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

[ParkerD]

You think it was necessary to **disobey God **in order to gain wisdom?

You’ve lost me again. I thought I had a handle on how you viewed this, but obviously not.

Jay53,
My point has consistently been that Eve realized that experiencing some kinds of choices in life was going to enable her and Adam to gain “wisdom” so that they would gain “joy” rather than be mere innocents in a garden where they were in basically a static condition and situation. They had all their needs met, with little effort on their part.

So she was willing to have it happen that she would be “disobeying” God to some degree, and making choices that would not be perfect in every situation she would face, because she realized that this was the beginning of the road to gaining wisdom. This was a huge realization–an aha! moment. A moment of the realization that when God said they could choose, He really meant they could choose, and that the eventuality of death was in her mind worth the price of making choices that involved being separated from God (like being separated from parents and pulling away from the apron strings) yet having Adam by her side. That would be why she persuaded him to partake the fruit as she had, to open a door to a world of progress through choices and experiences and leaving behind a world of little progress and little experience and little joy.

No, in answer to the obvious question of "Why is just being in the presence of God not “joyful” enough? To understand real joy, one must have had some kinds of comparative experiences or there would be no recognition of what the word “joy” even means. One may say a one-year-old looks like they have “joy” in their life, but does someone wish they had stayed being a one-year-old for their entire life, or a five-year-old, and wished that the joys of the level of a one-year-old or a five-year-old were the level of joy they could only attain to in their life? (I hope not.)

 

[SteveVH]

First, thank you for responding.

SteveVH,
There is a policy and practice on this website that describes staying with a topic, and that is what I have tried to do. I have not brought up Mormonism unless someone asked a specific question that dealt with needing to explain a particular LDS viewpoint. I have been discussing the Bible using the text itself–the words as they are translated from Hebrew to English.

Well that’s fine Parker, but you cannot tell me that your interpretation is not influenced by the doctrines you believe as a Mormon. I would say the same about myself. My Catholic faith is always present when I read scripture. None of us has just picked this up for the first time without any outside influence. I’m happy to be influenced by my faith and the insight it has given me in reading scripture. I’m sure you feel the same way, but lets not say that the meaning you have derived is because you understand the written words better than the rest of us and that your faith has nothing to do with it. If that is the case you are really saying that the rest of us are just simple minded.

I have not the slightest care about what Brigham Young or Orson Pratt may have said or been quoted as saying about Adam and Eve. My textual support is the Bible itself. Do you understand that I don’t care what BY or OP may have said? Joseph Smith did not say anything such as you attributed in your question.

Sorry for mis-speaking about Joseph Smith. You certainly know this better than I. I just thought I recalled reading BY basically quoting JS about the Adam thing but I guess I was wrong. I understand that you are saying that you are only relying on the scriptural texts to make your point, but does it bother you that one of the first leaders of your church believed that Adam was God while you agree that Adam also sinned?

I suppose that you realize that Luke wrote that Adam “was the son of God.” (Luke 3:38) This would in the very least mean that Luke was not shying away from acknowledging that Adam was created as a child of God, and could be acknowledged as such without some sort of opprobrium about his choice to remain with Eve and bring forward the peopling of the earth and carrying out his stewardship to care for the earth God had given as a place to develop and grow and have their children grow.

I have no problem with saying that Adam was a son of God. He most certainly was, in a very literal sense, he had no earthly father. However, he was human, not divine. God created him, there for he is a creature, unlike Jesus, who was both human and divine and not created. I believe I am an adopted son of God, or I should say I hope to be providing I persevere.

There is indeed a Mormon doctrine that this earth is created for humankind to progress–that we would have been in a condition where progress would have been limited had we not gone forward from pre-mortal life to mortal life, because of the need to gain wisdom and gain an understanding about love and compassion by being here, right here on the earth where we can observe life and observe the conditions that help us gain wisdom and help us gain compassion. I’m saying that Eve became innately aware of that need, and made a choice to bring about the situation where she, Adam, and their children could fulfill the need to gain wisdom and gain compassion through experiencing the struggles of life and also the joys of life. She was willing to undergo death to do that, and have Adam and have their children undergo death to do that. She made a courageous, forward-looking choice, not a self-centered, self-serving choice. 'Huge difference in motives than what has been expressed by those explaining the Catholic position on why she chose what she chose…

I think the horse is dead. How many more times or ways can we rehash this? I and most others on this thread think you are 180 degrees from the truth on this one. You obviously don’t see it that way. I do want to say I admire your courage as well as the other LDS posters’. Regardless of whether or not we ever agree it is very helpful to have all of you on this forum. You are bold in defending your position and we all learn a lot about your faith; knowledge we would not otherwise have. Thanks.

 

[ParkerD]

First, thank you for responding.

Well that’s fine Parker, but you cannot tell me that your interpretation is not influenced by the doctrines you believe as a Mormon. I would say the same about myself. My Catholic faith is always present when I read scripture. None of us has just picked this up for the first time without any outside influence. I’m happy to be influenced by my faith and the insight it has given me in reading scripture. I’m sure you feel the same way, but lets not say that the meaning you have derived is because you understand the written words better than the rest of us and that your faith has nothing to do with it. If that is the case you are really saying that the rest of us are just simple minded.

Sorry for mis-speaking about Joseph Smith. You certainly know this better than I. I just thought I recalled reading BY basically quoting JS about the Adam thing but I guess I was wrong. I understand that you are saying that you are only relying on the scriptural texts to make your point, but does it bother you that one of the first leaders of your church believed that Adam was God while you agree that Adam also sinned?

I have no problem with saying that Adam was a son of God. He most certainly was, in a very literal sense, he had no earthly father. However, he was human, not divine. God created him, there for he is a creature, unlike Jesus, who was both human and divine and not created. I believe I am an adopted son of God, or I should say I hope to be providing I persevere.

I think the horse is dead. How many more times or ways can we rehash this? I and most others on this thread think you are 180 degrees from the truth on this one. You obviously don’t see it that way. I do want to say I admire your courage as well as the other LDS posters’. Regardless of whether or not we ever agree it is very helpful to have all of you on this forum. You are bold in defending your position and we all learn a lot about your faith; knowledge we would not otherwise have. Thanks.

SteveVH,
I agree that there is no sense “beating a dead horse.” Thank you for being diplomatic and kind in your response above. I sincerely wish you every joy and happiness in your life as you desire them.

As for BY and his teaching, the latest thing I read noted that the word “Adam” does not necessarily mean the man whom God created and placed in the garden of Eden, and that the word as used by BY was probably the word that would mean “First Father”. (That would mean partly that BY was speaking in a use of the term that was not being understood by the majority of the people listening, but part of BY’s personality seems to have been that he spoke his mind and didn’t mind if people needed to stretch to try and figure out what he was really saying.)

 

[TheQuestioner]

No, Questioner,
My point has been that Eve was not rejecting God by partaking of the forbidden fruit. Got that? I have never agreed with you on that point. The only agreement we have reached is that the wisdom Solomon received was prayerfully sought and prayerfully received, but I have noted that this was through his reflection and meditation about his life experiences and those of his father, mother, and others he observed.

No, Solomon did not sit down in a dark room and meditate on all the experiences he had, and those of his father, and then suddenly come upon a vast amount of wisdom. Solomon directly asked God for wisdom and it was given to him. To deny this or try to construed it any other way is to deny 1 Kings 3. Wisdom comes from God. Plain and simple.

When I think of Mother Theresa, I think of someone who probably had a lot of compassion and a lot of wisdom. I think she obtained those qualities in her life as she chose to place herself in circumstances where she could be of service, and she learned from the suffering she observed as well as the love she observed among the people she served. She described that love as a remarkable thing.

1. Mother Theresa has nothing to do with what we are talking about
2. Your example does not change a thing about anything we said because it is out of place. We are talking theologically here.
3. Mother Theresa is Catholic and adhere’s to Catholic teaching, so she would give you the same answer I am giving you, “wisdom, kindness, understanding, love, all come from God and if you want it ask Him for it”

Eve was not trying to “gain wisdom without God.” She was trying to gain wisdom through the means that became clear that was necessary–the means of experiencing what the terms “good and evil” were going to mean. She involved God in her life thereafter. I have pointed that out. She acknowledged God’s gifts and blessings in her life. Got it?

No, that is not what the narratives say. God cursed Eve. She disobeyed Him and was cursed. Not only that, but you contradict Job. Eve here is disobeying Him. As Job 28 says:

28 And he said to man,
‘The fear of the Lord—that is wisdom,
and to shun evil is understanding.’ "

Eve did not act in a fearful way. She disobeyed Him. We know this because of what it says in Genesis 2

15 The LORD God took the man and put him in the Garden of Eden to work it and take care of it. 16 And the LORD God commanded the man, “You are free to eat from any tree in the garden; 17 but you must not eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, for when you eat of it you will surely die.”

Look, we get it. In LDS God Himself is Adam, and so must have been doing the right thing. Actually I believe it is the belief that in order for procreation to happen there had to be a fall. But that is beyond the point. You are trying to defend and bring LDS teaching using only the Bible, and though we all appreciate it therein lies your fundamental flaw. You cannot only use the bible to preach LDS teachings. If you could there would be no need for a Book of Mormon, and Joseph Smith would not have needed one to bring out the message of God. So either admit you were wrong or admit that you need the Book of Mormon to make your point clear. But it is dishonest to keep going on as if you have some point, because I and everyone else on this thread have shown that logically your idea of the Fall is untrue.

 

[paulinephiliphs]

I wasn’t aware that people interpreted that passage as Adam choosing Eve over God. I was always taught that Adam was trying to shift the blame of his actions over to Eve.

Product Liability

 

[ParkerD]

No, Solomon did not sit down in a dark room and meditate on all the experiences he had, and those of his father, and then suddenly come upon a vast amount of wisdom. Solomon directly asked God for wisdom and it was given to him. To deny this or try to construed it any other way is to deny 1 Kings 3. Wisdom comes from God. Plain and simple.

1. Mother Theresa has nothing to do with what we are talking about
2. Your example does not change a thing about anything we said because it is out of place. We are talking theologically here.
3. Mother Theresa is Catholic and adhere’s to Catholic teaching, so she would give you the same answer I am giving you, “wisdom, kindness, understanding, love, all come from God and if you want it ask Him for it”

No, that is not what the narratives say. God cursed Eve. She disobeyed Him and was cursed. Not only that, but you contradict Job. Eve here is disobeying Him. As Job 28 says:

28 And he said to man,
‘The fear of the Lord—that is wisdom,
and to shun evil is understanding.’ "

Eve did not act in a fearful way. She disobeyed Him. We know this because of what it says in Genesis 2

15 The LORD God took the man and put him in the Garden of Eden to work it and take care of it. 16 And the LORD God commanded the man, “You are free to eat from any tree in the garden; 17 but you must not eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, for when you eat of it you will surely die.”

Questioner,
The LDS believe that God “created” Adam and Eve. Got that? That meant that Adam and Eve were a son and a daughter of God in whatever sense you desire to make it, but not that they were God. However, there is such a thing in Genesis as the expressions the “sons of God” and the “daughters of men”, in which case the “daughters of men” would mean those women who have given themselves over to carnality.

For one to think that Solomon received wisdom without thinking or effort on his part other than by asking God for wisdom, is absolutely amazing to me. Do you think God expects humankind never to think, never to meditate, never to “learn” from Him through thinking about the experiences of their lives and the choices they may have made?

What “curse” are you saying Eve received from God, besides death which was overcome by the Savior (both physical death and spiritual death)?

 

[TheQuestioner]

Questioner,
The LDS believe that God “created” Adam and Eve. Got that? That meant that Adam and Eve were a son and a daughter of God in whatever sense you desire to make it, but not that they were God. However, there is such a thing in Genesis as the expressions the “sons of God” and the “daughters of men”, in which case the “daughters of men” would mean those women who have given themselves over to carnality.

Thank you for clarifying

For one to think that Solomon received wisdom without thinking or effort on his part other than by asking God for wisdom, is absolutely amazing to me. Do you think God expects humankind never to think, never to meditate, never to “learn” from Him through thinking about the experiences of their lives and the choices they may have made?

And yet, there it is in 1 Kings 3. Solomon goes through hell, God says “good job, what do you want?” Solomon asks God for wisdom, God says “sure”. Note that Solomon did not receive gratuitous wisdom through his struggles, but directly from God. You can deny this all you want but it is there in the text.

God does not expect humankind never to think, but I think you are assuming that this fallen world is no different than the world beforehand other than “it was nice and happy”. This is not the case. Humankind was fundamentally different, all of nature was different. Our hearts were not hard to God, so we could accept wisdom without quarrel. After the fall they became hard, so we are required to be put in a state where we can accept wisdom (otherwise we never would), hence suffering, which puts us in this state.

And you contradict yourself. How can they “learn from Him” by meditating on their experiences? They are either learning from their experiences or from God. Even if you argue that God put them through those experiences, if their wisdom is drawn directly from them then they are still learning primarily from their experiences.

What “curse” are you saying Eve received from God, besides death which was overcome by the Savior (both physical death and spiritual death)?

…Really? You ask me “what curse?” and then you name the very curse. You realize you answered your own question right?

But, still:

Genesis 3
16 To the woman he said,
“I will greatly increase your pains in childbearing;
with pain you will give birth to children.
Your desire will be for your husband,
and he will rule over you.”

Realize also that the reason you face so much opposition is because you presume Adam and Eve knew that a Savior would come. This is no where found in the bible (though it may be different in the Book of Mormon). So to say that “Eve knew” wont work with anyone here since it is not found in the Bible that such a thing was the case. Not only that but it is a bit presumptuous (i know you are tired of hearing this) because it pressumes that God will be merciful. Mercy is a gift that does not have to be given. The very nature of mercy means that there is no guarantee it will be given out. So it is presumptuous to think “God will send Christ to die for us” because there was no guarantee from the start that He would have actually done this. It was totally out of left field.

I realize that in the Mormon view of God (from what I have gathered) He is not as absolute. Before we can talk about what comes and does not come from God, learn some more about the Catholic concept of God. Once you do I think it will become apparent to you why I keep asserting that wisdom comes directly from God. For us God is the beginning of everything that is, was and will be. He is the uncaused cause. From Him all good things emanate, and because of Him they are good. Look more into the Catholic view of God, then after that I am sure you will understand more about where we are all coming from.

 

[ParkerD]

Thank you for clarifying

And yet, there it is in 1 Kings 3. Solomon goes through hell, God says “good job, what do you want?” Solomon asks God for wisdom, God says “sure”. Note that Solomon did not receive gratuitous wisdom through his struggles, but directly from God. You can deny this all you want but it is there in the text.

God does not expect humankind never to think, but I think you are assuming that this fallen world is no different than the world beforehand other than “it was nice and happy”. This is not the case. Humankind was fundamentally different, all of nature was different. Our hearts were not hard to God, so we could accept wisdom without quarrel. After the fall they became hard, so we are required to be put in a state where we can accept wisdom (otherwise we never would), hence suffering, which puts us in this state.

And you contradict yourself. How can they “learn from Him” by meditating on their experiences? They are either learning from their experiences or from God. Even if you argue that God put them through those experiences, if their wisdom is drawn directly from them then they are still learning primarily from their experiences.

…Really? You ask me “what curse?” and then you name the very curse. You realize you answered your own question right?

But, still:

Genesis 3
16 To the woman he said,
“I will greatly increase your pains in childbearing;
with pain you will give birth to children.
Your desire will be for your husband,
and he will rule over you.”

Realize also that the reason you face so much opposition is because you presume Adam and Eve knew that a Savior would come. This is no where found in the bible (though it may be different in the Book of Mormon). So to say that “Eve knew” wont work with anyone here since it is not found in the Bible that such a thing was the case. Not only that but it is a bit presumptuous (i know you are tired of hearing this) because it pressumes that God will be merciful. Mercy is a gift that does not have to be given. The very nature of mercy means that there is no guarantee it will be given out. So it is presumptuous to think “God will send Christ to die for us” because there was no guarantee from the start that He would have actually done this. It was totally out of left field.

I realize that in the Mormon view of God (from what I have gathered) He is not as absolute. Before we can talk about what comes and does not come from God, learn some more about the Catholic concept of God. Once you do I think it will become apparent to you why I keep asserting that wisdom comes directly from God. For us God is the beginning of everything that is, was and will be. He is the uncaused cause. From Him all good things emanate, and because of Him they are good. Look more into the Catholic view of God, then after that I am sure you will understand more about where we are all coming from.

Questioner,
I agree that Eve did not know there was going to be a Savior when she ate the forbidden fruit. I do think that just as she was already accustomed to thinking and feeling at that point, that she was expecting that she would continue thinking and feeling as a mortal person with death as a part of what she was going to experience. I am saying she accepted that death could be a part of her experience, and that was OK and perhaps she decided it was even necessary. The point is she weighed the consequences of two different options:

1–Stay in the garden of Eden with Adam and with very limited experience but live in the presence of God (like a child living with their parent), and live as long as they wanted, but with no opportunity for “wisdom” and limited opportunity for “joy”. (Note that I have disagreed with your point that all she needed to do to gain wisdom was ask for it from God–that she understood that gaining wisdom required having choices to be able to make, and learning from those choices.)

(Nor have I agreed with you that 1 Kings 3 says that Solomon received wisdom from God without his mind and his thoughts being involved in the process of receiving the blessing of wisdom. The Bible does not say that, at all, and shows exactly the opposite.)

or

2–Actually “leave their father” (leave behind the apron strings–note that Adam had said as recorded in Genesis 1:24 for a married couple to leave father and mother) and His presence, go into a world of uncertainty and choices and experience leading to the possibility of gaining wisdom by thinking and feeling in the midst of that process of new more difficult choices to make, with that process also including the eventuality of death. (Note that she had no reason to believe she would not be able to still “feel” God’s love or to “pray” to God even though knowing she would be out of His presence.) (Note also that the very next thing that is recorded she did, besides becoming pregnant and having a baby, is that she said “I have gotten a man from the Lord.”)

So she was thinking of God the whole time. She did not feel alienated from God. She felt His love, and felt that His love had been manifest by the blessing of having a baby. (Genesis 4:1)

(I guess the ECF and tradition weren’t there to tell her she was such a bad person and had committed such a horrible sin that she was no longer allowed to feel that God was blessing her life. Hmmm–she actually had a relationship with God directly, without the interference of an alienating tradition.)

 

[Jay53]

Jay53,
My point has consistently been that Eve realized that experiencing some kinds of choices in life was going to enable her and Adam to gain “wisdom” so that they would gain “joy” rather than be mere innocents in a garden where they were in basically a static condition and situation. They had all their needs met, with little effort on their part.

So she was willing to have it happen that she would be “disobeying” God to some degree, and making choices that would not be perfect in every situation she would face, because she realized that this was the beginning of the road to gaining wisdom. This was a huge realization–an aha! moment. A moment of the realization that when God said they could choose, He really meant they could choose, and that the eventuality of death was in her mind worth the price of making choices that involved being separated from God (like being separated from parents and pulling away from the apron strings) yet having Adam by her side. That would be why she persuaded him to partake the fruit as she had, to open a door to a world of progress through choices and experiences and leaving behind a world of little progress and little experience and little joy.

No, in answer to the obvious question of "Why is just being in the presence of God not “joyful” enough? To understand real joy, one must have had some kinds of comparative experiences or there would be no recognition of what the word “joy” even means. One may say a one-year-old looks like they have “joy” in their life, but does someone wish they had stayed being a one-year-old for their entire life, or a five-year-old, and wished that the joys of the level of a one-year-old or a five-year-old were the level of joy they could only attain to in their life? (I hope not.)

So, your position is:

• Eve DID disobey God and committed a sin.
• The only way for her (or Adam) to obtain wisdom was by committing that sin and becoming mortal
• God would not have given Eve wisdom simply by her asking for it. She had to become mortal and experience sin and death in order to obtain any wisdom that she wanted
• Her choice to disobey God was a good one because it led to her obtaining wisdom, even though all of humankind would then experience pain/suffering/death
• Eve’s experiences in the Garden of Eden in the presence of God could never be “enough” because she did not have and could never have this “wisdom” without disobeying God and eating of the fruit
• The commandment to not eat of the fruit of the tree was a “lesser commandment” and more of a “choice” than the commandment to “be fruitful and multiply” which was to be obeyed no matter what
• The commandment to “be fruitful and multiply” could not be obeyed without disobedience to the “eating of the fruit” commandment

These are the conclusions I have drawn from your myriad of posts throughout the thread. Have I assessed them correctly? Please add to or expound wherever I have missed the mark. Thanks.

 

[TheQuestioner]

Questioner,
I agree that Eve did not know there was going to be a Savior when she ate the forbidden fruit. I do think that just as she was already accustomed to thinking and feeling at that point, that she was expecting that she would continue thinking and feeling as a mortal person with death as a part of what she was going to experience. I am saying she accepted that death could be a part of her experience, and that was OK and perhaps she decided it was even necessary. The point is she weighed the consequences of two different options:

Show me scriptural reference. This is not philosophy, this is scripture we are talking about here, so show me a scriptural reference that shows it was OK for Eve to bring death in the world, or that it was even good. Don’t just state what you think, back it up with scripture and highlight the points that matter. You miss the fact that there was a fundamental difference between man before and after the fall. After the fall it says “their eyes were open”. This is in reference to the fact that they realized how far they had fallen. God calls out to them “where are you?”, not because He cannot find them but He poses them a question. Where are they now as compared to before? Don’t just say what you think, at the very least back it up with scripture because I do not see your view anywhere within the book of Genesis. If it is make it clear.

1–Stay in the garden of Eden with Adam and with very limited experience but live in the presence of God (like a child living with their parent), and live as long as they wanted, but with no opportunity for “wisdom” and limited opportunity for “joy”. (Note that I have disagreed with your point that all she needed to do to gain wisdom was ask for it from God–that she understood that gaining wisdom required having choices to be able to make, and learning from those choices.) (Nor have I agreed with you that 1 Kings 3 says that Solomon received wisdom from God without his mind and his thoughts being involved in the process of receiving the blessing of wisdom. The Bible does not say that, at all, and shows exactly the opposite.)

The first part is just jargon based on either what you think or what the Book of Mormon says along with you not having the honesty to tell us where it actually is from. (But why? You haven’t shown me why you disagree. You brought up some good points, but you have failed to show that Solomon didn’t draw gratuitous wisdom directly from his experience but from God, not only that but you failed to respond to my quote from Genesis where God explicitly tells Adam and Eve not to eat of the fruit and my quote from Job saying wisdom comes from fear of the Lord which would mean since Eve didn’t fear the Lord she did not gain wisdom, but the opposite, she and Adam became foolish, not to mention ignorant since to turn away from bad is understanding which they lost after the fall).

2–Actually “leave their father” (leave behind the apron strings–note that Adam had said as recorded in Genesis 1:24 for a married couple to leave father and mother) and His presence, go into a world of uncertainty and choices and experience leading to the possibility of gaining wisdom by thinking and feeling in the midst of that process of new more difficult choices to make, with that process also including the eventuality of death. (Note that she had no reason to believe she would not be able to still “feel” God’s love or to “pray” to God even though knowing she would be out of His presence.) (Note also that the very next thing that is recorded she did, besides becoming pregnant and having a baby, is that she said “I have gotten a man from the Lord.”)

This is better but you still failed. First, you mean Genesis 2:24, a simple typo that can happen to anyone. Second, Adam does not say that, the author (Moses presumably) did. Re-read your bible. (you quote Eve out of context. She is talking about how God continues to produce people through her, which He does through every woman, for God animates humans and infuses the soul into the fertilized egg).

(I guess the ECF and tradition weren’t there to tell her she was such a bad person and had committed such a horrible sin that she was no longer allowed to feel that God was blessing her life. Hmmm–she actually had a relationship with God directly, without the interference of an alienating tradition.)

This is not even a fair criticism. You are simply muttering what you believe to be the Catholic position, that Eve was such a horrible person who should have been abandoned by God after the fall. This is not true. Though what she and Adam did was horrible and they certainly did deserve to be abandoned, the Lord was merciful to them and all mankind.

 

[ParkerD]

So, your position is:

• Eve DID disobey God and committed a sin.

Yes, by definition as well as by the fact that God presented the consequences after she had broken the specific commandment. She chose the consequences by choosing to break the particular commandment, since she knew to some extent about the consequences (though not to a full extent).

• The only way for her (or Adam) to obtain wisdom was by committing that sin and becoming mortal

That is correct based on the kind of wisdom Solomon asked for and showed he had as he wrote the book of Proverbs and as he dealt with issues as a ruler. (So by wisdom I do not mean “always choosing perfectly and never making a mistake”. It means instead "being able to see beyond one’s limited vision through gaining a broader perspective and through life experiences that facilitate gaining that broader perspective, and being able to share that perspective as a teacher or as a parent or as a companion in marriage.)

• God would not have given Eve wisdom simply by her asking for it. She had to become mortal and experience sin and death in order to obtain any wisdom that she wanted

I would disagree with the word choice of “any wisdom that she wanted.” I would also disagree with the word choice “experience sin”. She committed one sin that brought her the situation of experiencing other choices–not participating in other sins, although it meant she would probably make some mistakes in her choices in the course of her future life.

I conclude that she wanted something (wisdom) that she did not perceive she had, and that seemed a desirable thing to have in that it would help her and Adam experience joy.

• Her choice to disobey God was a good one because it led to her obtaining wisdom, even though all of humankind would then experience pain/suffering/death

I think it was a good one, but that’s me. If any person doesn’t think it was a good choice, then that is their own perogative. I accept that the choice to eat that fruit led to a condition that I am grateful to have, especially knowing that I have a Savior which, as I have noted, she did not know at that point which is all the more remarkable that she was willing to make such a choice (yet she did know that God loved her and Adam, so maybe she thought “there is something I have not been told about this whole situation, but all I know is innately I feel this need to gain wisdom and to experience choices”.)

But I reiterate that I am grateful that this life entails pain/suffering/work/hard things and even death, since death brings newness of life in the resurrection.

• Eve’s experiences in the Garden of Eden in the presence of God could never be “enough” because she did not have and could never have this “wisdom” without disobeying God and eating of the fruit

She had a very limited situation. She perceived that it was not “enough” for her. I think that is a logical choice, particularly for a woman. I have observed that for Adam, “status quo” was the more likely logical choice. “Knowledge of good and evil” (not committing evil acts per se, but having a knowledge that evil exists and being able to make a knowledgeable choice about doing good or doing a wrong thing) meant, to Eve, the opportunity to gain “wisdom” which she understood she was limited from having based on her situation. After all, that is what the fruit was all about.

• The commandment to not eat of the fruit of the tree was a “lesser commandment” and more of a “choice” than the commandment to “be fruitful and multiply” which was to be obeyed no matter what

She made a choice that it was a lesser commandment to her (she did, after all, make the choice that she made). Again, any person can decide whether it is a lesser commandment to them. Do they want to live in a condition of innocence? Do they want to not be allowed to make choices? Do they wish their parent would make all of their choices for them? Do they wish God would make all of their choices for them? Do they wish God would somehow not let them make wrong choices and thus suffer consequences from wrong choices and learn from having made wrong choices while at the same time learning how to make better choices in the future?

• The commandment to “be fruitful and multiply” could not be obeyed without disobedience to the “eating of the fruit” commandment

Adam faced this choice. I don’t know that Eve faced this choice. (However, she had no children while in Eden, nor was there death so it does become a question of how the procreation process was going to work if there was no mentrual cycle involved. Sorry for the bluntness.)

These are the conclusions I have drawn from your myriad of posts throughout the thread. Have I assessed them correctly? Please add to or expound wherever I have missed the mark. Thanks.

They were great summations of the major issues involved. Thanks, and have a good day.

 

[SteveVH]

SteveVH,
I agree that there is no sense “beating a dead horse.” Thank you for being diplomatic and kind in your response above. I sincerely wish you every joy and happiness in your life as you desire them.

As for BY and his teaching, the latest thing I read noted that the word “Adam” does not necessarily mean the man whom God created and placed in the garden of Eden, and that the word as used by BY was probably the word that would mean “First Father”. (That would mean partly that BY was speaking in a use of the term that was not being understood by the majority of the people listening, but part of BY’s personality seems to have been that he spoke his mind and didn’t mind if people needed to stretch to try and figure out what he was really saying.)

Well maybe, but that isn’t the way it sounded when I read it. At the very least, if he was speaking in code, you can see how it would be confusing to the rest of the world. It would be as if I used the name Jesus and then said I was really just referring to “God’s presence with us”, not Jesus of Nazareth. I would think he would have had a duty to clear that up.

 

[Jay53]

That is correct based on the kind of wisdom Solomon asked for and showed he had as he wrote the book of Proverbs and as he dealt with issues as a ruler. (So by wisdom I do not mean “always choosing perfectly and never making a mistake”. It means instead "being able to see beyond one’s limited vision through gaining a broader perspective and through life experiences that facilitate gaining that broader perspective, and being able to share that perspective as a teacher or as a parent or as a companion in marriage.)

But Solomon came after Adam and Eve. Why would Eve have believed that God would deny her what she asked of Him? What is your evidence that she, in fact, believed this (that she could not ask Him for what she wanted)?

Also, why do you believe that God cannot just “give” someone wisdom if they ask for it? Is this beyond His capabilities? Or has He revealed to us that He would never have done this for Adam & Eve and now will never do this for someone?

I would disagree with the word choice of “any wisdom that she wanted.” I would also disagree with the word choice “experience sin”. She committed one sin that brought her the situation of experiencing other choices–not participating in other sins, although it meant she would probably make some mistakes in her choices in the course of her future life.

I conclude that she wanted something (wisdom) that she did not perceive she had, and that seemed a desirable thing to have in that it would help her and Adam experience joy.

But she had to disobey God to obtain that which she wanted. Why don’t you believe that she should have turned to God to obtain any joy that she wanted? What evidence is there that through sin is the only way she could experience joy?

You mentioned once that you don’t believe embryonic stem cell research is acceptable. Why not? Why is the noble cause of curing horrible diseases and helping people not good enough to warrant such research? Such cures would bring “wisdom” and “joy” to those that can/need to experience it. How is that different from the “wisdom” and “joy” that Eve allegedly wanted to experience?

I think it was a good one, but that’s me. If any person doesn’t think it was a good choice, then that is their own perogative. I accept that the choice to eat that fruit led to a condition that I am grateful to have, especially knowing that I have a Savior which, as I have noted, she did not know at that point which is all the more remarkable that she was willing to make such a choice (yet she did know that God loved her and Adam, so maybe she thought “there is something I have not been told about this whole situation, but all I know is innately I feel this need to gain wisdom and to experience choices”.)

But I reiterate that I am grateful that this life entails pain/suffering/work/hard things and even death, since death brings newness of life in the resurrection.

What evidence do you have that the alternative would have been unacceptable, i.e. the reality that Adam & Eve had without eating the fruit? Why do you doubt that God would have provided them what they needed?

She had a very limited situation. She perceived that it was not “enough” for her. I think that is a logical choice, particularly for a woman. I have observed that for Adam, “status quo” was the more likely logical choice. “Knowledge of good and evil” (not committing evil acts per se, but having a knowledge that evil exists and being able to make a knowledgeable choice about doing good or doing a wrong thing) meant, to Eve, the opportunity to gain “wisdom” which she understood she was limited from having based on her situation. After all, that is what the fruit was all about.

But, shouldn’t her first thought have been to turn to God and ask Him for what she wanted? Are we not called to put God first in our lives - to love Him with all our hearts, minds and souls, including trusting Him with everything that we are and will be? To suggest that sin can somehow give us something that God can’t is rather blasphemous.

She made a choice that it was a lesser commandment to her (she did, after all, make the choice that she made). Again, any person can decide whether it is a lesser commandment to them. Do they want to live in a condition of innocence? Do they want to not be allowed to make choices? Do they wish their parent would make all of their choices for them? Do they wish God would make all of their choices for them? Do they wish God would somehow not let them make wrong choices and thus suffer consequences from wrong choices and learn from having made wrong choices while at the same time learning how to make better choices in the future?

Adam & Eve still had free will and the ability to make choices without partaking of the fruit. That was the whole reason they were able to choose to disobey God. I’m not sure why you think that their alternate reality (before their sin) was somehow lacking or deficient.

Adam faced this choice. I don’t know that Eve faced this choice. (However, she had no children while in Eden, nor was there death so it does become a question of how the procreation process was going to work if there was no mentrual cycle involved. Sorry for the bluntness.)

But there is nothing in scripture to suggest that she couldn’t have children and that she needed to sin in order to have children. What evidence is there that she did not have a menstrual cycle? Sorry, but you’ve lost me with that one.

They were great summations of the major issues involved. Thanks, and have a good day.

Thanks for the (name removed by moderator)ut. Have a good day!

 

[ParkerD]

But Solomon came after Adam and Eve. Why would Eve have believed that God would deny her what she asked of Him? What is your evidence that she, in fact, believed this (that she could not ask Him for what she wanted)?

Hi, again, Jay53,

If she had asked for “wisdom”, then the first step she would go through after asking for wisdom would be the step that answers “how does one get wisdom from God?” If the answer to that question was already comprised of needing to experience making choices (not just which food to eat for a certain meal, but the many choices involving doing a wrong thing or doing a right thing), then she would perceive, “Eve, you already have your answer since you already have been given a choice about the knowledge of good and evil.” The entire set of verses ties these two qualities together. Eve could be perceptive enough to understand that.

Also, why do you believe that God cannot just “give” someone wisdom if they ask for it? Is this beyond His capabilities? Or has He revealed to us that He would never have done this for Adam & Eve and now will never do this for someone?

I have asked for the precedent that shows that He would, and has. The issue of “beyond His capabilities” is beside the point. God lives by truth because He made truth, and loves truth. His responses to prayer will never go against truths about life and truths He has revealed in the Bible (subsequent to Adam and Eve) about how wisdom is gained or truths are discovered. They are discovered by asking, yes, but also by seeking and by knocking–which imply doing something in the process of asking.

But she had to disobey God to obtain that which she wanted. Why don’t you believe that she should have turned to God to obtain any joy that she wanted? What evidence is there that through sin is the only way she could experience joy?

That is why I wrote that it was an “aha! moment” for her. ( Her logical thought process would be “God already has given me the answer of how I can obtain wisdom. It is an affront to Him to think that when He has already given the answer to the question of how to obtain wisdom, I should ask Him for a different answer than the one He has already given.”) She would also innately feel, given her personality, that there was something she was missing that was about gaining joy and was about experiencing changes in her life and in the life of Adam, her “true love” (given to her by God whom she also loved) and her companion.

Where is there evidence in the Bible or in your life experience that a mortal person experienced deep joy in their life, from God, without receiving that joy after receiving some kind of opposite quality in their life?

You mentioned once that you don’t believe embryonic stem cell research is acceptable. Why not? Why is the noble cause of curing horrible diseases and helping people not good enough to warrant such research? Such cures would bring “wisdom” and “joy” to those that can/need to experience it. How is that different from the “wisdom” and “joy” that Eve allegedly wanted to experience?

In the first place, current research suggests that viable research gaining the same answers that stem cell research would gain, can be done with skin cells rather than with stem cells. So those arriving at the need for taking live tissue from a viable fetus to do research and thinking that was an acceptable approach, needed to ask more questions in their research and accept a limitation that such research would never be a “correct approach” in terms of acceptable truth in the eyes of God, by taking live tissue and not having that tissue live its life as that live tissue in and of itself (by being in a womb and developing into a baby)

I understand you think there is a valid analogy, but the taking of innocent life (even before it has developed viability) is completely different than saying, “there is one commandment that has a specific set of consequences if I break it, which does not involve killing and does involve the opportunity to gain wisdom and joy as the potential outcome from breaking that one particular commandment.”

 

[ParkerD]

Continuation to Jay53:

What evidence do you have that the alternative would have been unacceptable, i.e. the reality that Adam & Eve had without eating the fruit? Why do you doubt that God would have provided them what they needed?

Again, the question becomes what Eve thought they needed versus what she had been told were her choices, and what her experiences had already led her to find out in the course of her life up to that point. She didn’t have wisdom at that point, nor reason to believe it would descend upon her along with the attribute of “joy” without her doing something to receive those qualities into her life along with Adam.

My point is that Adam being a “status quo” individual would have said to Eve, “wait–we have everything we need right here–don’t seek more than what we already have” and she could innately feel that that was not correct.

Again, what evidence that “God would have provided them what they needed” given that He had indeed provided them a tree with fruit about the knowledge of good and evil, but had given them a choice about eating that fruit and that led to consequences that brought the opportunities for experience, wisdom, and joy to humankind?

But, shouldn’t her first thought have been to turn to God and ask Him for what she wanted? Are we not called to put God first in our lives - to love Him with all our hearts, minds and souls, including trusting Him with everything that we are and will be? To suggest that sin can somehow give us something that God can’t is rather blasphemous.

Again, she had a whole set of commandments and a few teachings, one of which was that they should “leave father and mother, and be one flesh”. If she has been told to leave her father (which she had been told) then why not be able to figure out that this leaving of her father means that she will be out of the presence of her father and that such an experience will offer the opportunity of gaining wisdom by making choices?

Every daughter who leaves the home of her parents, has to decide whether by leaving her parents she is expressing love to them or is expressing selfishness. If she thinks only that such a decision is expressing selfishness, then I think she does not really understand love or the love of a parent for their child. What parent (besides one who is self-centered enough to want to either protect their child from the outside world or to keep that child at home because that child happens to bring happiness to the parent) is not happy when that child leaves home, begins a marriage with a companion chosen by God, and begins experiencing life away from home?

I have said all along that Eve did not express not loving God by partaking the forbidden fruit, nor did God say “now I know you don’t trust me or trust my commandments”.

God never said “Eve, now I know you really don’t love me.” He said in so many words, "Eve, here are the consequences that I had promised you would receive (actually, more consequences but ones consistent with what I had promised to you and Adam).

Adam & Eve still had free will and the ability to make choices without partaking of the fruit. That was the whole reason they were able to choose to disobey God. I’m not sure why you think that their alternate reality (before their sin) was somehow lacking or deficient.

Go ahead and describe their alternate reality, including the kinds of choices they could make and the kind of joy they could experience, and explain why it is not the comparative joy and decision-making of a five-year-old or a seven-year-old.

But there is nothing in scripture to suggest that she couldn’t have children and that she needed to sin in order to have children. What evidence is there that she did not have a menstrual cycle? Sorry, but you’ve lost me with that one.

Wait–I don’t think I need to go into a discussion about what a menstrual cycle is, since that is taught in schools or can be researched in an encyclopedia. (Hint: It begins with a living egg cell, and something happens to that egg cell.)

Thanks for the (name removed by moderator)ut. Have a good day!

Likewise.

 

[ParkerD]

Show me scriptural reference. This is not philosophy, this is scripture we are talking about here, so show me a scriptural reference that shows it was OK for Eve to bring death in the world, or that it was even good. Don’t just state what you think, back it up with scripture and highlight the points that matter.

If you think Paul wrote that it was not acceptable that Eve and Adam “brought death into the world”, then I disagree. I think you can look up the New Testament scriptures about death as well as I can, including the scriptures about the resurrection provided through Christ. I can think. God has given me both the ability to think and the responsibility to think. I can think “death is an acceptable consequence, given what I know”. You may think it is not an acceptable consequence, but that is your personal choice and I can make a different one. The Bible never says “death is an unacceptable consequence” or “death is a bad consequence.”

You miss the fact that there was a fundamental difference between man before and after the fall. After the fall it says “their eyes were open”. This is in reference to the fact that they realized how far they had fallen. God calls out to them “where are you?”, not because He cannot find them but He poses them a question. Where are they now as compared to before? Don’t just say what you think, at the very least back it up with scripture because I do not see your view anywhere within the book of Genesis. If it is make it clear.

I disagree about what you think it meant that “their eyes were open.” That was your opinion. There are several consequences from the fall, and they are listed in Genesis and I have already posted them.

The first part is just jargon based on either what you think or what the Book of Mormon says along with you not having the honesty to tell us where it actually is from. (But why? You haven’t shown me why you disagree. You brought up some good points, but you have failed to show that Solomon didn’t draw gratuitous wisdom directly from his experience but from God, not only that but you failed to respond to my quote from Genesis where God explicitly tells Adam and Eve not to eat of the fruit and my quote from Job saying wisdom comes from fear of the Lord which would mean since Eve didn’t fear the Lord she did not gain wisdom, but the opposite, she and Adam became foolish, not to mention ignorant since to turn away from bad is understanding which they lost after the fall).

This is better but you still failed. First, you mean Genesis 2:24, a simple typo that can happen to anyone. Second, Adam does not say that, the author (Moses presumably) did. Re-read your bible. (you quote Eve out of context. She is talking about how God continues to produce people through her, which He does through every woman, for God animates humans and infuses the soul into the fertilized egg).

This is not even a fair criticism. You are simply muttering what you believe to be the Catholic position, that Eve was such a horrible person who should have been abandoned by God after the fall. This is not true. Though what she and Adam did was horrible and they certainly did deserve to be abandoned, the Lord was merciful to them and all mankind.

I am going to need to answer each of these items in turn.

 

[ParkerD]

Questioner,
As I have thought about trying to respond to the other issues you raised (by the way, I have never mentioned the Book of Mormon nor has what I have written focused on meanings attributed to the Book of Mormon–they can be brought into the mind by reading the Bible-- Genesis, Proverbs, 1 Kings, and the New Testament) I don’t feel like I need to treat someone such as yourself as a person who needs to be spoon-fed from the Bible or spoon-fed as to how to think. Think for yourself. I do that.

I had better allow more time to decide if I am going to come into a frame of mind to try and be generous in considering the issues you raised, because right now they seem like obtuse justifications for differences of opinion. I hope I feel better about them tomorrow or soon.

 

[ParkerD]

ParkerD had posted:

1–Stay in the garden of Eden with Adam and with very limited experience but live in the presence of God (like a child living with their parent), and live as long as they wanted, but with no opportunity for “wisdom” and limited opportunity for “joy”. (Note that I have disagreed with your point that all she needed to do to gain wisdom was ask for it from God–that she understood that gaining wisdom required having choices to be able to make, and learning from those choices.)

Questioner, I read that they were in a situation before partaking of the forbidden fruit, that they “were not ashamed” that they were “naked” as described in Genesis 2:25, but that this changed in Genesis 3:7 (after “the eyes of them both were opened, and they knew that they were naked”). I read that this change in outlook and perspective happened as a result of their having eaten the fruit. They knew more (about themselves) after they ate the fruit than before they had eaten the fruit. This would be why verse 2:25 is even in the Genesis account at all–to show the difference in what had happened to their perspective. It means that before the fall, they were innocent both in knowledge about themselves, in knowledge about others, and certainly in knowledge about God and about Satan.

But I can indeed back that up from other sources, so if you think I’m not being honest by including those other sources then you can go ahead and look at 2 Nephi 2:23 (note that this is going to go against my better judgment to include because it will bring a lot of fear and mistrust into your mind by even knowing that there is a source text that I know about that you didn’t know about) which uses the words “state of innocence” to describe their situation. The situation being a “state of innocence” can readily be seen in the Genesis account, if one thinks about the words they are reading.

I don’t know what you mean by “gratuitous wisdom directly from his experience but from God.” I asked you to show examples of Solomon evidencing wisdom that had no basis, origin, or thought process allowing his to gain wisdom (through inspired meditation) from his experience, that of his parents whom he had observed, or that of others whom he had observed. Based on your assumption that his wisdom came sans experience, that should be a completely easy thing to do from either Proverbs or from 1 Kings.

Genesis does not say Eve did not “fear the Lord”. Just because Job says the “fear of the Lord, that is wisdom”, does not mean (I hope) that we aren’t allowed to think for ourselves, and to act from a position and perspective of having thought without having some deep-seated fear in our bosom about God or whether He loves us or whether He will punish us for thinking. It would be pretty high and mighty of a believer in Christ to say that no one else in the world has any wisdom at all than one who “fears the Lord” especially if “Lord” is narrowly defined.

Genesis does not say “foolish”, nor does that match with what Christ said about “foolish.” A “foolish man” builds his house upon sand rather than the rock of Christ (Matthew 7:26) or is full of hypocrisy (Matthew 23:13-28) or has not read the scriptures and understood that “ought not Christ to have suffered these things, and to enter into his glory?” (Luke 24:25-26). Those are the uses of the word “foolish” or “fools”.

Adam and Eve did not loose understanding after the fall. They gained understanding after the fall.

 

[ParkerD]

Continuation to Questioner:

This is better but you still failed. Adam does not say that, the author (Moses presumably) did. Re-read your bible. (you quote Eve out of context. She is talking about how God continues to produce people through her, which He does through every woman, for God animates humans and infuses the soul into the fertilized egg).

If Moses wrote something by inspiration, then either God said it with the direct communication from God to man that we should be “listening” and “hearkening”, or Moses knew by inspiration that Adam or Eve had been thinking or saying something specific in the situation in the garden of Eden and thereafter. Genesis 2:24 could just as easily be saying that Adam and Eve are going to be given that teaching in the garden of Eden and are going to begin to understand it, as that God gave that teaching and eventually men and women are going to understand it at some future point in time. To me it makes more sense given the sequence, that Adam and Eve were given the teaching and that Moses was inspired to write about it exactly where he wrote about it.

This is not even a fair criticism. You are simply muttering what you believe to be the Catholic position, that Eve was such a horrible person who should have been abandoned by God after the fall. This is not true. Though what she and Adam did was horrible and they certainly did deserve to be abandoned, the Lord was merciful to them and all mankind.

Perhaps I shouldn’t have used the word “horrible”. I disagree that they “did deserve to be abandoned”. At least you believe the “Lord was merciful to them and all mankind”, but obviously we differ profoundly on how that mercy is extended and what it means to receive it. I think it is evident from Genesis 4:1 that Eve already is aware that mercy has been extended to them and she thus has received a blessing from God.

 

[Jay53]

If she had asked for “wisdom”, then the first step she would go through after asking for wisdom would be the step that answers “how does one get wisdom from God?” If the answer to that question was already comprised of needing to experience making choices (not just which food to eat for a certain meal, but the many choices involving doing a wrong thing or doing a right thing), then she would perceive, “Eve, you already have your answer since you already have been given a choice about the knowledge of good and evil.” The entire set of verses ties these two qualities together. Eve could be perceptive enough to understand that.

This still doesn’t make sense. You are saying that God expected Eve to disobey Him in order to gain wisdom and that this disobedience was the only way she could receive that wisdom. There is no evidence of that. She was not given a “choice” in the traditional sense of a) vs. b). She was given a commandment. Yes, she had the choice to obey it or not, but that’s not the same thing as choosing between 2 equally acceptable options.

I have asked for the precedent that shows that He would, and has. The issue of “beyond His capabilities” is beside the point. God lives by truth because He made truth, and loves truth. His responses to prayer will never go against truths about life and truths He has revealed in the Bible (subsequent to Adam and Eve) about how wisdom is gained or truths are discovered. They are discovered by asking, yes, but also by seeking and by knocking–which imply doing something in the process of asking.

But we’re talking about before the fall. We have no reason to believe that God would not have granted her request. She didn’t bother to ask.

That is why I wrote that it was an “aha! moment” for her. ( Her logical thought process would be “God already has given me the answer of how I can obtain wisdom. It is an affront to Him to think that when He has already given the answer to the question of how to obtain wisdom, I should ask Him for a different answer than the one He has already given.”) She would also innately feel, given her personality, that there was something she was missing that was about gaining joy and was about experiencing changes in her life and in the life of Adam, her “true love” (given to her by God whom she also loved) and her companion.

Then she would have been deducing that God was somehow tricking her. I’m just not following your line of thought that God purposely “set her up” to fail and somehow encouraged her disobedience. If it was just a choice, He would not have said “Do not eat…”. He simply could have said, “Here is the tree, you may eat of it, but if you do, know this…” God didn’t say that. He specifically said, “Do NOT eat…”

Where is there evidence in the Bible or in your life experience that a mortal person experienced deep joy in their life, from God, without receiving that joy after receiving some kind of opposite quality in their life?

I don’t understand your question. We’re speaking of being in the presence of God, before the fall.

In the first place, current research suggests that viable research gaining the same answers that stem cell research would gain, can be done with skin cells rather than with stem cells. So those arriving at the need for taking live tissue from a viable fetus to do research and thinking that was an acceptable approach, needed to ask more questions in their research and accept a limitation that such research would never be a “correct approach” in terms of acceptable truth in the eyes of God, by taking live tissue and not having that tissue live its life as that live tissue in and of itself (by being in a womb and developing into a baby)

I understand you think there is a valid analogy, but the taking of innocent life (even before it has developed viability) is completely different than saying, “there is one commandment that has a specific set of consequences if I break it, which does not involve killing and does involve the opportunity to gain wisdom and joy as the potential outcome from breaking that one particular commandment.”

No, they both involve commandments and disobedience to God in the breaking of those commandments. It’s the disobedience to God which makes it wrong - not the severity of the act or consequences. You just seem to place “gaining wisdom” as an acceptable end which justifies any means to get it - including going against God. I just don’t get it.