Eve

[fatima]

I am wondering if someone can give me some insight on the LDS teaching on Eve.  I just read Jewel's post about an image at the SLC temple, and I am surprised at all the praise heaped upon her, and I assume that Adam shares in those praises.  

And if Eve is worthy of some sort of praise (although I cannot imagine why), does Mary, the Mother of Jesus Christ, also receive some sort of...added appreciation for her role in salvation history?

[Vort]

Eve was the prototype of women, and one of the truly great people to live on the earth. Her sin is considered by many Latter-day Saints to be not really a sin, but a mistake made in innocence. However that may be, she and Adam were forgiven for their sins and are our exemplars in repentance and returning to God. Their story is our story.

We have no religious idea of worshiping Mary in the Catholic sense. That forms zero part of the LDS religious sensibility. But we do consider Mary to have been a chosen vessel of God and a person of great integrity and strength, one chosen for a vital role in the history of the world. Thus, we revere her, just as we revere all great men and women, prophets and otherwise. But we don't pray to her or worship her or venerate her.

[Just_A_Guy]

To supplement @Vort's excellent post:  Mormonism views the fall as something that was inevitable and, in fact, necessary. So Eve's actions become, at worst, an example of someone doing the right thing for the wrong reason; and lots of Mormons (not me, but others; including very highly placed Church leaders) would suggest that she was actually acting for the right reasons all along.

The Mormon temple liturgy very much focuses on Adam and Eve's creation, fall, and redemption; as a sort of microcosm for our own individual spiritual journeys and reconciliation with God.  Naturally, Eve figures prominently in the LDS temple narrative.  Mary, not so much:  she is remembered, spoken of and sung of as the mother of Our Lord; especially at Christmastime (and maybe not enough); but in LDS theology it is Eve, not Mary, who stands as the grand matriarch of the human family.

Edited September 8, 2017 by Just_A_Guy

[Jane_Doe]

One key thing to remember when studying LDS theology was LDS believe that God is completely sovereign and all knowing.  When A&E partook of the fruit, God did not go "oh oh... got to come up with a Plan B now...".  Everything about this world, including the Fall, was part of God's Plan A, and all things (even the Fall) work together for our good and God's glory.    A&E were instrumental in God's plan, our first parents, played a great role in the plan of salvation, and are honored.  

Now LDS obviously Eve or anyone else isn't venerated in the Catholic sense.  We don't pray to saints or ask them for intercession.  We just honor them in the... I can't think of a way to say it  other than the "normal" sense.  

 

Now, as to Mary, she is honored as the earthly mother of Christ.  We sing "Mary did you know", act her story out at Christmas, etc.  But again, no praying to her (or anyone else).  Obviously we don't believe in the Catholic Marian doctrines taught from Catholic Tradition like perpetual virginity, her immaculate conception, etc.

[Vort]

16 minutes ago, Jane_Doe said:

Everything about this world, including the Fall, was part of God's Plan A, and all things (even the Fall) work together for our good and God's glory.

The endowment presentation itself suggests this might not be the case (that is, part of Plan A). But regardless of the nits, I agree with you in substance.

17 minutes ago, Jane_Doe said:

Obviously we don't believe in the Catholic Marian doctrines taught from Catholic Tradition like perpetual virginity, her immaculate conception, etc.

Certainly not in her "perpetual virginity", since after giving birth to Jesus, she bore more children by Joseph -- a Biblical doctrine, incidentally, and not one explicitly mentioned anywhere else in LDS scripture.

As for Mary's "immaculate conception", we disbelieve this mostly by inference. We as Latter-day Saints believe that newborn children are pure, holy, and alive in Christ. If there exists such a thing as "immaculate conception", it is that all men and women are conceived in purity and virtue, notwithstanding the sins of their parents (or of Adam and Eve). The doctrine of "original sin" does not exist as such in LDS teachings, and scriptural mention of it is better understood when considered in light of the Fall of Adam and Eve.

[fatima]

The act of disobeying God's command was something LDS believe that God wanted?  Ummmm....okay...I guess that...sort of...explains it...

[Jane_Doe]

1 hour ago, fatima said:

The act of disobeying God's command was something LDS believe that God wanted?  Ummmm....okay...I guess that...sort of...explains it...

God's big game didn't involve just 2 infant like people sitting around the garden forever.  We are to have children, learn exercise agency, and gain experience.  

Edited September 8, 2017 by Jane_Doe

[zil]

16 minutes ago, fatima said:

The act of disobeying God's command was something LDS believe that God wanted?  Ummmm....okay...I guess that...sort of...explains it...

First, it's important to understand that we believe Adam and Eve could not and did not have children while in the garden of Eden.  We believe they had to "fall" (become mortal) before they could do that.  We also believe mortality was necessary for all of us to gain the experience we need in order to become the best each of us is willing to become.  Thus, the fall was necessary, and mortality is necessary.  This (the fall and mortality) was part of the plan.

Next, clearly, mortality includes negative consequences: separation from God, pain and suffering, sin, etc.  One could see that as a sort of "punishment".  Either way, there's a negative aspect to it.  God does not impose negative consequences on those who do not deserve said consequences.  Thus Adam and Eve had to choose them (which they did, by partaking of the fruit of the tree of knowledge of good and evil against God's instruction), or remain forever in innocence as the only two souls in Eden.

Thus, Eve's choice was one way to move the plan forward.  Whether it was the only way, whether it was the best way, whether it was what God wanted, etc., has never been revealed.  But it was a way and we are benefiting from it.  (And certainly, God knew it was what would happen.)

Edited September 8, 2017 by zil

[prisonchaplain]

@fatima You have stumbled one of the most important, and yet seldom discussed, differences between LDS and historic Christian teaching. Catholicism and Protestantism agree that Adam & Eve committed a terrible sin. I'd even call it rebellion. LDS have a different understanding--one rooted in LDS scriptures and doctrines. If you want to learn how we differ, you've started a great topic to do so.

[person0]

1 hour ago, prisonchaplain said:

Catholicism and Protestantism agree that Adam & Eve committed a terrible sin.

I am curious about something related to this.  In 1 Timothy 2:14 it states:

Quote

And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression.

Without the LDS paradigm on this issue, based on this verse, I think I would have to conclude that Adam intentionally and openly rebelled against God.  However, what would have been his reason for doing so?  My understanding of popular Christian belief is that remaining in the Garden of Eden would have been the best thing, so what was there to gain if he actually understood what would happen?  I suppose one could argue he lusted for  Eve, but I think that contradicts scripture that makes it clear they did not know they were naked.  Also, if Adam intentionally and knowingly disobeyed, why does it specify that Eve was in the transgression and not Adam?  Is it only because Eve 'started it'?  I am sincerely interested in your perspectives on these questions.

2 hours ago, fatima said:

The act of disobeying God's command was something LDS believe that God wanted?

Popular non-LDS Christian doctrine establishes that God intentionally created Lucifer knowing he would rebel and become the devil.  According to that principle, it would lead one to believe that God, according to popular Christianity, wanted the devil to exist.  How would that be much different? Likewise you could ask, why would God place the tree of the knowledge of good and evil in the garden at all if He didn't plan for them to eat from it?

It's not really a matter of God wanting Adam and Eve to disobey, He crafted and calculated His plan to allow them to choose what they wanted, including disobedience. Because He knew what they would choose, He prepared the plan of salvation, and tailored it to His foreknowledge of what their choice would be.  The plan He developed revolved around their ability to choose, and what their choice would be.  This would be similar to how parents place electrical outlet blockers so that small children don't get electrocuted, or child locks on the kitchen cabinets and drawers.  You already know that eventually your child will get into those areas, as a result, you protect them in advance from their choice.  God didn't protect Adam and Eve from the result of their choice, but he made it possible in advance to fix their mistake through Jesus Christ.  God is the most intelligent of all, he calculated His plan intentionally, and His plan involved our first parents decisions and thought processes.  It is certainly simpler to suggest that, in a way, God 'wanted' it to happen, but to put it that way is an inadequate and incomplete explanation.

Shorter Version: God's plan required us to have Agency ('free will'), therefore, knowing what we would choose, He prepared in advance to allow us to make those choices, but also to enable us to recover from those choices through the Atonement of Christ.  This does not require God to have wanted Adam and Eve to eat the fruit, but allows for His plan to be designed for such an eventuality.

EDIT:  I failed to address something.  LDS understanding of God's plan includes that all of us were to come to earth to obtain bodies and as a result be able to become more like Him.  We believe we could not have been born without Adam and Eve becoming mortal and recognizing they were naked.  As a result, their decision, while disobedient, is often Lauded.  They chose to disobey God, but at the very least Adam chose to do so knowing it would result in the ability to multiply and replenish the earth, which was another of God's commandments to he and Eve.  This part of the plan was also within God's foreknown calculations.  If they did not make this choice, they would still be in the Garden, and we would basically just be waiting for them to make the choice.  This gets into other aspects of LDS doctrine as well, such as our belief in pre-mortal life, and that we existed spiritually before coming to earth. Because of the overlap of certain principles, it is often difficult to understand just one aspect of LDS theology, especially if placed in the context of surrounding protestant ideology.

Edited September 9, 2017 by person0

[fatima]

50 minutes ago, person0 said:

I am curious about something related to this.  In 1 Timothy 2:14 it states:

Without the LDS paradigm on this issue, based on this verse, I think I would have to conclude that Adam intentionally and openly rebelled against God.  However, what would have been his reason for doing so?  My understanding of popular Christian belief is that remaining in the Garden of Eden would have been the best thing, so what was there to gain if he actually understood what would happen?  I suppose one could argue he lusted for  Eve, but I think that contradicts scripture that makes it clear they did not know they were naked.  Also, if Adam intentionally and knowingly disobeyed, why does it specify that Eve was in the transgression and not Adam?  Is it only because Eve 'started it'?  I am sincerely interested in your perspectives on these questions.

Popular non-LDS Christian doctrine establishes that God intentionally created Lucifer knowing he would rebel and become the devil.  According to that principle, it would lead one to believe that God, according to popular Christianity, wanted the devil to exist.  How would that be much different? Likewise you could ask, why would God place the tree of the knowledge of good and evil in the garden at all if He didn't plan for them to eat from it?

It's not really a matter of God wanting Adam and Eve to disobey, He crafted and calculated His plan to allow them to choose what they wanted, including disobedience. Because He knew what they would choose, He prepared the plan of salvation, and tailored it to His foreknowledge of what their choice would be.  The plan He developed revolved around their ability to choose, and what their choice would be.  This would be similar to how parents place electrical outlet blockers so that small children don't get electrocuted, or child locks on the kitchen cabinets and drawers.  You already know that eventually your child will get into those areas, as a result, you protect them in advance from their choice.  God didn't protect Adam and Eve from the result of their choice, but he made it possible in advance to fix their mistake through Jesus Christ.  God is the most intelligent of all, he calculated His plan intentionally, and His plan involved our first parents decisions and thought processes.  It is certainly simpler to suggest that, in a way, God 'wanted' it to happen, but to put it that way is an inadequate and incomplete explanation.

Shorter Version: God's plan required us to have Agency ('free will'), therefore, knowing what we would choose, He prepared in advance to allow us to make those choices, but also to enable us to recover from those choices through the Atonement of Christ.  This does not require God to have wanted Adam and Eve to eat the fruit, but allows for His plan to be designed for such an eventuality.

EDIT:  I failed to address something.  LDS understanding of God's plan includes that all of us were to come to earth to obtain bodies and as a result be able to become more like Him.  We believe we could not have been born without Adam and Eve becoming mortal and recognizing they were naked.  As a result, their decision, while disobedient, is often Lauded.  They chose to disobey God, but at the very least Adam chose to do so knowing it would result in the ability to multiply and replenish the earth, which was another of God's commandments to he and Eve.  This part of the plan was also within God's foreknown calculations.  If they did not make this choice, they would still be in the Garden, and we would basically just be waiting for them to make the choice.  This gets into other aspects of LDS doctrine as well, such as our belief in pre-mortal life, and that we existed spiritually before coming to earth. Because of the overlap of certain principles, it is often difficult to understand just one aspect of LDS theology, especially if placed in the context of surrounding protestant ideology.

This overlaps with a discussion on free will that was in another thread a short time ago.  God doesn't know things "in advance" as we think of it, because God is not bound by time.  Everything is present to Him at all times.  Additionally, He knows what did happen because it happened and He is timeless.  He isn't like us in that "if they choose to do this, I'll do that.  But if they do that, then I'll do this".  Before He created us there was nothing about us for Him to know in terms of our choices, and He doesn't decide not to create because that creation might do something because He doesn't know what doesn't exist.

I'll check this thread out again in the morning.  Past my bedtime now.

[person0]

4 minutes ago, fatima said:

This overlaps with a discussion on free will that was in another thread a short time ago.  God doesn't know things "in advance" as we think of it, because God is not bound by time.  Everything is present to Him at all times.  Additionally, He knows what did happen because it happened and He is timeless.  He isn't like us in that "if they choose to do this, I'll do that.  But if they do that, then I'll do this".  Before He created us there was nothing about us for Him to know in terms of our choices, and He doesn't decide not to create because that creation might do something because He doesn't know what doesn't exist.

I'll check this thread out again in the morning.  Past my bedtime now.

Even in that context, swapping the idea of foreknowledge for ever-knowledge would not be an issue, the explanation I presented would still hold.

[Vort]

4 hours ago, fatima said:

The act of disobeying God's command was something LDS believe that God wanted?

Some Latter-day Saints would agree with this assessment. Others of us do not agree with it, but rather say that God made provision for acts that, in his foreknowledge, he saw would take place, and provided a path of repentance and reunification for our first parents. Both sets of Latter-day Saints agree that the Fall was absolutely necessary, not some tragic departure from God's plan for his children but rather absolutely integral to it.

4 hours ago, fatima said:

Ummmm....okay...I guess that...sort of...explains it...

What, exactly, does that sort of explain?

[Just_A_Guy]

5 hours ago, fatima said:

The act of disobeying God's command was something LDS believe that God wanted?  Ummmm....okay...I guess that...sort of...explains it...

I'm not-quite-orthodox-LDS on this; but I'll put my opinion out there as an alternative paradigm:

So, I'm on board with conventional LDS teaching about why the Fall was necessary (Adam and Eve were incapable of procreation as well as spiritual progression in their created state, the fruit and its effects would have to be partaken of eventually, etc).  Where I differ slightly from mainline LDS teaching is:  it seems to be the mainstream LDS position that "in the day thou eatest thereof though shalt surely die" was a warning, not a prohibition whose violation would constitute sin/transgression.  Many LDS authors stress a supposed difference between "sin" and "transgression" and hold that partaking the fruit was only a transgression and not a sin.  Further, it is suggested that Eve was fully aware from the outset of the consequences her decision would bring.  To me, that sin/transgression distinction feels artificial; and scripture seems clear to me that Eve *was* deceived.

The scenario I have put together through my own reading/pondering numerous LDS sources is this:  God places Adam and Eve in the garden.  He leaves them alone for a time, promising to return later to give them further teachings--probably relating to the fruit and a full briefing on its effects and consequences.  In the interim Adam and Eve are told, in effect:  don't touch the fruit until I come back.

Enter Satan.  Satan's plan is to win the affection and allegiance of Adam and Eve (and their unborn posterity) by alienating them from God and setting himself up as the grantor of blessings that God is selfishly hoarding for Himself.  He tells Eve that taking the fruit is necessary to become like God (which in fact, really is God's long-term plan for them) but also lies by telling Eve that the fruit must be taken now, this moment, on Satan's terms and without waiting for the further teachings God had promised to give.  Eve either forgets God's earlier promise to return, or doesn't quite believe it, or she's just impatient; but at any rate Eve partakes of the fruit--not rejecting God wholly; but violating His short-term commandment, manifesting a lack of trust in Him, and thus setting herself on a very dangerous path.  

Eve tells Adam of her decision.  Adam has been commanded to stay with Eve (see the Book of Moses chapter 4, Mormonism's variant of the Genesis narrative of the Fall) and, knowing she must leave Eden, elects to partake of the fruit and leave Eden with her--knowing he, too, is violating God's injunction; but trusting that somehow, God will provide a means of redemption.  Thus, as Paul says, Eve was beguiled; but Adam acts knowingly.

In the ensuing confrontation between God, Adam, Eve, and Satan; Satan's deceitful nature is revealed and it is made clear that he poses a catastrophic threat to their eternal welfare.  Adam and Eve reaffirm their allegiance to God, who offers protection from Satan even as He drives them from Eden in accordance to His word.  God continues to speak to them in the fallen world, and eventually they are given the promise of a Redeemer and are taught of their potential to return to God's presence on condition of repentance.  Adam and Eve at this point recognize the Fall as a good and necessary thing (Moses 6:11), even though it came about by an act of disobedience for which they had to (and did) obtain forgiveness.

Which brings me back to my earlier summation of Eve's act as I perceive it:  She acted at the wrong time and for the wrong reason; but ultimately what she did was fundamentally a good thing.

Edited September 9, 2017 by Just_A_Guy

[zil]

14 minutes ago, Just_A_Guy said:

I'm not-quite-orthodox-LDS on this; but I'll put my opinion out there as an alternative paradigm:

...

That doesn't seem not-quite-orthodox to me, but what do I know?  It seems highly probable, and is one of the scenarios which always made a lot of sense to me.

[SpiritDragon]

38 minutes ago, Just_A_Guy said:

I'm not-quite-orthodox-LDS on this; but I'll put my opinion out there as an alternative paradigm:

So, I'm on board with conventional LDS teaching about why the Fall was necessary (Adam and Eve were incapable of procreation as well as spiritual progression in their created state, the fruit and its effects would have to be partaken of eventually, etc).  Where I differ slightly from mainline LDS teaching is:  it seems to be the mainstream LDS position that "in the day thou eatest thereof though shalt surely die" was a warning, not a prohibition whose violation would constitute sin/transgression.

I could really get on board with this line of reasoning, but it seems to me along with the "warning" not to partake is also the emphasis of freedom to choose, and a stern reminder that it is forbidden. In this context it seems to me like it was indeed a sin or transgression, I've never been much for the distinction there myself - but your further explanation still makes sense even with it being a sin. This is because the wrong time/wrong circumstance situation, just like sex is forbidden outside of marriage it is completely righteous and holy within marriage. Perhaps there was simply supposed to be some kind of preparatory teaching or even covenant entered into before partaking of the fruit without sinning and still bringing about the plan. Also before anyone gets any ideas I'm not suggesting that sex is symbolic of partaking of the fruit, it simply serves the purpose of showcasing something that is "wrong" in one circumstance and "right" in another.

[person0]

2 hours ago, Just_A_Guy said:

"in the day thou eatest thereof though shalt surely die" was a warning, not a prohibition whose violation would constitute sin/transgression

If a member believes that it was only a warning, they are lacking information, or just plain wrong.  If one pulls from all available LDS resources, partaking of the fruit was clearly formally prohibited.  God forbade it.  I would say it was both forbidden and also the consequences were forewarned.

2 hours ago, Just_A_Guy said:

To me, that sin/transgression distinction feels artificial; and scripture seems clear to me that Eve *was* deceived.

I think that it is entirely possible and reasonable to believe that Eve was deceived, but also that her action was yet distinguishable as a transgression.  In fact, to me, her being deceived makes it even more reasonable to believe that it would be identified as a transgression, especially under the definition the Church provides in our manuals:

Quote

Note to the teacher
The decision of Adam and Eve to eat the forbidden fruit was not a sin, as it is sometimes considered by other Christian churches. It was a transgression—an act that was formally prohibited but not inherently wrong.
(Doctrines of the Gospel Student Manual, Ch. 8 - The Fall)

This suggested 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” . . . These words are not always used to denote something different, but this distinction seems meaningful in the circumstances of the Fall.
(Dallin H. Oaks - October 1993 General Conference) emphasis added

I believe you are correct that she was deceived, but I don't think that conflicts with the idea that in the context of the fall, their action is viewed as less severe than what is imagined when we call it a sin.  Honestly, I think the purpose of the differentiation has more to do with distinguishing against non-LDS perspectives on the fall, as opposed to actually being adamant that it should not be considered a sin.  Besides, sin and transgression have the same spiritual effect: separation from God.

2 hours ago, Just_A_Guy said:

In the interim Adam and Eve are told, in effect:  don't touch the fruit until I come back.

My only hangup with the way you have presented the rest of this scenario is that it makes it seem as though there could have been a plan A and plan B.  Possible I suppose, but I don't tend to see it that way.  The main issue I come back to is that since we don't know the full details of the hypothetical plan A you alluded to, I question how God would have Adam and Eve complete the fall in a way that would fulfill both physical and spiritual death.

If God did return and then said, "okay, you can eat the fruit now," Adam and Eve would have died physically, and yet not transgressed the law, as a result they would have remained in God's presence.  I would speculate that they, now being mortal, would then have been physically destroyed in the presence of God unless transfigured.  Even if they weren't destroyed, they would have to fall spiritually through some other means to make effective the atonement, unless you assume (similar to protestant theology) that we would all have been born in the Garden and have lived as sinless mortals and the atonement would only be for purposes of resurrection.  That idea just doesn't sound right to me.

I suppose you could speculate that God would have continued to command them not to eat the fruit, but that Christ or another would come back at some point and teach them a complete understanding of what would happen if they did/didn't, at which point they would willingly break God's commandment, not being deceived at all, but knowing what would happen.  But I really don't think so.  I prefer to think that there was only ever one plan, and God knew their minds and spirits and therefore organized the plan accordingly.

Anyway, I'd need to hear a more fleshed out version of the supposed plan A before I could get on board with such a concept.  Personally, I lean toward the idea that commanding to not partake of the fruit was a 'formality' of sorts.  God could not remain perfect, and yet place Adam and Eve in harms way without warning them in advance and forbidding them from partaking of a substance that would lead to their death and the physical dissolution of their bodies.  Otherwise, had they eaten with His blessing, it would actually be His fault that they died.  This is part of the genius of His plan; the way fall occurred being anticipated and planned for as the way it would play out from the beginning.

Side Note:  In consideration of protestant and traditional theology, would God really expect all mankind to live forever without a knowledge of good and evil?  So why make that knowledge a part of the tree they weren't supposed to eat?  Seems counter intuitive.

2 hours ago, Just_A_Guy said:

She acted at the wrong time and for the wrong reason; but ultimately what she did was fundamentally a good thing.

Despite of other minute differences, I am confident that I and most knowledgeable members of the Church would agree with this sentiment.  Eve was deceived and acted according to her will and her idea of the plan, rather than waiting for the Father.  Even outside of the complete context of what you suggested, it was still the wrong time and wrong reason because there is never a right time to do something without God, and not waiting for Him, regardless of if He would have ever instructed them to do it or not.  However, regardless of the many theories about what could have happened, we members of the Church (should) agree that Eve's action of partaking the fruit was eventually necessary one way or the other.

[Blueskye2]

6 hours ago, person0 said:

I am curious about something related to this.  In 1 Timothy 2:14 it states:

Without the LDS paradigm on this issue, based on this verse, I think I would have to conclude that Adam intentionally and openly rebelled against God.  However, what would have been his reason for doing so?  My understanding of popular Christian belief is that remaining in the Garden of Eden would have been the best thing, so what was there to gain if he actually understood what would happen?  I suppose one could argue he lusted for  Eve, but I think that contradicts scripture that makes it clear they did not know they were naked.  Also, if Adam intentionally and knowingly disobeyed, why does it specify that Eve was in the transgression and not Adam?  Is it only because Eve 'started it'?  I am sincerely interested in your perspectives on these questions.

 

 

The verse you site, in context, is addressing women. There are multiple verses through the NT that address Adam.  Romans 5:12-19 is one of my favorites.

The reason is the same as Eve's. the fruit is good to eat so why not give it a try? And the same old thing people do today, we don't need to obey God's command. "I can do what I want"  in this case, the temptation was "do what I want" to be like God,  (The sin of pride.)

 Not sure what you mean by gain. The temptation was disobey, eat the fruit because it is desirable to look at, tastes good, and you will become like God in doing so. The question is what was there to keep.  They and their progeny living in the immediate presence of God, immortality, a good life. Christian doctrines have the belief of original grace, which was lost. 

Lust is viewed as a disordered consequence of the fall.  "Be fruitful and multiply" is understood as a blessing. God does not require us to sin in order to be blessed.  

Christians also believe in a Plan of Salvation. It has a name, Jesus Christ. We also believe Jesus was prepared before the world was created. We don't view God as thinking or acting in a linear fashion. That is our view, as creatures living in time. You can think of it as, watching someone paint, the final creaction comes into view over time. We view God as seeing the entire painting all at once, without there being a "time" (our view again) where He did not. The painting is not yet finished, from our view.  The universe continues to unfold. 

Edited September 9, 2017 by Blueskye2

[prisonchaplain]

6 hours ago, person0 said:

I am curious about something related to this.  In 1 Timothy 2:14 it states:

Without the LDS paradigm on this issue, based on this verse, I think I would have to conclude that Adam intentionally and openly rebelled against God.  However, what would have been his reason for doing so?  My understanding of popular Christian belief is that remaining in the Garden of Eden would have been the best thing, so what was there to gain if he actually understood what would happen?  I suppose one could argue he lusted for  Eve, but I think that contradicts scripture that makes it clear they did not know they were naked.  Also, if Adam intentionally and knowingly disobeyed, why does it specify that Eve was in the transgression and not Adam?  Is it only because Eve 'started it'?  I am sincerely interested in your perspectives on these questions.

I take a narrowly-focused view of 1 Tim 2:14. Adam is not exonerated. His guilty. However, he did know what he was doing more than Eve. Remember that Adam was with Eve at the encounter with the Serpent, but that Eve was not with Adam at the very beginning of creation. Adam even knew that Eve was created for him. So, why did Adam do it? He could have desired Eve sexually, and believed that to continue in their relationship (I see no reason to believe that they were asexual in Eden--sex is not part of the fall, imho) he would need to follow her wishes on this. After all, once she ate the fruit, if he held strong he would lose her. Perhaps the deception part is that Eve truly believed she would become wise, like God, and that she would not die. Adam knew that the wisdom would not be what she hoped, and that they would die. Yet he took. It could mean he loved Eve more than God.

[estradling75]

Like @Just_A_Guy my take is a bit atypical for the standard LDS...  I dislike the way a lot of LDS try to split hairs between SIN and TRANSGRESSION.

The primary difference I see between LDS and NON-LDS takes on Adam and Eve's action falls into the category of "WHAT IF"  What would be our state if Adam and Eve did not fall.  The Non-LDS answers that I have heard (And I make no claims to being through our accurate for them all) is that we would be living in a Garden of Eden paradise state if it were not for Adam and Eve.  With that answer I can totally see why Non-LDS would dislike Adam and Eve a great deal.  They ruined everything... we suffer, we hurt, we bleed, not because it is part of God plan for our greater good, but because Adam and Eve messed it up.  Of course that leads to some very serious questions about God's all knowing, all powerful, merciful, and loving nature.  If his plan could be so seriously derailed for the so many billions of us.

LDS answer the "WHAT IF" question by saying this mortal state we are all in was the plan from the beginning.  That God had a plan for Adam and Eve to leave the Garden, become mortal, and suffer and learn.  Since our current state was part of the plan all along we have no reason to hate Adam and Eve.   As our first parents Adam and Eve had some honor and respect due them.  But I think that since we do not know how God would have continued had Adam and Eve not partaken of the Fruit, so with our limited understanding we say that Adam and Eve must have Sinned for the plan to continue and if they had to do it then it was not a sin.  This is kinda paradoxical, and it ignores some powerful scriptural stories.

Abraham was promised that his seed would be great and greatly blessed.  Then the Lord gave what appeared to be a conflicting command.  "Kill your Son"  We know how that story ends because Abraham was faithful and kept the commandment.  With God himself providing the critical directions and path forward at the last minute.   In my mind the LDS take that Adam and Eve must had Sinned in order for the Plan to progress is kind of like saying Joseph Smith had to lose the 116 pages of the Book of Mormon because we clearly see how God's plan countered that lost.  We can make some pretty good guesses on what would have happened had Joseph Smith not lost the 116 pages (No major differences) but we because of our limited understanding we can not see how God would have moved things forward without Adam and Eve's sin (Aka would God have provided an alternate means like he did Abraham?)... And I feel that in our blindness we stumble into ideas that are not warranted.

 

 

Edited September 9, 2017 by estradling75

[SpiritDragon]

8 hours ago, prisonchaplain said:

I take a narrowly-focused view of 1 Tim 2:14. Adam is not exonerated. His guilty. However, he did know what he was doing more than Eve. Remember that Adam was with Eve at the encounter with the Serpent, but that Eve was not with Adam at the very beginning of creation. Adam even knew that Eve was created for him. So, why did Adam do it? He could have desired Eve sexually, and believed that to continue in their relationship (I see no reason to believe that they were asexual in Eden--sex is not part of the fall, imho) he would need to follow her wishes on this. After all, once she ate the fruit, if he held strong he would lose her. Perhaps the deception part is that Eve truly believed she would become wise, like God, and that she would not die. Adam knew that the wisdom would not be what she hoped, and that they would die. Yet he took. It could mean he loved Eve more than God.

I'm just curious as to your thoughts on them being able to have children. Because if they were sexual beings in the garden, why no children there - or do you believe that some lucky posterity are living blissfully in Eden while others of us come here to suffer? 

How does Adam lusting for Eve sexually as a reason for eating the fruit reconcile with the state of innocence he would have in the garden? Or do you not believe they were in a state of innocence? From my perspective desiring to have Eve sexually as a reason to partake of the fruit could only be a reason he could come up with after partaking, but not prior to doing so.I like a more noble or innocent reason myself, such as Adam remembering that Eve was created in the first place because it isn't good for man to be alone, and he realized he would be alone if he didn't share Eve's fate.

[Just_A_Guy]

9 hours ago, person0 said:

[1] The main issue I come back to is that since we don't know the full details of the hypothetical plan A you alluded to, I question how God would have Adam and Eve complete the fall in a way that would fulfill both physical and spiritual death.

If God did return and then said, "okay, you can eat the fruit now," Adam and Eve would have died physically, and yet not transgressed the law, as a result they would have remained in God's presence.  I would speculate that they, now being mortal, would then have been physically destroyed in the presence of God unless transfigured.  Even if they weren't destroyed, they would have to fall spiritually through some other means to make effective the atonement, unless you assume (similar to protestant theology) that we would all have been born in the Garden and have lived as sinless mortals and the atonement would only be for purposes of resurrection.  That idea just doesn't sound right to me.

. . .

[2] Personally, I lean toward the idea that commanding to not partake of the fruit was a 'formality' of sorts.  God could not remain perfect, and yet place Adam and Eve in harms way without warning them in advance and forbidding them from partaking of a substance that would lead to their death and the physical dissolution of their bodies.  Otherwise, had they eaten with His blessing, it would actually be His fault that they died.  This is part of the genius of His plan; the way fall occurred being anticipated and planned for as the way it would play out from the beginning.

Side Note:  In consideration of protestant and traditional theology, would God really expect all mankind to live forever without a knowledge of good and evil?  So why make that knowledge a part of the tree they weren't supposed to eat?  Seems counter intuitive.

I love your comments!  Here are a couple of responsive thoughts regarding my counterfactual  hypothetical (which, I agree to be highly speculative):

1)  The act of partaking the fruit, under this hypothetical, would not have been sinful/disobedient per se.  But it would still have created a change in Adam and Eve's spiritual natures--a loss of innocence and a spiritual capacity for sin--that would have separated them from the Father; because that's the nature of the fruit itself.  The problem wasn't that they violated God's prohibition against taking the fruit of just any old tree--if they were truly "innocent", then disobedience itself *couldn't* constitute sin.  The defining feature of the Fall was less about the act of disobedience, and more about the peculiar qualities of the specific fruit Adam and Eve ate.

2)  I agree that a defining feature of the plan is that man can't be able to blame God for his own fallen nature.  But to avoid culpability, I don't think God needs to prohibit taking the fruit in perpetuity--He just needs to a)clearly prohibit it until such time as Adam and Eve can make a fully informed decision; and b) not subjugate their own agency by ordering or otherwise compelling them to partake.

[SpiritDragon]

When does the discussion on Lilith begin? 

[person0]

1 hour ago, Just_A_Guy said:

I love your comments!  Here are a couple of responsive thoughts regarding my counterfactual  hypothetical (which, I agree to be highly speculative):

1)  The act of partaking the fruit, under this hypothetical, would not have been sinful/disobedient per se.  But it would still have created a change in Adam and Eve's spiritual natures--a loss of innocence and a spiritual capacity for sin--that would have separated them from the Father; because that's the nature of the fruit itself.  The problem wasn't that they violated God's prohibition against taking the fruit of just any old tree--if they were truly "innocent", then disobedience itself *couldn't* constitute sin.  The defining feature of the Fall was less about the act of disobedience, and more about the peculiar qualities of the specific fruit Adam and Eve ate.

2)  I agree that a defining feature of the plan is that man can't be able to blame God for his own fallen nature.  But to avoid culpability, I don't think God needs to prohibit taking the fruit in perpetuity--He just needs to a)clearly prohibit it until such time as Adam and Eve can make a fully informed decision; and b) not subjugate their own agency by ordering or otherwise compelling them to partake.

I disagree with some of the details, but the context you presented, while speculative, is relatively reasonable.  Besides, there has to be some way that other worlds who don't have a devil/tempter achieve their fall.  I am thinking this is also your assumption about how it is accomplished on those other worlds?

[Just_A_Guy]

1 hour ago, person0 said:

I disagree with some of the details, but the context you presented, while speculative, is relatively reasonable.  Besides, there has to be some way that other worlds who don't have a devil/tempter achieve their fall.  I am thinking this is also your assumption about how it is accomplished on those other worlds?

I hadn't really thought about it in that context; but it seems plausible.