestion is that the answer comes from language that introduces the temple creation account: they are representations.

---

1. The LDS Church Educational System's Institute manual for the Pearl of Great Price contains a convenient table, A Harmony of the Creation Accounts.