The First Man

[This is part of a series of posts I initiated with Book of Mormon Scholarship as an Elias for Evolution.]

It's time to wrap up this series. Any attempt within LDS circles to accommodate human history as revealed by science must sooner or later deal with the following fact: the scriptures refer to Adam as the 'first man' several times. In my opinion the most important one is the one most often quoted--Moses 3:7--so we will concentrate on it.

Moses 3:6-8

6 But I, the Lord God, spake, and there went up a mist from the earth, and watered the whole face of the ground.

7 And I, the Lord God, formed man from the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul, the first flesh upon the earth, the first man also; nevertheless, all things were before created; but spiritually were they created and made according to my word.

8 And I, the Lord God, planted a garden eastward in Eden, and there I put the man whom I had formed.

The first thing to notice is the strange choice of wording. The reference to 'man' is rather generic. God "formed man," and "man became a living soul, "the first man." Why doesn't it use the name of Adam, or refer to the man, as it does in the next verse? This oddity may or may not have any relevance to the overall discussion, but it is worth noting.

One other thing should be noted up front. This passage from the Book of Moses comes from Joseph Smith's revision of the Bible--the 'Joseph Smith Translation' (JST). Although some parts of the JST are entirely original material, it is clear that this passage is grounded in the Biblical (KJV) text. I don't think it out of bounds to suggest that this passage may reflect Joseph's understanding based on Biblical tradition more than the actual words of God. In Joseph's day, it was obvious that Adam was the 'first man,' so it seems unlikely that this passage was intended to bear such theological weight as it has now come to. However, many people would undoubtedly reject this idea, and I'm not ready to defend it, so I won't press it further.

One popular way of dealing with this passage is to play with the meaning of the word 'man.' The usual argument is that although there were many anatomically modern humans on the planet, the first 'man' was the one into whom God put a spirit that was one of his spirit children. I don't like this argument and I don't think it really solves any problems. In fact I think it actually creates potential for racism. I mention it simply because it is popular.

Alternatively, we can focus on the meaning of the word 'first.' Sterling Talmage, son of Apostle James E. Talmage, argued as follows [1]:

Such use of "first," as indicating preeminence instead of chronological precedence, is well established as an acceptable idiom in other languages as well as English. This usage does not lack other scriptural warrant; for instance, the firstling of the flocks, demanded for the Mosaic sacrifices, were the finest of the lambs not the oldest of the rams.

With this thought in mind, it has always seemed to me that the expression quoted, designating Adam as the "first flesh upon the earth, the first man also," was simply the fulfillment of the fiat in the preceding chapter regarding the preeminence of man among created beings: "Let them have dominion over the fishes of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth."

Talmage's argument has real-world support. In a post from a couple of years ago I pointed out that someone once referred to Galielo as "the first man in the world," something that may sound strange to our ears but clearly did not denote chronology. I also suggested that Henry Eyring seemed to have an alternative meaning in mind when he wrote, "Adam was the one whom God recognized as presiding over the first dispensation and as such, with Eve his wife, became our first parents."

On the other hand, a lineage history has to start with someone, and that someone would necessarily be the chronologically first person in the story. It seems clear that the prophets of the scriptures really did think Adam and Eve were the first people (chronologically) on Earth. What reason would they--or Joseph Smith, for that matter--have to think otherwise? None, unless God told them so.

This brings us to a third option--that the creation scriptures serve a purpose other than science and history. The statement that 'man' became "the first flesh upon the earth, the first man also," comes in the midst of a largely figurative story, and within the confines of the story it makes perfect sense. It was only following scientific discoveries, and in retrospect, that the statement and its meaning became significant. But what if God did not intend the statement to be universally definitive? What if his purpose was more literary, helping to tell a story sufficient for the Israelites' needs (such as explaining what made them and their God superior to the surrounding empires)? I'm reminded of the words of Aslan in The Horse and His Boy, by C.S. Lewis.

"Child," said the Voice, "I am telling you your story, not hers. I tell no one any story but his own."

Returning to the figurative nature of the story, the very same verse says that God "formed man from the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life," something that even Joseph Fielding Smith and Bruce R. McConkie did not take literally [2]. It seems fair to question whether such micro-dissection of the text--dividing a single verse between literal and figurative--is warranted.

To summarize the argument sketched out in this series of posts: Just as science has required us to re-evaluate the popular understanding of the scope of the Book of Mormon, it also requires us to re-evaluate the place of Adam and Eve in human history. As far as we know, Adam was the first prophet and holder of the priesthood. The story of Adam and Eve and their descendants is a lineage history. As such, it ignores those who lived before or contemporaneously with Adam because, as far as the gospel (and Israelite superiority) is concerned, the story begins with him. Scriptures that indicate that Adam and Eve were the first humans can often be interpreted in alternative ways that are still consistent with scripture. Others can be attributed to the cultural context of the writers. Further, the early chapters of Genesis/Moses contain occasional odd elements that may hint at the presence of outsiders.

I enjoyed writing this series. I hope it was enjoyable to read and found to be useful.

Notes:

1. Sterling Talmage, Can Science Be Faith-Promoting?, p. 168-169
2. The meaning of 'first flesh' is also problematic, something I will take up in a post outside of this series.

---