a thought

[zil]

4 minutes ago, mordorbund said:

Ah but modern revelation has corrected this old sectarian tradition that Satan is a male.

D&C 52:14 - "Satan is a broad in the land" - broads are female. What's more, we even know her name!

Moses 1:12-14:

"Satan came tempting him, saying: Moses, son of man, worship me. And it came to pass that Moses looked upon Satan and said: Who art thou? For behold, I am a son of God, in the similitude of his Only Begotten; and where is thy glory, that I should worship thee? For behold, I could not look upon God, except his gloryshould come upon me, and I were transfigured before him. But I can look upon thee in the natural man. Is it not so, Shirley?"

I've never known a man to be called Shirley that didn't bristle at it.

 

The 70's called.  They want their joke back!

[prisonchaplain]

1 hour ago, NightSG said:

Have you ever known a woman to remember that she freely made a choice when it turned out badly for her?

I can neither confirm nor deny . . .

[mordorbund]

20 minutes ago, zil said:

The 70's called.  They want their joke back!

<yawn> Let me know when it gets the attention of The 12.

[Traveler]

1 hour ago, prisonchaplain said:

.....  The decision to take the fruit (whether Adam was right with her silently agreeing or not--I believe the former), was sin.  She did disobey God.

Have I got this right?

I believe the proper term is a transgression of the law.  Is there a technical difference between a transgression of the law and a sin?  This may be semantics.   We do logically make a distinction with infants and small children concerning such matters that a child does not sin even in a transgression of the law.

 

The Traveler

[prisonchaplain]

My understanding is that Adam & Eve knew they were not supposed to eat the fruit. They had been told this by God.  This same God spent time with them each day.  So, I would say that Adam & Eve knew enough that their disobedience was sin.  Genesis 3 God pronounces judgments that are the result of what they have done.  These punishment do not appear to be just discipline, as they carry on even to our generation.  Is the LDS teaching that Adam & Eve were too innocent/ignorant to have truly "sinned?"

[askandanswer]

I've known one or two females who could be considered as rather broad, and they would surely bristle if I ever mentioned that. 

[Traveler]

I use to joke when I was at BYU - that while some were planning a semester abroad my plan was a broad a semester.  One time my mother over heard my joking around and confronted me somewhat indigently with the question and accusation that I must think that I am G-d’s gift to women.  Oh no Mom,  I responded, “You have it all wrong and backwards – I have always thought they were his gift to me”.  I was not my mother’s favorit.  

 

The Traveler

[Just_A_Guy]

47 minutes ago, prisonchaplain said:

My understanding is that Adam & Eve knew they were not supposed to eat the fruit. They had been told this by God.  This same God spent time with them each day.  So, I would say that Adam & Eve knew enough that their disobedience was sin.  Genesis 3 God pronounces judgments that are the result of what they have done.  These punishment do not appear to be just discipline, as they carry on even to our generation.  Is the LDS teaching that Adam & Eve were too innocent/ignorant to have truly "sinned?"

Per Elder Dallin H. Oaks:

[The] contrast between a sin and a transgression reminds us of the careful wording in the second article of faith: "We believe that men will be punished for their own sins, and not for Adam’s transgression" (italics added). It also echoes a familiar distinction in the law. Some acts, like murder, are crimes because they are inherently wrong. Other acts, like operating without a license, are crimes only because they are legally prohibited. Under these distinctions, the act that produced the Fall was not a sin—inherently wrong—but a transgression—wrong because it was formally prohibited. These words are not always used to denote something different, but this distinction seems meaningful in the circumstances of the Fall” (in Conference Report, Oct. 1993, 98; or Ensign, Nov. 1993, 73).

[prisonchaplain]

@Just_A_Guy you answered the legal question with your usual excellence. On the other hand, there is a question of how wrong were they?  Some suggest Adam & Eve bore only the most minor of blame, because they had never experienced doing wrong, and so could not understand the gravity and results. Others, myself included, argue that they defied God. Satan's challenge forced them to decide if they were going to believe and continue to serve God, or if they would believe the Serpent, who called God a liar and said they could decide for themselves right from wrong.

[zil]

29 minutes ago, Just_A_Guy said:

Per Elder Dallin H. Oaks:

,...

Leave it to you to quote a lawyer.  

[Just_A_Guy]

@prisonchaplain, for my part I think it was basically a situation of their doing the right thing for the wrong reason and/or at the wrong time.

It's probably worth noting that our Moses 3:17 supplements the Genesis narrative of God's injunction in the garden, as follows:

Quote

But of the tree of the ^aknowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it, nevertheless, thou mayest ^bchoose for thyself, for it is given unto thee; but, remember that I ^cforbid it, for in the ^dday thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely ^edie. [Emphasis added]

From this some Mormons have gone so far to suggest that Adam and Eve weren't even really disobeying--that God was merely offering them a choice, with an accompanying if/then scenario so that their decision could be informed.  Frankly, I think this is stretching things--to me it seems clear from our scriptural narrative as well as from the drama as enacted in our temples, that God did not want Adam and Eve to partake of the fruit; at least not at that particular time.  Adam and Eve knew it, and that's why they hid when they heard God's voice demanding they account for their actions.

Edited September 13, 2016 by Just_A_Guy

[Traveler]

19 hours ago, prisonchaplain said:

@Just_A_Guy you answered the legal question with your usual excellence. On the other hand, there is a question of how wrong were they?  Some suggest Adam & Eve bore only the most minor of blame, because they had never experienced doing wrong, and so could not understand the gravity and results. Others, myself included, argue that they defied God. Satan's challenge forced them to decide if they were going to believe and continue to serve God, or if they would believe the Serpent, who called God a liar and said they could decide for themselves right from wrong.

It is interesting that there is thought and discussion about blame and yet I have never encountered even the slightest thought that G-d himself is in any way responsible from the religious community that is so anxious to attach blame exclusively to Adam and Eve.   G-d knew in advance what was going to happen and not only did he allow Satan to tempt Adam and Eve but he created the very circumstance, knowing in advance, that would guarantee the result of Adam and Eve partaking the fruit.

Would it change your perspective on the story if you were to learn that Adam and Eve were but small children – perhaps only 4 or 5 years old?  It is very hard to argue that they had any more experience with consequences for poor choices than would such young and small children.

I believe the Eden story epoch is symbolic of something that is completely missed if we try to understand this story from a literal point of view.  Affixing blame to Adam and Eve for the fall of mankind - I believe puts a person on a path that leads only to guaranteeing that the truth will be lost forever for such an assumption.

 

The Traveler

Edited September 14, 2016 by Traveler

[zil]

8 minutes ago, Traveler said:

I believe the Eden story epoch is symbolic of something that is completely missed if we try to understand this story from a literal point of view.  Affixing blame to Adam and Eve for the fall of mankind - I believe puts a person on a path that leads only to guaranteeing that the truth will be lost forever.

I think pondering it from every imaginable interpretation (within reason) is the best way to get the most from that story that one can.  I appreciate your comments on symbolic meanings.

[Jojo Bags]

On 12/09/2016 at 3:09 PM, askandanswer said:

Those who believe that women are somehow the lesser or the weaker sex because they first succumbed to temptation would do well to keep in mind that she was tempted by a male.

Im not so sure how much Eve succumbed to temptation as to common sense.   I think Eve was one smart cookie and she figured out that she couldn't keep both of God's commandments.   I also think that she knew there wouldn't be any posterity to fill the earth so she made an informed decision.  

[prisonchaplain]

@Traveler  The safest interpretation of scripture begins with the most literal, and then work outward towards more symbolic understandings. God gave a command to Adam & Eve, and he communed with them daily. He told them that if they disobeyed there would be severe consequences. The serpent tempts them with loaded questions, and then direct contradictions to God's statements and commands.  They choose what Satan proposes. God punishes all of them.

@Jojo Bags  It is an interesting contrast that you believe Eve was not a childlike innocent--but rather, that she made the wise choice.  My difficulty is that God presents as genuinely upset with their decision. He punishes them.  They are cast out of the garden.  There is even insight into the spiritual precautions in putting guards before the garden and the tree of life.

[zil]

12 minutes ago, prisonchaplain said:

and he communed with them daily

Are there scriptures which teach the "daily" part of this?  (I cannot find them and am wondering where this idea comes from - just curious.)

16 minutes ago, prisonchaplain said:

He punishes them.

In our belief, he lets them suffer the consequences of their actions.

16 minutes ago, prisonchaplain said:

They are cast out of the garden.   There is even insight into the spiritual precautions in putting guards before the garden and the tree of life.

For their own protection.

[askandanswer]

2 hours ago, Jojo Bags said:

Im not so sure how much Eve succumbed to temptation as to common sense.   I think Eve was one smart cookie and she figured out that she couldn't keep both of God's commandments.   I also think that she knew there wouldn't be any posterity to fill the earth so she made an informed decision.  

I wonder if Adam and Eve, or at least Eve, knew what posterity was and how to go about the process of making posterity. If they did know but hadn't yet started the process, then they had already disobeyed God's commandment to go forth and multiply, even before they broke the commandment not to eat the fruit. If they did not know what posterity was or how to go about creating it, then this would weaken the idea that Eve knew what she was doing when she partook of the fruit.

[prisonchaplain]

@zil I'll revise my statement that God met them daily in the garden.  It appears that way to me, because the text says that God walked in the garden in the cool of the day. This is written in a way that leads me to believe this was a regular custom of his.  It's clear that Adam and Eve knew God well, since they hid when they heard him coming.  They recognized his sound.

As for the nuance between "suffer consequences" and "punishment," here is the text in the most common translation of Evangelicals:  Genesis 3:

 

16To the woman he said,

“I will make your pains in childbearing very severe;

with painful labor you will give birth to children.

Your desire will be for your husband,

and he will rule over you.”

17To Adam he said, “Because you listened to your wife and ate fruit from the tree about which I commanded you, ‘You must not eat from it,’

“Cursed is the ground because of you;

through painful toil you will eat food from it

all the days of your life.

18It will produce thorns and thistles for you,

and you will eat the plants of the field.

19By the sweat of your brow

you will eat your food

until you return to the ground,

since from it you were taken;

for dust you are

and to dust you will return.”

... 22And the Lord God said, “The man has now become like one of us, knowing good and evil. He must not be allowed to reach out his hand and take also from the tree of life and eat, and live forever.” 23So the Lord God banished him from the Garden of Eden to work the ground from which he had been taken. 24After he drove the man out, he placed on the east side^e of the Garden of Eden cherubim and a flaming sword flashing back and forth to guard the way to the tree of life.

This passage strikes me as God punishing Adam & Eve and preventing them from eternal life and return to the garden.  The protection promised (The Plan of Salvation) is the promise of Messiah in v. 15.

[Traveler]

1 hour ago, prisonchaplain said:

@Traveler  The safest interpretation of scripture begins with the most literal, and then work outward towards more symbolic understandings. God gave a command to Adam & Eve, and he communed with them daily. He told them that if they disobeyed there would be severe consequences. The serpent tempts them with loaded questions, and then direct contradictions to God's statements and commands.  They choose what Satan proposes. God punishes all of them.

 

The question I asked – was if it would change your opinions if Adam and Eve were children of age 4 and 5.  What parent would knowingly leave some of their children unsupervised and in the care of a child molester and then blame the children for what happens – and refuse to take any responsibility themselves.  Then punish all their children and all the neighborhood children with the same punishment – even though they that had nothing at all to do with what happened to just the two?

I am not sure what you mean by “safest” understanding – I certainly do not find the story to be a good parenting model to follow.

Quote

@Jojo Bags  It is an interesting contrast that you believe Eve was not a childlike innocent--but rather, that she made the wise choice.  My difficulty is that God presents as genuinely upset with their decision. He punishes them.  They are cast out of the garden.  There is even insight into the spiritual precautions in putting guards before the garden and the tree of life.

I would also correct you concerning guards of the tree of life.  Read the scripture again – vary carefully. The word used in the KJV is that the (more than one individuals) were to KEEP the way.  The concept of guard implies to prevent and to deny access – and the concern is not about the tree but the way that must be taken to get to the tree.  A keeper of a path is more a proctor than guard that helps those that desire to follow the way.

 

The Traveler

[prisonchaplain]

@Traveler  I'm readying that Adam & Eve are BANISHED from the Garden and that the way back is guarded (so they cannot return and get to the Tree of Life).  Are you suggesting that the cherubim were meant to help them get back to it?

[Just_A_Guy]

1 hour ago, prisonchaplain said:

@zil I'll revise my statement that God met them daily in the garden.  It appears that way to me, because the text says that God walked in the garden in the cool of the day. This is written in a way that leads me to believe this was a regular custom of his.  It's clear that Adam and Eve knew God well, since they hid when they heard him coming.  They recognized his sound.

As for the nuance between "suffer consequences" and "punishment," here is the text in the most common translation of Evangelicals:  Genesis 3:

 

16To the woman he said,

“I will make your pains in childbearing very severe;

with painful labor you will give birth to children.

Your desire will be for your husband,

and he will rule over you.”

17To Adam he said, “Because you listened to your wife and ate fruit from the tree about which I commanded you, ‘You must not eat from it,’

“Cursed is the ground because of you;

through painful toil you will eat food from it

all the days of your life.

18It will produce thorns and thistles for you,

and you will eat the plants of the field.

19By the sweat of your brow

you will eat your food

until you return to the ground,

since from it you were taken;

for dust you are

and to dust you will return.”

... 22And the Lord God said, “The man has now become like one of us, knowing good and evil. He must not be allowed to reach out his hand and take also from the tree of life and eat, and live forever.” 23So the Lord God banished him from the Garden of Eden to work the ground from which he had been taken. 24After he drove the man out, he placed on the east side^e of the Garden of Eden cherubim and a flaming sword flashing back and forth to guard the way to the tree of life.

This passage strikes me as God punishing Adam & Eve and preventing them from eternal life and return to the garden.  The protection promised (The Plan of Salvation) is the promise of Messiah in v. 15.

I think there's a mix of punishments, natural consequences, and protections. 

The notion that keeping Adam away from the tree of life at this juncture was a blessing to him (and the rest of us), is pretty clearly spelled out in the Book of Mormon--see Alma 42:3-5.  The notion that man must earn his food by the sweat of his brow and the banishment from Eden, strikes me as a natural consequence of the mortal state that God had always intended to place us in as per the Plan of Salvation.  Earlier in this thread I gave my speculations that the relationship God established between man and woman (especially vis a vis priesthood roles) might be linked to Adam's failure to properly support Eve in her moment of testing (and, as @zil noted, Eve's willingness to basically bind Adam to a decision that she made without his input).  And speaking as a male, I don't think I'm allowed to comment as to whether the pains of childbirth might also have been necessary to the Plan of Salvation or whether they were somehow linked to Eve's decision.   

[prisonchaplain]

Thank you @Just_A_Guy--especially for the Alma link. I figured there was something I was missing, because the Genesis passage itself offers very little to soften the idea that Adam & Eve are being punished.  Still, I do not believe it harms the larger LDS view to say that, whatever their decisions before mortality, in the garden what Adam & Eve did was direct  and simple disobedience. 

[zil]

@prisonchaplain, @Just_A_Guy said it more succinctly than I could have, but I'll mention one more thing, and that is regarding translations.  This idea comes straight from Chapter 5 of Old Testament and Related Studies, by Hugh Nibley.  (IMO, the whole chapter is well worth reading - I wish everyone on the whole planet would read it - as it gives some good insight into male-female conflict, with plenty to ponder.)  This paragraph summarizes my thoughts in addition to what JAG already said.

Quote

Now a curse was placed on Eve, and it looked as if she would have to pay a high price for taking the initiative in the search for knowledge. To our surprise the identical curse was placed on Adam also. For Eve, God “will greatly multiply thy sorrow and thy conception. In sorrow shalt thou bring forth children.” (Genesis 3:16.) The key is the word for sorrow, atsav, meaning to labor, to toil, to sweat, to do something very hard. To multiply does not mean to add or increase but to repeat over and over again; the word in the Septuagint is plethynomai, as in the multiplying of words in the repetitious prayers of the ancients. Both the conception and the labor of Eve will be multiple; she will have many children. Then the Lord says to Adam, “In sorrow shalt thou eat of it all the days of thy life” (that is, the bread that his labor must bring forth from the earth). The identical word is used in both cases; the root meaning is to work hard at cutting or digging; both the man and the woman must sorrow and both must labor. (The Septuagint word is lype, meaning bodily or mental strain, discomfort, or affliction.) It means not to be sorry, but to have a hard time. If Eve must labor to bring forth, so too must Adam labor (Genesis 3:17; Moses 4:23) to quicken the earth so it shall bring forth. Both of them bring forth life with sweat and tears, and Adam is not the favored party. If his labor is not as severe as hers, it is more protracted. For Eve’s life will be spared long after her childbearing—”nevertheless thy life shall be spared”—while Adam’s toil must go on to the end of his days: “In sorrow shalt thou eat of it all the days of thy life!” Even retirement is no escape from that sorrow. The thing to notice is that Adam is not let off lightly as a privileged character; he is as bound to Mother Eve as she is to the law of her husband. And why not? If he was willing to follow her, he was also willing to suffer with her, for this affliction was imposed on Adam expressly “because thou hast hearkened unto . . . thy wife and, hast eaten of the fruit.”

 

[Traveler]

17 hours ago, prisonchaplain said:

@Traveler  I'm readying that Adam & Eve are BANISHED from the Garden and that the way back is guarded (so they cannot return and get to the Tree of Life).  Are you suggesting that the cherubim were meant to help them get back to it?

 

I have a very hard time thinking we should love and respect a G-d that goes out of his way to prevent and stop someone from partaking of the Tree of Life – unless it is an evil thing.  And why would he place Cherubim to guard the Tree of Life and not to have done so for the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil?

If we pursue a literal interpretation – there are so many holes that contradict even the very nature of what we claim to be a loving, kind,  just and intelligent G-d.

The nature of Jesus and his mission is to assist, help and even save every person that can be and will be saved.  Jesus teaches that he is the way – a symbolic reference.  When we understand the mission of Christ and his purpose to save us from death and to obtain eternal life – we realize that Jesus is the designated keeper of the way to life and salvation.   We should understand G-d is not taking steps to guard and prevent but is anxious to bring us to life and salvation.  I submit that Jesus is an appointed Cherub that keeps the way and will assist and help.  But the scriptures indicate a plurality of cherubim – and for symbolic understanding of the Cherubim plurality we must look to other scripture references and inspiration to have insight into the challenges we all face following Christ on the path or way to the Tree of Life.

 

The Traveler

[prisonchaplain]

52 minutes ago, Traveler said:

If we pursue a literal interpretation – there are so many holes that contradict even the very nature of what we claim to be a loving, kind,  just and intelligent G-d.

 

I presume God's love, kindness, justice and intelligence. Then I interpret the scripture I read. If a literal interpretation seems difficult, I may dig deeper, look at related passages, and even seek wise counsel from learned teachers. However, I am very slow to jettison the literal understanding. More often than not the difficulty is with my understanding, not with the facts and events of the text.