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

[larkin31]

…So we differ profoundly in our view of this entire situation and what it led to for the posterity of Adam and Eve. I view the “thorns and thistles” and the “work” of this world and this life, as necessary components in a world where we are here to grow and learn. I don’t view those aspects of this world as “punishments”. I view them as needful for the refining process that is talked about over and over in the Bible. It is not such a bad process, with Christ’s help through it all. It is a good process–a growth process, a change process, an ultimately joyful process.

Parker, I am not nearly as religious as you (I am barely religious at all), but I have been in the past and I have thought much about the Eden story. I agree with you entirely here, and would go so far as to say that this “Fall” is in fact a tale of our first fully human and adult act. Adam and Eve grow up, clothe themselves, and leave the play room. Part of the legacy of that act is that that deliciousness has been passed on to all of us.

 

[Jay53]

Another good question, but one that is not only not answered in the text of the Bible, but leads to wondering again whether God really is omniscient meaning that He knew Adam and Eve well enough and knew their personalities and even knew the future well enough to know what they would do in such a situation. Since I believe God is omniscient including knowing personalities and knowing the future, then I don’t spend time wondering about a lot of “what ifs?” in my life.

But as I had noted earlier, I don’t think it can be assumed from the text of the Bible that God would have given Adam another companion at that point, so Eve would have been sent away and Adam would have remained alone with God in the garden of Eden, and if asked about his situation I suppose he would have been told, “Adam, what do you want me to do? Eve has been sent away and she will die because of eating the forbidden fruit, and she knew that was the consequence.”

If Adam were then to ask, “What about that I need a help meet and a companion and that we are supposed to multiply and replenish the earth?” then I suppose God may be expected to say in that situation, “You had one, and I gave her to you, and she made a choice as did you. Now you are experiencing the consequence of her decision and your decision. I am not here to ‘fix things’ for either of you. Decisions have consequences, Adam.”

You seem to paint God as very cruel and uncaring in this scenario to think that God would simply blow Adam off and not give him another companion after Eve’s disobedience; particularly since it was Eve’s disobedience and not Adam’s. You honestly think that God would say, “You chose to obey Me instead of listening to your wife, so now you will remain alone forever. Oh well; too bad for you;”?

You’re also still making it sound like God approved of Adam’s choice to be disobedient because he was supposedly keeping other commandments. I still don’t believe that Adam thought he would be keeping the “be fruitful and multiply” commandment by partaking of the fruit. He was told that he would die. He cannot “be fruitful and multiply” if he dies. I truly think you are overthinking this and giving Adam too much ‘credit’ (for lack of a better word). He was simply tempted by his wife to disobey God and succumbed to that temptation. I honestly don’t thinking there was all this internal debate going on about “which commandment to break”.

God also specifically says to Adam that his punishment is because he “listened to the voice of his wife” (instead of God). He does not say, ‘because you chose *this *commandment over that commandment you shall have this punishment.’

Then to Adam He said, "Because you have listened to the voice of your wife, and have eaten from the tree about which I commanded you, saying, ‘You shall not eat from it’;

I think this is one of those “agree to disagree” topics.

 

[larkin31]

…You’re also still making it sound like God approved of Adam’s choice to be disobedient because he was supposedly keeping other commandments. I still don’t believe that Adam thought he would be keeping the “be fruitful and multiply” commandment by partaking of the fruit. He was told that he would die. He cannot “be fruitful and multiply” if he dies…

So, you think God lied when he said they “will die”? I am puzzled by your post. Nearly everyone takes God to mean that they will die eventually, instead of living forever. Obviously, they both become mortal (“will die”) AND go on to have children the old-fashioned way.

 

[Jay53]

So, you think God lied when he said they “will die”? I am puzzled by your post. Nearly everyone takes God to mean that they will die eventually, instead of living forever. Obviously, they both become mortal (“will die”) AND go on to have children the old-fashioned way.

No, I don’t think God lied. I think that is what God meant - that they will become mortal and will die. But I don’t think Adam knew that at the time - he didn’t have any reason to think that “you will die” meant anything other than “you will die now” instead of “you will become mortal and will eventually die” until their disobedience and they found out what it actually meant. I just don’t think any of the “which commandment do I break?” internal debate that Parker proposes factored into his decision at the time that he ate the fruit.

 

[truthsilence]

I have always wondered how any person could conclude that the commandment to be fruitful and multiply was jeopardized if the man and woman failed to eat the fruit that God commanded them NOT to eat! This reasoning, IMO, makes God into some sort of mind-game-playing manipulative freak…and for what reason? To be able to say it was okay, and even necessary to disobey Him.

The word, again, is trust. I choose Gods wisdom over my own even when I can’t see the future that He promises. At this point in life, I trust it will be as He says, because I have experience with Him to draw from, and that certainly helps. So no matter how difficult it may be (and I will fail at following Him perfectly), I trust that it would be best for me to do so.

 

[truthsilence]

Larkin, do you conclude that they couldn’t have children the old-fashioned way unless they broke a commandment? God told them to be fruitful and multiply earlier in the story. Why did they need to eat the fruit (turn away from what He was telling them) in order to do what He commanded them?

 

[truthsilence]

hey I know you. we missed you at SoC!

Hi RebeccaJ Thanks. :hug1:

 

[ParkerD]

Parker, I am not nearly as religious as you (I am barely religious at all), but I have been in the past and I have thought much about the Eden story. I agree with you entirely here, and would go so far as to say that this “Fall” is in fact a tale of our first fully human and adult act. Adam and Eve grow up, clothe themselves, and leave the play room. Part of the legacy of that act is that that deliciousness has been passed on to all of us.

Larkin31,
Well said and well thought out! I love how you described this–thank you for “delicious” insights here.

 

[SteveVH]

Hi RebeccaJ Thanks. :hug1:

 

[truthsilence]

Larkin31,
What I meant in answer to your question was that the atonement covered all of human history, including the fall of Adam and Eve and continuing thereafter. It is evident that Abraham knew about the atonement of Christ as a future event.

I meant that Moses and Abraham and other prophets (including Isaiah) knew about the coming atonement of the Redeemer and Messiah, and that they were in contact with “God’s grace” because of a future event since God could know the future and could provide them “grace” through that future atonement event. God is not limited by a human time factor, particularly for the single most important event ever to occur in the history of the world. Its occurrence went backwards in time as** it occurred in the Meridian of time**.

Thus, Isaiah speaks of the atonement as a “past” or a “present” event even though he is writing about it as a future event in Isaiah 53 and in Isaiah 61:1-3 and in many other passages. The mercy offered by Christ covered Adam and Eve, Abraham and Moses, and all their descendants, and they knew it as they learned about it.

I hope this has explained better what I meant, and has answered your question. Have a wonderful day.

(embolden mine).

ParkerD, The Fullness (not the “Meridian”) of time, began with the birth of our Lord Jesus Christ, not with the arrival of Joseph Smith, (See Galations 4:4)

 

[ParkerD]

(embolden mine).

ParkerD, The Fullness (not the “Meridian”) of time, began with the birth of our Lord Jesus Christ, not with the arrival of Joseph Smith, (See Galations 4:4)

Truthsilence,
I accept that the “Fullness of time” began with the birth of our Lord Jesus Christ.

What I meant by the “Meridian” of time is the “middle point” and the “pinnacle point” in the history of this world after its creation. The pinnacle point is the atonement of Christ (beginning in the garden of Gethsemane, continuing with His trial and carrying the cross, and with His crucifixion and saying “it is finished”) followed immediately by His glorious resurrection.

Have a wonderful day.

 

[SteveVH]

SteveVH,
I can understand that the “serpent” was a “dragon” since that also matches what John described in his vision in Revelation 12:7-9. I understand that all those identities are referring to Satan.

But there is nothing written in Genesis that shows that Adam was supposed to be “watching out” for a dragon or a serpent or Satan who was going to show up and deceive his wife and companion. Especially is this true as we observe Genesis 3:1 with the words “more subtle than any beast of the field”. That would mean that the disguise of Satan was a “subtle” disguise, not easily detected especially by someone with no experience whatsoever. We (and Dr. Hahn) have the benefit of hindsight that Adam did not have.

So, I disagree with your assertion that Eve was being threatened by Satan and Adam knew it and watched it happen and did nothing about it.

If you’re saying that Eve and Adam knew that by partaking of the forbidden fruit, they knew that they were going to be cast into “hell” or “eternal fire”, then I disagree completely. If you’re saying that they knew they would likely be sent away from the garden of Eden and be shut out from the presence of God and thus be in a position where they would have to “go it on their own” and would eventually die, then I agree that they probably understood that consequence of their decisions.

They ate and did die in the “day” when they partook–which day was in the “Lord’s time” or in other words, less than a thousand mortal years. I have recently read a Jewish explanation of this, and it matches what I already understood about the word “day” in the context of God’s commandment to Adam and Eve.

Then your assertions drift into assumptions about Adam and Eve that are simply not there in the Genesis text, at all. They are unsupported by the text. Moses did not write text about those conclusions drawn by those who have taught such conclusions. Those conclusions are simply not true. To make decisions based on those conclusions, or draw other conclusions based on those conclusions, is to go off on a tangent that is unsupported by the text (except for the fact that “they and their descendants would never be the same”–that is true).

Parker, as I have demonstrated, God commanded Adam to “guard” the garden. I know you prefer to just take the English translation “to keep” because it fits your view better, but it isn’t acurate. We must assume that Adam wasn’t walking around uninformed, saying to himself “gee, I wonder what I’m suppose to guard against?”.

The one point that you are making about Adam being faced with which commandment to break flies in the face of God’s nature. You accuse me (and one of the top theologians in this country) of drawing conclusions that just aren’t there and going off on a tangent. I believe it is you who are drawing conclusions that just aren’t there. Your contention that God would place Adam in a situation in which he had to break one commandment in order to keep another is very telling as to your perception of Who God is and is certainly a conclusion that has not been drawn by anyone else in my experience. As I have stated before, you have made Adam a victim of God’s poor planning whether you want to admit it or not. There is no other conclusion to be drawn from the scenario you have presented. You are saying that Adam didn’t have a choice precisely because God gave him conflicting commandments. That is not the God I know. I’m aware that the Mormon concept of God differs from 2000 years of Christian theology, maybe I just never knew to what degree.

Adam was under no obligation to break any of God’s commands. If my wife was unfaithful to me, my obligations to remain with her cease. She is suppose to help get me to heaven. If she was leading me into sin she would have broken the marriage covenant and my obligations (and Adam’s) would cease at that point. Instead, Adam cooperated with her in sinning against God. I’m aslo aware that Joseph Smith and Brigham Young believed and taught that Adam was our “Heavenly Father”. Is that where you are coming from in your defense of him?

 

[truthsilence]

Truthsilence,
I accept that the “Fullness of time” began with the birth of our Lord Jesus Christ.

What I meant by the “Meridian” of time is the “middle point” and the “pinnacle point” in the history of this world after its creation. The pinnacle point is the atonement of Christ (beginning in the garden of Gethsemane, continuing with His trial and carrying the cross, and with His crucifixion and saying “it is finished”) followed immediately by His glorious resurrection.

Have a wonderful day.

So, Parker, is Jesus the leader of the “dispensation of the fullness of times”, or is it Joseph Smith?

Thanks. You have a wonderful day too.

 

[larkin31]

No, I don’t think God lied. I think that is what God meant - that they will become mortal and will die. But I don’t think Adam knew that at the time - he didn’t have any reason to think that “you will die” meant anything other than “you will die now” instead of “you will become mortal and will eventually die” until their disobedience and they found out what it actually meant…

There is no indication of this, however, because they give no surprise upon not dying immediately (would they not be relieved, and perhaps even pleased, that they in fact did not die immediately? Would they not say, “The serpent was right!”?), nor does the narrative voice suggest what you state here (no irony, commentary, or surprise from the narrator, either.)

 

[larkin31]

Larkin31,
What I meant in answer to your question was that the atonement covered all of human history, including the fall of Adam and Eve and continuing thereafter. It is evident that Abraham knew about the atonement of Christ as a future event.

I meant that Moses and Abraham and other prophets (including Isaiah) knew about the coming atonement of the Redeemer and Messiah, and that they were in contact with “God’s grace” because of a future event since God could know the future and could provide them “grace” through that future atonement event. God is not limited by a human time factor, particularly for the single most important event ever to occur in the history of the world. Its occurrence went backwards in time as it occurred in the Meridian of time.

Thus, Isaiah speaks of the atonement as a “past” or a “present” event even though he is writing about it as a future event in Isaiah 53 and in Isaiah 61:1-3 and in many other passages. The mercy offered by Christ covered Adam and Eve, Abraham and Moses, and all their descendants, and they knew it as they learned about it.

I hope this has explained better what I meant, and has answered your question. Have a wonderful day.

Then, it is not true that those who came before Jesus were cut off from God’s grace? Are you including only those who spoke of a Messiah? How about Noah, for example. Was he cut off?

 

[ParkerD]

You seem to paint God as very cruel and uncaring in this scenario to think that God would simply blow Adam off and not give him another companion after Eve’s disobedience; particularly since it was Eve’s disobedience and not Adam’s. You honestly think that God would say, “You chose to obey Me instead of listening to your wife, so now you will remain alone forever. Oh well; too bad for you;”?

You’re also still making it sound like God approved of Adam’s choice to be disobedient because he was supposedly keeping other commandments. I still don’t believe that Adam thought he would be keeping the “be fruitful and multiply” commandment by partaking of the fruit. He was told that he would die. He cannot “be fruitful and multiply” if he dies. I truly think you are overthinking this and giving Adam too much ‘credit’ (for lack of a better word). He was simply tempted by his wife to disobey God and succumbed to that temptation. I honestly don’t thinking there was all this internal debate going on about “which commandment to break”.

God also specifically says to Adam that his punishment is because he “listened to the voice of his wife” (instead of God). He does not say, ‘because you chose *this *commandment over that commandment you shall have this punishment.’

I think this is one of those “agree to disagree” topics.

Jay53,
I certainly agree that this is a case of agreeing to disagree. I have never once in my life thought of God as “cruel and uncaring.”

I will reiterate that God is all-knowing, omniscient, knows the future, knew Adam and Eve’s personalities and knew the choices they would make given the situation they faced. (I hope that is clear as a bell.) God had a loving plan already in place for that eventuality, and it had Christ at the very center of that loving plan, but also had freedom of choice as a foundational part of that loving plan.

A child often begins their school years with the notion of not wanting to go to school. A loving parent insists they go to school. In the case of Adam and Eve, God didn’t insist they go to school–he let them choose whether they would go, voluntarily, and would face the consequences knowing that those consequences could be painful and difficult, but that in the midst of the growth God would still love them and knows more than they know so they could indeed ultimately trust Him.

Adam did indeed hearken to the voice of his wife. God was stating the circumstance as it had occurred. Adam had broken a commandment, and that had a set of consequences (not described as “punishments”, by the way).

Maybe there is a lesson to be learned about accepting the Fall as a necessary process, and the atonement and its atoning grace–also about accepting that a man and a woman can be help meets for each other in a way they may not realize when they started out.

Maybe if Adam had had the circumstance you asked about, God would have told him, “Adam, you still have the choice that you can make involving Eve and having her companionship. I have never taken that choice away from you.”

Have a good day, Jay53.

 

[ParkerD]

Then, it is not true that those who came before Jesus were cut off from God’s grace? Are you including only those who spoke of a Messiah? How about Noah, for example. Was he cut off?

Larkin31,
Noah had revelation from God and knew about God’s grace. Those who came before Jesus were not cut off from God’s grace. Some people didn’t know about it, but the prophets did, and tried to teach the people about it in ways they would relate to and begin to understand.

 

[Jay53]

There is no indication of this, however, because they give no surprise upon not dying immediately (would they not be relieved, and perhaps even pleased, that they in fact did not die immediately? Would they not say, “The serpent was right!”?), nor does the narrative voice suggest what you state here (no irony, commentary, or surprise from the narrator, either.)

The narrative does not suggest all of what Parker is suggesting/interpreting either.

 

[Jay53]

Have a good day, Jay53.

You too!

 

[larkin31]

Larkin, do you conclude that they couldn’t have children the old-fashioned way unless they broke a commandment? God told them to be fruitful and multiply earlier in the story. Why did they need to eat the fruit (turn away from what He was telling them) in order to do what He commanded them?

Good question. Remember, also, that I am presently not a believer.

I think that the early writers of this tale meant it the way you interpret it: that God meant for them to multiply in Eden in a state of quasi-aware innocence (and ignorance). However, I also think that the early writers were just too wise and too genius to let it stay at that, and what they also wrote was a brilliant metaphor for the heart of the adult human condition: fully aware of suffering. The original intent is good and bountiful, but the writers just could not let it really go that way, that human reproduction and care and struggle to survive can only be in full awareness of mortality and suffering and strife. Whether God or Adam or Eve is at fault does not matter to me; the fallen state HAD TO BE because its description is genius and beautiful and incredibly profound. The morality of the tale is simplistic: the authoritarian God gave a clear command and the childish humans disobeyed after one attempt at persuasion by the antagonist and they are all punished. This is uncomplicated; even children get it. But the necessity of this fall–for the tale to have any relevance to our human condition–and the desire to “know” and be most fully “aware” (a desire of the mind linked with a pleasure of the body–taste, hunger) both make this story much more than just a religious morality tale. Humanity IS precisely this condition, for ever and ever, amen.