December 7, 2009
Edward Cullen is Adam-God
John Granger makes a compelling case for why Twilight isn’t just mindless fluff.*
In a nutshell, Bella is Eve and Edward is the Adam-God of Mormon theology. Their “Fall”—when Bella/Eve/Man chooses the apple from the tray of Edward/Adam/God, although rife with dangers and difficulties, is the beginning of a spiritual transformation culminated by an alchemical wedding with the God-Man. The story is a romantic allegory depicting the roles and responsibilities of the divine and human lovers, but it has the specifically Mormon hermetic twist that sex within marriage is the endgame and the only means to personal salvation and immortal life.
The article is actually quite fascinating, I’ve read it twice. Bonus points: send it to your Christian sister who doesn’t want her kids to read those sexy vampire books.
(*You might find it hard to read if you struggle with concentrating on black text on a white background sans photographs and ads.)
comments
8 Responses to “Edward Cullen is Adam-God”
Leave a Reply
Well Granger had me interested, although skeptical. That is until I reached the part of where he claims that Mormonism was started in Europe in the 1660’s.
All the stuff before that which seemed a stretch I could forgive as a kind of stretching to make stuff fit, but saying that Mormonism started in 1660’s Europe (I mean unless you are referencing and giving heed to LDS views that God started preparing the way for Joseph Smith WELL in advance of his 1800’s American Frontier restoration–that’s about the only chance Mr Granger has of trying to eek out some respectability from such a blunder of a claim) seems to demonstrate to me an appalling lack of respect for reality, genuine research, and just overall logic. I mean come on, when you’re claiming an inside view to how a present cultural event is connected to the highly developed theology of a relatively new on the scene Global faith movement and you get the start date for that faith movement off by almost 200 years (I mean seriously, can you imagine a Christian critic claiming Christ established Christianity while wandering around in South Africa close to 200 BC? and then claiming some inside scoop on modern conditions relative to traditional Christian theology?) how much credibility is then to be attributed to your other connections? Especially if they were a stretch to start with?
Entertaining read, and there is something there to be seen, I believe (being a Latter-day Saint/Mormon myself) but come on Granger, 1660’s Europe
It is not ignorance on Granger’s part, Hive, but a particular perspective that assumes that Mormonism deepest roots are from more heterodox perspectives emerging in 16th century Reformation. See this comment about the book The Refiner’s Fire: The Making of Mormon Cosmology, 1644-1844 for more information.
I don’t know much about the merit of the argument since it falls (just) outside my academic interests, but it is a legitimate scholarly perspective.
In other words, Granger did do his homework.
Again, I am not saying Granger is right or wrong on the subject, just that he isn’t being dumb.
So… basically.. the reason that it isn’t mindless fluff is that it is closely related to Mormon theology…. riiight….
Granger’s assumptions seem flawed by the fact he wants to find associations where truly there are no associations to make to explain why this or that with in Mormonism. It makes me laugh only because it proves the point sometimes something is what it is, without the their being a rational explanation for it.
I being Mormon find it just as laughable his assumption that we equate Adam with God when we clearly don’t. I could explicitly show this but it won’t matter a wit if you have already made that assumption like he has. Thus the associations he has made in history based on this one false assumption makes it go all eschewed.
I wonder if Granger looks as closely at fantasy books written by authors of other faiths trying to find that hidden message or what not.
Sooper: The reason it isn’t mindless fluff is because, if Granger is right, there’s a greater apologetic work going on. I find that remarkably interesting. It could all be nonsense, but Granger seems to believe Meyer is more capable than that.
Severed: Granger has previously dealt with dissecting the Harry Potter books from a protestant outlook, I believe. Did you read the whole article? He lays out his case for Edward as Adam fairly well.
John Granger’s piece is, shall we say, “interesting”. Because it appears to exist in as much of an alternate universe as Stephanie Meyer’s stories. This is not the Mormon world that I know (I am one myself). First problem is that Brooke’s Refiner’s Fire makes assertions about Mormonism that no Mormon would know, or advocate. It was rubbished long ago as being worthless for obtaining an understanding of Mormonism. Meyer is unlikely to even be AWARE of Brookes, and even if she was, she would not agree with his assertions. Hence, the parallel that Granger finds with Brooke is merely coincidence. Second, Mormons do not normally associate meadows with terror and shame, despite allusions to Mountain Meadows Massacre, we are not fixated on it to that extent. Meyer is highly unlikely to have ever made such a connection in her own mind. The connection is just Granger’s own idle speculation. Third, the Hale name is surely just coincidence as well. It is not a central part of Mormon folklore, just a peripheral datum. Fourth, Adam-God is indeed a substrate of Mormon thought, but it has been out of the mainstream for more than a century (and was never entirely accepted by the Church membership before that). This is so far back that I simply cannot believe that Meyer would have such a theory floating on the horizon. It is not a part of modern Mormonism for her to draw on. For the rest of the parallelism that Granger discovers, in our Pelagian tendencies, our fondness for the Fall, and the emphasis on sex within marriage and abstinence outside it, I acknowledge that this is fairly astute. However, I cannot see that Meyer is consciously manipulating the plot line, it just happens to be the ethical milieu that she comes from.
Caveat: I have not read Meyer, although I have a teenage daughter who has devoured every word… Does this count?
[...] (via clusterflock) [...]
David, thank you so much for your thoughtful comment. I appreciated it. I went to go see New Moon again last night and read it while I was watching New Moon in a weird real-life intersection.
I tend to agree that Meyer wasn’t that aware, having read all the books, but I want to believe that maybe she was.