Can Latter-day Saints have a non-literal view of the creation story?

There are three relevant areas for answering this question.

1: The philosophy of history

"Philosophy of history" means that when we approach the "historical Adam" we have to be aware that there are many different ways to understand the material as history. Our notion of history is very different from the sense that history had when the Old Testament was written. What we try to achieve with history and our sense of "telling the truth" is very different from the author of Genesis's.

This is only an issue if we believe we should understand the history of the Old Testament or historical truth as we understand them.

2: The issue of the first man

We want to understand how Adam and Eve are like us, and at the same time try to how they are different. Again, what the text is trying to tell us? Various interpretations exist which treat different parts of the story as metaphorical and other parts as literal—and in many cases the interpretations can be completely divergent

We often we have to make decisions as to how we will understand certain elements—inevitably, few if any people have a completely literal understanding of the Genesis account of Adam, just few have an entirely metaphorical take.

3: Doctrinal concerns

Genesis must be interpreted in some way. Some of these interpretations conflict with knowledge obtained from other sources, such as modern scientific knowledge. A key debate is how much weight we should grant to these different sources of information.

In one view, we try to understand the time period of Genesis literally, and the age of the earth then as being finite (a mere few thousand years). In another, there are those who accept that the earth seems to be very old, complete with a long fossil record of life. If this information is given considerable weight, then the earth is ancient and the Genesis account's report of "days" is read in a less literal sense.

What is the Church's position on Adam and Eve?

The Church consistently insists that there is a historical Adam

What does this mean? Some members take this to mean that the narrative in Genesis should be understood in some way as a literal history. For others, it means that there is little more than the assertion that in all of God's creation over a very long period of time (early members at the time of Joseph Smith speculated that it could be billions of years) there is a certain point when we have the first man (as a child of God).

Some bits are core, or "non-negotiable"

Given these commitments, there are still a variety of ways that one might read the accounts:

1. Adam and Eve as historic individuals (D&C 137꞉5; 138꞉38-39), the very first humans.
2. Adam being the first in a line of priesthood-holding patriarchs among other humans (D&C 84꞉16; Abraham 1꞉3; Alma 13꞉7-9).
3. Adam and Eve being the first of God's spirit children among other human-like beings.
4. Adam and even with bodies that are the product of organic evolutionary processes (whether directed by God or not).

Our presuppositions and the weight we give to other sources of information will determine which we find most appealing

Beyond the existence of a historical Adam, the rest can be understood literally or metaphorically, or more commonly as a mixture of these extreme positions

Most members of the Church are somewhere on a spectrum between completely literal and completely metaphoric. Consider, for example, this comment in the Ensign in 1994:

This concept is further solidified by the description of the creation of woman as being formed from the rib of Adam—a rib being a metaphor for a person corresponding to Adam. Modern prophets have taught that the creation of woman from the rib of the man is to be taken figuratively. (See Spencer W. Kimball, "{{{article}}}," Ensign (Mar. 1976), 71..) ^[1]

Most of the leaders of the Church have understood the use of Adam's rib as a metaphor and not some literal history

Most of the leaders of the Church have understood the use of Adam's rib as a metaphor and not some literal history - even while the same leaders would assert that other parts of the narrative of Adam and Eve should be understood literally.

Less essential aspects of the Garden account

Most aspects of the Genesis account do not have significant doctrinal imprortance or a definitive interpretation in scripture.

• When did the fall happen?—D&C 77꞉12 discussed seven periods of one thousand years for the world's temporal existence. Given that Doctrine and Covenants states that we don’t know when the Savior will come and won’t know until he comes (D&C 49꞉7), many see the seven thousand years of D&C 77 as idealized blocks of time, not precise numbers that can be used for historical dating.

• In what order did the creation events happen?—The creation accounts don't agree exact with the sequence and time frame of various creative events. This is okay, since the ancient writers never meant to give a scientific explanation of the cosmos. The Encyclopedia of Mormonism writes:

:The scriptures tell why man was created, but they do not tell how, though the Lord has promised that he will tell that when he comes again (D&C 101꞉32-33)^[2]

• Was there death for any creature prior to the Fall of Adam?—on this issue the Church has no official position. Given that there is substantial fossil evidence of organisms who lived and died for millions of years, many have concluded that the scientific evidence should be given considerable weight since there is no clear scriptural or theological reason to insist on the complete absence of death. Others have felt that this point ought not to be abandoned, and that the scientific data is misleading. The latter conclusion assumes a very high burden of proof, however.

• Was there procreation of any sort prior to the Fall of Adam?—The Church likewise has no official position on this question. The factors and priorities discussed in the previous entry apply here too.

• When and how did Adam and Eve receive spirits into their bodies?—The Church's official magazine gave three possibilities in 1910:

Whether the mortal bodies of man evolved in natural processes to present perfection, through the direction and power of God; whether the first parents of our generations, Adam and Eve, were transplanted from another sphere, with immortal tabernacles, which became corrupted through sin and the partaking of natural foods, in the process of time; whether they were born here in mortality, as other mortals have been, are questions not fully answered in the revealed word of God.^[3]

Here again, our belief about other sources of information will sway us one way or the other.

• The Adamic language—Latter-day Saint teaching discussed a primordial pure language.^[4] The particulars are not of any great importance, and a variety of points of view are possible.

• How Adam and Eve entered the garden—We learn from scripture that no unclean thing can enter God's presence (1 Nephi 10꞉21;15꞉24; Alma 7꞉21; 11꞉37; 40꞉26; Hel 8꞉25; 3 Ne. 27꞉19; Doctrine and Covenants 94꞉8; 97:15; 109:20). We also learn that God is perfect (Matthew 5꞉48; 3 Nephi 12꞉48).

If this is so, then the way in which Adam and Eve enter the Garden may be important. If the origin of their bodies is option 1 or 2 given above, then they would be perfect and clean. If they developed through mortal processes and were born of mortals, then their bodies would need to be cleansed and perfected before going into the Garden.

• Did Adam and Eve mix with extant populations outside the garden?—The answer to this depends upon whether one believes there were any other humans outside the garden, or whether all are literal, exclusive descendants from Adam and Eve.

First Presidency statement (1931): "Leave geology, biology, archaeology and anthropology, no one of which has to do with the salvation of the souls of mankind, to scientific research"

The First Presidency said in 1931,

Upon the fundamental doctrines of the Church we are all agreed. Our mission is to bear the message of the restored Gospel to the people of the world. Leave geology, biology, archaeology and anthropology, no one of which has to do with the salvation of the souls of mankind, to scientific research, while we magnify our calling in the realm of the Church.

We can see no advantage to be gained by a continuation of the discussion to which reference is here made, but on the contrary are certain that it would lead to confusion, division and misunderstanding if carried further. Upon one thing we should all be able to agree namely, that presidents Joseph F. Smith, John Winder and Anthon Lund were right when they said: "Adam is the primal parent of our race."^[5]

How does the Church explain the existence of human-like beings on the earth prior to Adam?

There has been a great deal of controversy among Church members over the issue of pre-Adamites

When studying the creation, how do we deal with the evidence of creatures that looked a lot like man, who lived and made tools, painted paintings, etc., all before what could be the existence of Adam? How do we answer who they were? Are they like animals? We clearly have evidence that they have lived here on this planet.

There has been a great deal of controversy among Church members over the issue of pre-Adamites. Some general authorities accepted evidence for their existence, while others completely denied it. The most famous disagreement was between Elders B.H. Roberts and Joseph Fielding Smith. Following this debate, the First Presidency wrote to the general authorities

Both parties [i.e., Elders Smith and Roberts] make the scripture and the statements of men who have been prominent in the affairs of the Church the basis of their contention; neither has produced definite proof in support of his views…

Upon the fundamental doctrines of the Church we are all agreed. Our mission is to bear the message of the restored Gospel to the people of the world. Leave geology, biology, archaeology and anthropology, no one of which has to do with the salvation of the souls of mankind, to scientific research, while we magnify our calling in the realm of the Church.

We can see no advantage to be gained by a continuation of the discussion to which reference is here made, but on the contrary are certain that it would lead to confusion, division and misunderstanding if carried further. Upon one thing we should all be able to agree namely, that presidents Joseph F. Smith, John Winder and Anthon Lund were right when they said: "Adam is the primal parent of our race."^[6]

Elder James E. Talmage noted in his journal:

...Involved in this question is that of the beginning of life upon the earth, and as to whether there was death either of animal or plant before the fall of Adam, on which proposition Elder Smith was very pronounced in denial and Elder Roberts equally forceful in the affirmative. As to whether Preadamite races existed upon the earth there has been much discussion among some of our people of late. The decision reached by the First Presidency, and announced to this morning's assembly, was in answer to a specific question that obviously the doctrine of the existence of races of human beings upon the earth prior to the fall of Adam was not a doctrine of the Church; and, further, that the conception embodied in the belief of many to the effect that there were no such Preadamite races, and that there was no death upon the earth prior to Adam's fall is likewise declared to be no doctrine of the Church. I think the decision of the First Presidency is a wise one in the premises. This is one of the many things upon which we cannot preach with assurance and dogmatic assertions on either side are likely to do harm rather than good. ^[7]

Hugh Nibley: "Do not begrudge existence to creatures that looked like men long, long ago, nor deny them a place in God's affection or even a right to exaltation"

Probably the best approach is the one taken by Hugh Nibley:

Do not begrudge existence to creatures that looked like men long, long ago, nor deny them a place in God's affection or even a right to exaltation — for our scriptures allow them such. Nor am I overly concerned as to just when they might have lived, for their world is not our world. They have all gone away long before our people ever appeared. God assigned them their proper times and functions, as he has given me mine — a full-time job that admonishes me to remember his words to the overly eager Moses: "For mine own purpose have I made these things. Here is wisdom and it remaineth in me." ([https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/scriptures/bofm/mosiah/1?lang=eng&id=p31#p31 Moses 1꞉31].) It is Adam as my own parent who concerns me. When he walks onto the stage, then and only then the play begins. ^[8]

The science has advanced substantially since Nibley's article, and so its scientific claims should no longer be considered current. However, his theologic and historic perspective is still useful.

Notes

1. ↑ "I Have a Quetion: What does it mean when the Lord said he would create for Adam 'an help meet for him'? ([https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/scriptures/ot/gen/2?lang=eng&id=p18#p18 Gen. 2꞉18.)]," Ensign (January 1994).
2. ↑ William E. Evenson "Evolution" in Encyclopedia of Mormonism (ed.) Daniel Ludlow, (New York, NY: MacMillian Publishing, 1992)
3. ↑ Editorial (unsigned) [Joseph F. Smith as president of the Church and Edward H. Anderson were editors], "Priesthood Quorums’ Table," Improvement Era 13 no. 4? (April 1910), 570.
4. ↑ See "Sample of Pure Language, between circa 4 and circa 20 March 1832," (accessed 3 April 2019).
5. ↑ First Presidency, Memorandum to General Authorities, April 1931, 6–7.
6. ↑ First Presidency, Memorandum to General Authorities, April 1931, 6–7.
7. ↑ James Edward Talmage, Personal Journal (7 April 1931) 29:42, Archives and Manuscripts, Harold B. Lee Library, Brigham Young University, Provo, Utah (emphasis added).
8. ↑ Hugh W. Nibley, "Before Adam," in {{Nibley1|start=82|end=83]]{{GL1|url=http://gospelink.com/library/contents/866]]{{link|url=http://farms.byu.edu/display.php?table=transcripts&id=73]]

The Church does not take an official position on this issue