Adam's Choice to Remain with Eve--The keeping of a commandment and blessing.

[ParkerD]

That doesn’t make any sense. You can just as easily ask, why did God even give them the choice or temptation to begin with, knowing that they would be tempted and knowing their personality what choice they would make. God expected Adam’s obedience - not his disobedience in order to fulfill His plan. You seem to be trying to say that God deliberately set Adam up to sin in order to fulfill His plan - that somehow God approved of Adam’s disobedience and sin because it would lead to what He originally planned.

Jay53,
Subsequent to your comment, I have read the other comments also just now ('been away all afternoon), and note that there are several speculative items, such as that Adam was “watching” while Eve partook of the fruit (how in the world does anyone know that from the text in Genesis?) They could have been in different parts of the garden (are we talking a ten by ten space of ground, or what? More likely several acres).

Your comment that “God expected Adam’s obedience” does not probe into the issue of God’s omniscience including knowledge of personality traits. If God knew Eve’s personality and knew Adam’s personality, yet had given Adam the commandment that he should “cleave” unto Eve (2:24) and that she was to be his companion and “help meet”–then the aspect of there being a dilemma in his potential decision-making seems quite obvious from the standpoint of an all-knowing Parent or an all-knowing (Omniscient) God.

To say that God “planned” would be partially true in any case, if one believes God is omniscient. If God the Son is truly eternal (which He is), then He had the potential to rescue Adam and Eve from their eventual death and separation from God through His atoning sacrifice, and that atonement, under the plan that would represent a plan of an omniscient and omnipotent God, should surely have been allowed for as the likely necessity based on God’s knowing Eve’s and Adam’s personalities and their eventual choices.

One could say God deliberately set up a situation where the personalities of Eve and Adam would likely lead them to make the choices they made, but they were the ones making the choices–not God, nor the adversary who sought to destroy God’s plan and who deceived Eve but used her personality to do it.

SteveVH,
The text is Genesis. What Joseph Smith may have said on the subject is beside the point compared with looking at Genesis and seeing what it says, and understanding that God is truly omniscient and omnipotent. Go right to the source text–Genesis, written by Moses.

 

[larkin31]

Jay53,
Subsequent to your comment, I have read the other comments also just now ('been away all afternoon), and note that there are several speculative items, such as that Adam was “watching” while Eve partook of the fruit (how in the world does anyone know that from the text in Genesis?)

The bolded part:

6 When the woman saw that the fruit of the tree was good for food and pleasing to the eye, and also desirable for gaining wisdom, she took some and ate it. She also gave some to her husband, who was with her, and he ate it. 7 Then the eyes of both of them were opened, and they realized they were naked; so they sewed fig leaves together and made coverings for themselves.

 

[SteveVH]

Jay53,

SteveVH,
The text is Genesis. What Joseph Smith may have said on the subject is beside the point compared with looking at Genesis and seeing what it says, and understanding that God is truly omniscient and omnipotent. Go right to the source text–Genesis, written by Moses.

ParkerD:

I have never heard an interpretation even close to what Joseph Smith and Brigham Young espoused. Just look at their take on Adam being our Heavenly Father who brought one of his wives, Eve, to earth with him. You imply by your statement “Go to the source text-Genesis, written by Moses”, that 1) I haven’t gone to the source text, and 2) if I just would then I would agree with your statement, especially since Moses wrote it (thanks for that by the way, I always wondered. ) Your reading of the same words that I am reading is influenced by the founders of your Church, just as I am influenced by the founders of my Church. It just so happens that the founder of my Church is Jesus Christ who buit His Church on the rock of Peter, and I can prove it with real historic evidence. Your Church was started by a man, Joseph Smith, whose claims cannot be verified by anyone. But please don’t tell me that your interpretation is as fresh as the driven snow. It goes right along with Smith’s philosophy and is “another gospel” which we were warned about falling for.

 

[ParkerD]

The bolded part:

Larkin31,
Interesting translation. Which one is the one you quoted?

Here is the Douay-Rheims translation into English:

Genesis 3:6 And the woman saw that the tree was good to eat, and fair to the eyes, and delightful to behold: and she took of the fruit thereof, and did eat, and gave to her husband who did eat. 7 And the eyes of them both were opened: and when they perceived themselves to be naked, they sewed together fig leaves, and made themselves aprons. 8 And when they heard the voice of the Lord God walking in paradise at the afternoon air, Adam and his wife hid themselves from the face of the Lord God, amidst the trees of paradise.

Note that there is no mention of “who was with her” and that this would be closer to the original Hebrew text.

Peace to you, and thanks for sharing where certain people might have gotten the idea that
Adam was watching Eve". I don’t think the Hebrew text supports that assumption.

 

[ParkerD]

ParkerD:

I have never heard an interpretation even close to what Joseph Smith and Brigham Young espoused. Just look at their take on Adam being our Heavenly Father who brought one of his wives, Eve, to earth with him. You imply by your statement “Go to the source text-Genesis, written by Moses”, that 1) I haven’t gone to the source text, and 2) if I just would then I would agree with your statement, especially since Moses wrote it (thanks for that by the way, I always wondered. ) Your reading of the same words that I am reading is influenced by the founders of your Church, just as I am influenced by the founders of my Church. It just so happens that the founder of my Church is Jesus Christ who buit His Church on the rock of Peter, and I can prove it with real historic evidence. Your Church was started by a man, Joseph Smith, whose claims cannot be verified by anyone. But please don’t tell me that your interpretation is as fresh as the driven snow. It goes right along with Smith’s philosophy and is “another gospel” which we were warned about falling for.

This need not be a confrontational conversation. I had assumed you had read the source text. I have also read it. If you think it supports your “take” on the issues discussed here, then go ahead and show it from the text itself.

 

[zaffiroborant]

From the King James version:

6And when the woman saw that the tree was good for food, and that it was pleasant to the eyes, and a tree to be desired to make one wise, she took of the fruit thereof, and did eat, and gave also unto her husband with her; and he did eat.

 

[SteveVH]

This need not be a confrontational conversation. I had assumed you had read the source text. I have also read it. If you think it supports your “take” on the issues discussed here, then go ahead and show it from the text itself.

Nor do I want this to be confrontational. Sorry for my contribution in that direction. My point is that we all approach scripture with some bias depending on our particular faith tradition. IMO your interpretation follows the standard Mormon view while you seem to be purporting that it is plain and simple if you just read the source text, that’s all. I am at a disadvantage right now because I just don’t have any resource material at my fingertips because I am traveling and will have to shut down momentarily. I’ll be happy to respond as soon as I am able. Thanks for your patience and please accept my apology for the confrontational attitude on my part.

God bless.

 

[ParkerD]

Nor do I want this to be confrontational. Sorry for my contribution in that direction. My point is that we all approach scripture with some bias depending on our particular faith tradition. IMO your interpretation follows the standard Mormon view while you seem to be purporting that it is plain and simple if you just read the source text, that’s all. I am at a disadvantage right now because I just don’t have any resource material at my fingertips because I am traveling and will have to shut down momentarily. I’ll be happy to respond as soon as I am able. Thanks for your patience and please accept my apology for the confrontational attitude on my part.

God bless.

Thanks, SteveVH,

I appreciate this, and wish you well in your travel. God bless you and your loved ones also.

 

[larkin31]

Larkin31,
Interesting translation. Which one is the one you quoted?

Here is the Douay-Rheims translation into English:

Genesis 3:6 And the woman saw that the tree was good to eat, and fair to the eyes, and delightful to behold: and she took of the fruit thereof, and did eat, and gave to her husband who did eat. 7 And the eyes of them both were opened: and when they perceived themselves to be naked, they sewed together fig leaves, and made themselves aprons. 8 And when they heard the voice of the Lord God walking in paradise at the afternoon air, Adam and his wife hid themselves from the face of the Lord God, amidst the trees of paradise.

Note that there is no mention of “who was with her” and that this would be closer to the original Hebrew text.

Peace to you, and thanks for sharing where certain people might have gotten the idea that
Adam was watching Eve". I don’t think the Hebrew text supports that assumption.

New International Version (from Bible Gateway.com)

Check all of their translations if you’d like (about 20 in English)

 

[Jay53]

Your comment that “God expected Adam’s obedience” does not probe into the issue of God’s omniscience including knowledge of personality traits. If God knew Eve’s personality and knew Adam’s personality, yet had given Adam the commandment that he should “cleave” unto Eve (2:24) and that she was to be his companion and “help meet”–then the aspect of there being a dilemma in his potential decision-making seems quite obvious from the standpoint of an all-knowing Parent or an all-knowing (Omniscient) God.

This makes it sound like you believe that a husband and wife completely lose their individuality once they get married; that a husband or wife who chooses to sin automatically leads their spouse into the same sin. Adam had a choice - he could have obeyed God’s commandment to not eat of the fruit. He didn’t HAVE to follow Eve in her sin, just because she was his wife. He made his choice, just as Eve made her choice.

 

[larkin31]

The story is a mythical explanation, primarily, of two things: the origin of the human species and the origin of suffering. As such, it is basically necessary that there be a couple at the start and that they be expelled together (accepting the narrative setting of the tale). The original sin is disobedience and they both partake equally.

 

[ParkerD]

This makes it sound like you believe that a husband and wife completely lose their individuality once they get married; that a husband or wife who chooses to sin automatically leads their spouse into the same sin. Adam had a choice - he could have obeyed God’s commandment to not eat of the fruit. He didn’t HAVE to follow Eve in her sin, just because she was his wife. He made his choice, just as Eve made her choice.

Jay53,
I disagree that by Adam choosing to be with Eve he would be “losing” his individuality. On the contrary, it would appear very logical that Adam would regard the fact that his wife and companion was going to be “cast out” and eventually die but also be alone in a world filled with unknowns, was to him a situation where his “better self” would say, “I cannot let her do that alone. It would be selfish of me to let her do that alone. I want to help be her protector.”

Decision making is often a spur-of-the-moment process, and I think it is just as likely that those were Adam’s spur-of-the-moment thoughts as opposed to thinking, “If I partake like she did then I will be rebelling against the God whom I love.” I don’t think he looked at it as rebellion. I think he looked at it as a needful choice due to his love for his wife, his desire to be her protector in her new circumstance, and actually a feeling that–hey–maybe he could even be “her hero” as they met the new challenges they would have, TOGETHER. This is not a loss of individuality, at all. It is called synergy–a combining of individual talents and abilities to make a greater capacity than “going it alone” separately.

Have a peaceful day.

 

[Jay53]

Jay53,
I disagree that by Adam choosing to be with Eve he would be “losing” his individuality. On the contrary, it would appear very logical that Adam would regard the fact that his wife and companion was going to be “cast out” and eventually die but also be alone in a world filled with unknowns, was to him a situation where his “better self” would say, “I cannot let her do that alone. It would be selfish of me to let her do that alone. I want to help be her protector.”

Decision making is often a spur-of-the-moment process, and I think it is just as likely that those were Adam’s spur-of-the-moment thoughts as opposed to thinking, “If I partake like she did then I will be rebelling against the God whom I love.” I don’t think he looked at it as rebellion. I think he looked at it as a needful choice due to his love for his wife, his desire to be her protector in her new circumstance, and actually a feeling that–hey–maybe he could even be “her hero” as they met the new challenges they would have, TOGETHER. This is not a loss of individuality, at all. It is called synergy–a combining of individual talents and abilities to make a greater capacity than “going it alone” separately.

Have a peaceful day.

That would seem to indicate that Adam did, in fact, choose his relationship with Eve over being obedient to God. If he did, in fact, think that being “her protector” and “her hero” was more important than obedience to God (even if only subconsciously), then he is, in essence, choosing his relationship and his pride over obedience to God. But, of course, all of this is pure speculation anyways.

The loss of individuality was what I thought you were implying through your posts. You seemed to be indicating that Adam had no choice but to follow Eve because they were married and that he HAD to choose to sin because of that relationship. I apologize for misunderstanding your intent.

 

[ParkerD]

That would seem to indicate that Adam did, in fact, choose his relationship with Eve over being obedient to God. If he did, in fact, think that being “her protector” and “her hero” was more important than obedience to God (even if only subconsciously), then he is, in essence, choosing his relationship and his pride over obedience to God. But, of course, all of this is pure speculation anyways.

The loss of individuality was what I thought you were implying through your posts. You seemed to be indicating that Adam had no choice but to follow Eve because they were married and that he HAD to choose to sin because of that relationship. I apologize for misunderstanding your intent.

Jay53,
God did not chastise Adam or Eve about there being pride involved, at all.

Adam already had a commandment to treat Eve as his “help meet” and to be “with her.” He would have been breaking those commandments if he did not stay “with her.” He would also be breaking the commandment to multiply and replenish the earth.

He would be breaking more commandments by choosing not to eat the forbidden fruit, than by choosing to go ahead and eat and accept the consequences TOGETHER. It was a three versus one situation–does he break three and keep one, but by keeping the one show a selfish regard for his own relationship with God without thinking of her whom God had given as his companion, or does he break one and keep three and show unselfishness in the process?

 

[Jay53]

Jay53,
God did not chastise Adam or Eve about there being pride involved, at all.

Adam already had a commandment to treat Eve as his “help meet” and to be “with her.” He would have been breaking those commandments if he did not stay “with her.” He would also be breaking the commandment to multiply and replenish the earth.

He would be breaking more commandments by choosing not to eat the forbidden fruit, than by choosing to go ahead and eat and accept the consequences TOGETHER. It was a three versus one situation–does he break three and keep one, but by keeping the one show a selfish regard for his own relationship with God without thinking of her whom God had given as his companion, or does he break one and keep three and show unselfishness in the process?

This STILL makes it sound like you think God intentionally WANTED Adam to sin and to choose to disobey His commandment in order to “be fruitful and multiply”. As if God would not have rewarded Adam for being obedient by providing another wife for him after Eve’s disobedience. I think that’s the point - Adam did not trust in God enough and did not trust that God would always provide for him - no matter what. Even if he didn’t KNOW what God would do, he should have trusted and loved God enough to obey Him *no matter what *- even if that meant the end of his relationship with Eve. That is what WE are called to do - to love God with all our hearts, mind and soul. If my spouse chooses to sin, I am certainly not expected by God to follow in his footsteps just because we have been joined in matrimony.

And YES, he should have shown a selfish regard for his relationship with God. God deserves everything from us. Personally, I think Adam showed selfishness in choosing Eve over God - he basically told God that his relationship with Eve as a “help meet” was more important than obedience to God. Wrong choice.

 

[larkin31]

This STILL makes it sound like you think God intentionally WANTED Adam to sin and to choose to disobey His commandment in order to “be fruitful and multiply”. As if God would not have rewarded Adam for being obedient by providing another wife for him after Eve’s disobedience. I think that’s the point - Adam did not trust in God enough and did not trust that God would always provide for him - no matter what. Even if he didn’t KNOW what God would do, he should have trusted and loved God enough to obey Him *no matter what *- even if that meant the end of his relationship with Eve. That is what WE are called to do - to love God with all our hearts, mind and soul. If my spouse chooses to sin, I am certainly not expected by God to follow in his footsteps just because we have been joined in matrimony.

And YES, he should have shown a selfish regard for his relationship with God. God deserves everything from us. Personally, I think Adam showed selfishness in choosing Eve over God - he basically told God that his relationship with Eve as a “help meet” was more important than obedience to God. Wrong choice.

Technically, Adam chooses full knowledge over obedience.

And wouldn’t you? I consider their choice (both of them the same one) to be their first fully human act, and the greatest, most fundamentally human act of all: to desire full knowledge. I know that this is not what the original writers intended in the message, but they (the writers) have also revealed one of the greatest truths of humanity: we desire knowledge of ourselves and our world first and foremost, even when it hurts to learn it.

Beautiful, really.

 

[ParkerD]

This STILL makes it sound like you think God intentionally WANTED Adam to sin and to choose to disobey His commandment in order to “be fruitful and multiply”. As if God would not have rewarded Adam for being obedient by providing another wife for him after Eve’s disobedience. I think that’s the point - Adam did not trust in God enough and did not trust that God would always provide for him - no matter what. Even if he didn’t KNOW what God would do, he should have trusted and loved God enough to obey Him *no matter what *- even if that meant the end of his relationship with Eve. That is what WE are called to do - to love God with all our hearts, mind and soul. If my spouse chooses to sin, I am certainly not expected by God to follow in his footsteps just because we have been joined in matrimony.

And YES, he should have shown a selfish regard for his relationship with God. God deserves everything from us. Personally, I think Adam showed selfishness in choosing Eve over God - he basically told God that his relationship with Eve as a “help meet” was more important than obedience to God. Wrong choice.

Jay53,
My point has been that Adam faced a choice of which commandment(s) to break. He was going to be “sinning” either way, since every one of those commandments was a commandment from God. Should he sin by breaking three commandments, or sin by breaking one commandment?

He was showing loyalty to God either way, because he would have been keeping commandments which he had been given and understood, either way.

The dilemma that can be observed in all this is, how was Adam to decide which commandment(s) were more important in the midst of the choice he had to make? I think he made a wise choice and an unselfish choice.

The kind of thinking that would place Eve alone in the world while Adam stayed in the garden of Eden with an assumption on his part that God would make it up to him by giving him another “Eve” when he had been given her by God with no such assumption that she could be “replaced” (especially in view of the Savior’s clear example when he spoke of Jewish divorce versus the original concept of marriage between Adam and Eve), seems implausible. God had joined them together.

To just walk away from that “joining together” would be to do something that would show more disloyalty to God’s intents for them than to partake of the fruit and face the consequences which would be eventual “death” but would be keeping three commandments.

 

[ParkerD]

Technically, Adam chooses full knowledge over obedience.

And wouldn’t you? I consider their choice (both of them the same one) to be their first fully human act, and the greatest, most fundamentally human act of all: to desire full knowledge. I know that this is not what the original writers intended in the message, but they (the writers) have also revealed one of the greatest truths of humanity: we desire knowledge of ourselves and our world first and foremost, even when it hurts to learn it.

Beautiful, really.

Larkin31,
Thank you for such a significant observation here.

 

[tundramom]

Jay53,
God did not chastise Adam or Eve about there being pride involved, at all.

Adam already had a commandment to treat Eve as his “help meet” and to be “with her.” He would have been breaking those commandments if he did not stay “with her.” He would also be breaking the commandment to multiply and replenish the earth.

He would be breaking more commandments by choosing not to eat the forbidden fruit, than by choosing to go ahead and eat and accept the consequences TOGETHER. It was a three versus one situation–does he break three and keep one, but by keeping the one show a selfish regard for his own relationship with God without thinking of her whom God had given as his companion, or does he break one and keep three and show unselfishness in the process?

This only makes sense if you believe that they could not have multiplied and replenished the earth while still in the garden. That is just about an exclusive Mormon teaching. Are you aware of that?

In my opinion, this only shows how most Mormons view sex (in a broad sense). Why would they HAVE to be “sinful” and live in a fallen world in order to procreate?

Steph

 

[ParkerD]

This only makes sense if you believe that they could not have multiplied and replenished the earth while still in the garden. That is just about an exclusive Mormon teaching. Are you aware of that?

In my opinion, this only shows how most Mormons view sex (in a broad sense). Why would they HAVE to be “sinful” and live in a fallen world in order to procreate?

Steph

Steph,
Hello to you and I hope you are well.

It would make sense either way, because Eve had partaken of the fruit and was going to die and be cast out, and Adam knew that. He also knew they didn’t yet have any children, so somehow they had not yet “multiplied” but here he was faced with the fact that she was going to be gone–never to come back. He had a significant dilemma, all in a brief period of time.

I have no idea what you meant by your last two sentences. If that is a discussion you would like to have, then that might be a little uncomfortable for some readers, but if done tastefully then I suppose if you have questions in that area, then I would try and help alleviate any misunderstanding you may have about that subject. (Perhaps tonight rather than sooner.)

Have a good day, Steph (Tundramom)