Eve


fatima
 Share

Recommended Posts

3 hours ago, SpiritDragon said:

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.

Adam & Eve were not completely innocent in the Garden. They had yet to sin, but they were fully capable. The tree gave them that potential. Every day, as they passed that tree they chose good. They obeyed God. Adam's "lusting" after Eve was not that he wanted her sexually (i.e. for the first time), but more that he did not want to lose her. It is true that many details are left out, in the Genesis account. God intended it that way, so we can only speculate so much. However, I have never agreed with the idea that Adam & Eve were total innocents who really could not be held to full account for the decision to take the fruit.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

24 minutes ago, prisonchaplain said:

Every day, as they passed that tree they chose good.

Do you believe that the simple fact that the tree existed resulted in their knowledge of good and evil?  Because obviously, LDS theology suggests that they understood good and evil only after partaking of the fruit, hence it is called the fruit of the tree of knowledge of good and evil.  Where did the name for the tree come from if not the effects it's fruit would have upon partakers?  This is another reason it confuses me to consider the idea of all mankind living in Eden; it seems as though we would all be innocent/ignorant of understanding.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@person0  As parents, we tell our children they don't have to roll in the mud to know what dirty is. The tree forced them to choose between obeying and disobeying. Obeying = good. Disobeying = bad. Did they understand bad more intensely after they disobeyed? I suppose so. Yet, I've never experienced adultery, but feel I know more than enough about it.

@SpiritDragon The doctrine of free will (similar to but not the same as agency) leads us to conclude that Adam & Eve made a knowing decision. That God punished them with the cursing of nature and death suggests likewise. That God promised Messiah would come shows the gravity of what they had done. It might be called circumstantial evidence, but it's a pretty persuasive case, imho.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Of interest to the conversation.  The LDS church now days accepts as one of it's canon and thus doctrine, the book of Moses found in the Pearl of Great Price.  It is very reflective of the book of Genesis in the Old Testament, but there are some differences.  The following verses reflect some interesting things in regards to this conversation.  The first, is PRIOR to Adam and Eve eating of the fruit of Good and Evil, and a very similar verse can be found in the beginning of the Book of Genesis.

Moses 3:21-25

Quote

21 And I, the Lord God, caused a deep sleep to fall upon Adam; and he slept, and I took one of his ribs and closed up the flesh in the stead thereof;

22 And the rib which I, the Lord God, had taken from man, made I a awoman, and brought her unto the man.

23 And aAdam said: This I know now is bone of my bones, and bflesh of my flesh; she shall be called Woman, because she was taken out of man.

24 Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall acleave unto his bwife; and cthey shall be done flesh.

25 And they were both naked, the man and his wife, and were not ashamed.

If we accept this literally, it would appear that Adam understood this principle of leaving a father and mother and cleaving unto their wife and being one flesh (which is pretty blatantly clear about something I'd think...but...it's to each their own interpretation I suppose.

HOWEVER...and this varies from the Book of Genesis...we skip forward to after they have partaken of the fruit and have been cast out of the Garden of Eden...

Moses 5:10-11

Quote

10 And in that day Adam blessed God and was afilled, and began to bprophesy concerning all the families of the earth, saying: Blessed be the name of God, for because of my ctransgression my deyes are opened, and in this life I shall have ejoy, and again in the fflesh I shall see God.

11 And Eve, his wife, heard all these things and was glad, saying: Were it not for our transgression we never should have had aseed, and never should have bknown good and evil, and the joy of our redemption, and the eternal life which God giveth unto all the obedient.

Which indicates, obviously about the plan of salvation and the ability to have the Savior save us from our sins.  It also talks about, at least from Eve's perspective, that in her understanding that if the transgression never occurred, there never would have been seed, and the joy of redemption and eternal life.

It could be that if they stayed in the Garden all things would have been revealed or occurred, but as they are, we know that as per Eve's ideas in the LDS FAITH, that because of it, after that they could have children, know good and evil, and have the joy of their redemption and the eternal life.

Just some LDS scriptural thoughts tossed in here.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Choosing to do God's Will is only possible if we have a choice to make, which is why the tree was there in the first place.  Once again, love is only love if it is freely given, and A&E did not give God and His law first place in their lives.  For me, the idea that God willed the sin/transgression is impossible to wrap my head around.  Not a single good parent would want their child to disobey even the smallest command.  I mean, what's the point in giving a command at all unless you want and expect it to be followed?

I've read through the responses (although as I write this I don't know which response belonged to whom), but I have always found it fascinating that the 'fall', however you define it, did not happen until after Adam participated.  It is my belief that the supernatural union of man and wife,  that the two shall become one, and that the man is the head, is evident here.  If Adam had either defended Eve from the serpent, or otherwise guided her to the good, perhaps she would not have eaten of the fruit at all.  Or, even if she did, perhaps the fall would not have happened if the head of the family had not participated.  

In Catholic theology, Eve got the ball rolling, but Adam effected it.  So, too, our salvation: the Blessed Mother got the ball rolling, but she did not save us, Jesus effected that salvation.  Mary, knowing an unwed woman could be stoned to death, trusted God and said 'yes' to His Will, same as Abraham.  He was ready to obey God's command to kill Issac, but God stepped in at the end and stopped him.  Abraham trusted God and trusted that He knew best.  If A&E had done the same, I believe that God would have come to them and raised them up to the fullness of what He intended in the first place .  I'm not LDS, but if I were, that would mean exaltation.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 hours ago, prisonchaplain said:

As parents, we tell our children they don't have to roll in the mud to know what dirty is. . . .  Yet, I've never experienced adultery, but feel I know more than enough about it.

I hear what your saying, but in both of these cases, from my LDS based view, I would argue that these examples can not be accurate enough because you already have a knowledge of good and evil, hence you can understand those things without additional experience.  I think it would be very difficult to imagine not having this knowledge which is innate to all of us since Adam and Eve partook.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, fatima said:

Not a single good parent would want their child to disobey even the smallest command.  I mean, what's the point in giving a command at all unless you want and expect it to be followed?

Food for thought:  how many 'good' parents would offer to sacrifice the life of their best child to enable their worst child to live?

I am aware of no version of Christianity where you could accurately say that God 'expected' Adam and Eve to follow the command to not eat the fruit.  Unless one does not believe in the timeless omniscience of God, He already knew they were going to eat it before he even created it.  By default that would eliminate his ability to 'expect' it to be followed. However, it does not change the fact that he implemented the command for the purpose of it being obeyed.His purpose and his expectations do not have to align.  We have speed limits which are implemented for us to obey, yet police officers set up in places solely to catch us breaking the law, because they expect us to disobey it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

God, being perfect is incapable of creating something imperfect.  He had to create man in a perfect state.  But mankind could only learn and grow in an imperfect world with pain and suffering. So, he had to set things up where man would fall.  That was the plan all along.  Along with the fall came the plan of redemption. That was the plan all along.

It was only in this mortal realm where we could be tried and tested.

We know nothing about other worlds or what did or did not happen.  Only two revealed statements have ever been said about the topic.  The Lord's statement is that he would not tell us about any other worlds.  The other was spoken by the devil and was clearly meant to be kept within the context of the allegory in question.

Edited by Guest
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, person0 said:

I hear what your saying, but in both of these cases, from my LDS based view, I would argue that these examples can not be accurate enough because you already have a knowledge of good and evil, hence you can understand those things without additional experience.  I think it would be very difficult to imagine not having this knowledge which is innate to all of us since Adam and Eve partook.

And here we stand. You have added scriptures that allow you this conclusion. I have the Genesis account and a conviction that God is just, and so believe that the opportunity to sin combined with daily communion with God was sufficient knowledge for them to make the call.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, fatima said:

[1]. Choosing to do God's Will is only possible if we have a choice to make, which is why the tree was there in the first place.  Once again, love is only love if it is freely given, and A&E did not give God and His law first place in their lives.  For me, the idea that God willed the sin/transgression is impossible to wrap my head around.  Not a single good parent would want their child to disobey even the smallest command.  I mean, what's the point in giving a command at all unless you want and expect it to be followed?

[2]I've read through the responses (although as I write this I don't know which response belonged to whom), but I have always found it fascinating that the 'fall', however you define it, did not happen until after Adam participated.  It is my belief that the supernatural union of man and wife,  that the two shall become one, and that the man is the head, is evident here.  If Adam had either defended Eve from the serpent, or otherwise guided her to the good, perhaps she would not have eaten of the fruit at all.  Or, even if she did, perhaps the fall would not have happened if the head of the family had not participated.

1). The question that this begs to me, though, is:  since a willful violation of any of God's commands would bring about a fall, why would God go out of His way to set up a tree and its fruit as some sort of indicia for obedience; rather than simply giving Adam and Eve--say--a variant of the Ten Commandments; or fully instruct them in the principles of Godly living which (we presume) He wants us to be applying anyways?  Why does Adam's eating a fruit bring about a Fall, whereas his beating Eve to a pulp in a squabble over a basket of bananas apparently would *not* have yielded the same result?

2). I think Mormons would prefer to characterize the Fall as a process that included *both* Adam and Eve partaking.  Adam didn't have any mystical power to complete the Fall that Eve lacked; except that as circumstances played out, he happened to be (for a brief time) the only human who hadn't partaken and until he ate, there was some subset of mankind that hadn't fallen yet.  

But I do agree that one questione we, as Mormons, don't ask enough; is why Adam was so indifferent towards Eve as to cavalierly leave her alone in the first place when (per the Mormon narrative) he *knew* Satan was in the garden and *knew* what Satan was trying to do.  I think the answer has some ramifications--at least symbolically--for the gender-specific family, priesthood, and ministerial obligations Mormon teaching and practice imputes to men.

Edited by Just_A_Guy
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Carborendum said:

God, being perfect is incapable of creating something imperfect.  He had to create man in a perfect state.  But mankind could only learn and grow in an imperfect world with pain and suffering. So, he had to set things up where man would fall.  That was the plan all along.  Along with the fall came the plan of redemption. That was the plan all along.

It was only in this mortal realm where we could be tried and tested.

We know nothing about other worlds or what did or did not happen.  Only two revealed statements have ever been said about the topic.  The Lord's statement is that he would not tell us about any other worlds.  The other was spoken by the devil and was clearly meant to be kept within the context of the allegory in question.

God is the only perfect being, IMHO.  Perfect goodness, perfect knowledge, perfect love, etc.  We are to grow in perfection, that is, holiness, but only the perfection our particular species (for lack of a better word) is capable.  I do not believe we will ever be a god of any sort.


Further, to person's statement:  

Quote

 

Food for thought:  how many 'good' parents would offer to sacrifice the life of their best child to enable their worst child to live?


 

I don't know what good parent would ever send their child (best child, worst child, whatever) to go and suffer and die such as Jesus did, rather going Himself, which is the relevant point when we say God became man.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just as darkness itself is not a 'thing' in and of itself, but an absence of light, so is sin.  

God is all light and goodness, and He has no sin.  By His very nature He cannot sin, nor can He will sin, IMHO.  If He wills sin, He is no longer perfect; if  there is an absence of perfection is Him,  He certainly doesn't sound like a Supreme Being I would want to worship.

Once again, as a parent, I want my children to live as I teach them to live.  I do not want them to sin so that they may more fully recognize that...what?...I was right all along?   I know that they will become the best men and women God created them to be if they live a certain way.  I do not want them to suffer through poverty, STD's, legal battles or whatever earthly and eternal consequences may come from poor choices.

It is not better that my 2nd child is living as sinful life, a life I know will bring suffering and sadness.  I would rather that she took the same course her older brother did, which is to walk the straight and narrow.  He will not suffer like she will.

Is there a chance my daughter will repent someday, and that some great goodness will come from that?  Yes, absolutely!  She may fall on the Mercy of God and become a very holy woman. 

So...anyway...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, fatima said:

I've read through the responses (although as I write this I don't know which response belonged to whom), but I have always found it fascinating that the 'fall', however you define it, did not happen until after Adam participated.  It is my belief that the supernatural union of man and wife,  that the two shall become one, and that the man is the head, is evident here.  If Adam had either defended Eve from the serpent, or otherwise guided her to the good, perhaps she would not have eaten of the fruit at all.  Or, even if she did, perhaps the fall would not have happened if the head of the family had not participated.  

In Catholic theology, Eve got the ball rolling, but Adam effected it.  So, too, our salvation: the Blessed Mother got the ball rolling, but she did not save us, Jesus effected that salvation.  Mary, knowing an unwed woman could be stoned to death, trusted God and said 'yes' to His Will, same as Abraham.  He was ready to obey God's command to kill Issac, but God stepped in at the end and stopped him.  Abraham trusted God and trusted that He knew best.  If A&E had done the same, I believe that God would have come to them and raised them up to the fullness of what He intended in the first place .  I'm not LDS, but if I were, that would mean exaltation.

This forum is LDS Gospel Discussion, not Catholic Teachings. I think it is inappropriate to critique LDS doctrine anywhere on the MormonHub forum, but especially in a subforum dedicated to discussing the gospel of Jesus Christ as taught by his kingdom, the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

If you want to understand LDS doctrine, this is the place. If you want to debate LDS doctrine or proclaim how false you believe it to be, go elsewhere.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Carborendum said:

God, being perfect is incapable of creating something imperfect.

I would point out that this is obviously false. It is derivative of Greek Platonism and neoPlatonism, as propounded by the Catholic Church and its offshoots for nearly two millennia now. Of course God can create "imperfect" things. He created us, and we're imperfect. He created Satan. Don't fall into the trap of believing the nonsense about how a perfect God is incapable of creating imperfect things.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

42 minutes ago, Vort said:

I would point out that this is obviously false. It is derivative of Greek Platonism and neoPlatonism, as propounded by the Catholic Church and its offshoots for nearly two millennia now. Of course God can create "imperfect" things. He created us, and we're imperfect. He created Satan. Don't fall into the trap of believing the nonsense about how a perfect God is incapable of creating imperfect things.

God saw His creation and that it was good.  At the time of our creation there was no sin.  No sin=good.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

39 minutes ago, fatima said:

God saw His creation and that it was good.  At the time of our creation there was no sin.  No sin=good.

Quote

 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.

These two thoughts that you have expressed appear to be in contradiction to each other, or at least you may be picking and choosing when to apply them to various thoughts. On the one hand you want to discount the idea of God dealing in time, and on the other it is exactly what you yourself propose - that before the fall the creation was good. If God says it's good would that not include the present?  Granted, according to LDS teaching the earth will be glorified and become a Celestial home, and so indeed if God sees that as though it has already happened, surely His creation is indeed good.

Does Catholicism teach there is a purpose to this world and a purpose to this life, and if so what are those teachings? Forgive me if I'm off-base in asking you about Catholicism, I'm under the impression that is your back-ground and a deep-seated part of your belief system currently. Any other Catholic or non-lds Christian teachings surrounding these two items will also be of interest to me.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Just_A_Guy said:

why Adam was so indifferent towards Eve as to cavalierly leave her alone in the first place

This is a great question.  My thoughts are why would he assume anything other than Eve's obedience to Heavenly Father?  He had already set the example previously, at this point he didn't really know that much about Lucifer, the idea of disobeying was likely a foreign concept rather than an obviously malicious deed, and he had never experienced any reason not to trust Eve.  Distrust is built into us as part of our social experiences, which he wouldn't have experienced until after Eve brought the fruit to him having first partaken.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, fatima said:

God is the only perfect being, IMHO.  Perfect goodness, perfect knowledge, perfect love, etc.  We are to grow in perfection, that is, holiness, but only the perfection our particular species (for lack of a better word) is capable.  I do not believe we will ever be a god of any sort.

That really has nothing to do with your original question or my last post to which you responded.  But thank you for stating your position on something completely unrelated.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

50 minutes ago, SpiritDragon said:

These two thoughts that you have expressed appear to be in contradiction to each other, or at least you may be picking and choosing when to apply them to various thoughts. On the one hand you want to discount the idea of God dealing in time, and on the other it is exactly what you yourself propose - that before the fall the creation was good. If God says it's good would that not include the present?  Granted, according to LDS teaching the earth will be glorified and become a Celestial home, and so indeed if God sees that as though it has already happened, surely His creation is indeed good.

Does Catholicism teach there is a purpose to this world and a purpose to this life, and if so what are those teachings? Forgive me if I'm off-base in asking you about Catholicism, I'm under the impression that is your back-ground and a deep-seated part of your belief system currently. Any other Catholic or non-lds Christian teachings surrounding these two items will also be of interest to me.

I think you are looking for a contradiction where there is none.  God is not bound by time, but we are, and therefore the topic of when in time we were created is perfectly logical.  As to your inquiries about Catholic teaching, I have been notified by @Vort that the LDS Gospel discussion forum is not the place to discuss my church's teachings on any topic,  and I might find myself in somewhat tentative agreement with him.  My previous posts were not meant to be a challenge to LDS teaching, but just as a way of expressing how difficult it is to understand LDS theology.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Vort said:

I would point out that this is obviously false. It is derivative of Greek Platonism and neoPlatonism, as propounded by the Catholic Church and its offshoots for nearly two millennia now. Of course God can create "imperfect" things. He created us, and we're imperfect. He created Satan. Don't fall into the trap of believing the nonsense about how a perfect God is incapable of creating imperfect things.

I believe we (and Satan) are only imperfect because of that element of us that was pre-existent.  The Spirit bodies he created for us were perfect.  It was only our imperfect intelligences that made them anything less.

When he created Adam and Eve, they were given a perfect body.  But their imperfect spirits (only made imperfect by the influence of their imperfect intelligences) were capable of doing that which would corrupt the otherwise perfect bodies that God created for them.

However, I do agree that the idea that He cannot create imperfect things is incomplete.  I don't believe it to be entirely false.  As I do not have complete knowledge on the subject, I can't really expound any further than that.

Edited by Guest
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Carborendum said:

That really has nothing to do with your original question or my last post to which you responded.  But thank you for stating your position on something completely unrelated.

God, being perfect is incapable of creating something imperfect.

I was responding to your statement, bolded above.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, fatima said:

God, being perfect is incapable of creating something imperfect.

I was responding to your statement, bolded above.  

No, you weren't.  Your statement in no way addresses my statement.  And if you took the time to actually learn about LDS theology instead of trying to poke holes into it, you'd realize how that is so.

Edited by Guest
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Carborendum said:

No, you weren't.  Your statement in no way addresses my statement.  And if you took the time to actually learn about LDS theology instead of trying to poke holes into it, you'd realize how that is so.

One could argue that the beauty and the curse of many topics, and probably faith and theology more than any other, is that one topic leads to the next, as they are all intertwined in Salvation History.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 minutes ago, fatima said:

As to your inquiries about Catholic teaching, I have been notified by @Vort that the LDS Gospel discussion forum is not the place to discuss my church's teachings on any topic,  and I might find myself in somewhat tentative agreement with him.

To be clear: I am not an administrator, and my objections are not specific to the mention of other faiths. Rather, I object to criticism of the Church and its doctrines and practices, and attempts to establish other beliefs in their stead. This forum is not the appropriate place. Again, I'm no admin, but I bet they agree with me in this. If not, I invite correction.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • pam featured this topic
  • pam unfeatured this topic

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share