EVE! Legendary heroine of Humanity!

[Brian2]

I agree that if Adam and Eve didn’t know good from evil, partaking of the fruit could not have been considered sin. I think God forbad them to partake of the fruit in the sense that it would have consequences (of mortality/death)—maybe called a transgression (breaking of a law), rather than a sin (deliberate rebellion—as stated in James 4:17: “Therefore to him that knoweth to do good, and doeth it not, to him it is sin”).

They knew they were going against the command of God, whether they knew to call that evil or not does not matter. They knew it was evil after eating the fruit and they suffered the consequences.

I see God’s motivation not in preventing Adam and Eve from partaking of the fruit, but having a far greater plan in mind. If you assume that 1) we are God’s literal spirit children, 2) that His work and His glory is “to bring to pass the immortality (resurrection) and eternal life (exaltation/returning to live with God again) of man”*, then it makes sense that God would create a plan that would enable us to become the kind of people that would be worthy of living in his presence, i.e. without sin. If Adam and Eve (or us as well, if you think they could have procreated there in an innocent state) were to have stayed in the garden, they/we never would have experienced good and evil, and proven them/ourselves capable of and willing to choose the good or over the evil (or to repent when we sin/choose evil, and have it wiped away through Christ’s atonement). Yet, God being who He is (i.e. goodness), He cannot create evil—and so Satan is introduced/allowed into the garden (probably thinking that he is foiling God‘s plan) in order to create a dichotomy where Adam and Eve can either stay innocent and never progress, or have the choice to learn and progress, and become as God would have them be/reach their true potential. I see this as God’s motivation for allowing Adam and Eve the choice to partake of the fruit.

God seemed to have a bigger motivation than just us humans. The angels were at least beginning to rebel at that stage it seems and God was dealing with evil once and for all.
We do not know what would have happened had they not eaten. God may have been teaching them about good and evil with that tree without them actually experiencing what evil is.
The angels seemed to have known about good and evil without having sinned if Gen 3:22 is anything to go by.
But of course I believe tells me the only human to have come down to earth is Jesus and so there was no life with God before this human life and we are not here to grow further and so even if there may well be a better end to our story, with us becoming adopted children of God and growing into the image of Jesus,,,,,,,,,,we were first made in God's image and turned from it for the sake of gain and so it is really a journey back to what humans were, in that respect, instead of a journey forward to something better.

God placed an angel in front of the Tree of Life after they partook of the fruit (thereby entering a sinful state) so that they could not partake of the fruit of the tree of life, thereby living forever in their sinful state and without the possibility of returning to live with God.

*Pearl of Great Price, Moses 1:39

I believe the angel was placed there so that man would actually die physically and not live forever sinning continually.
What you said in that last paragraph seems contradictory to what you said before. Did they sin and end up in a sinful state or not?

 

[blü 2]

they chose to disobey and not trust God and then they had to try to handle knowing about good and evil all at once and try to work things out with sin and always there with them and they not being able to handle it and feeling guilt.

The second most important point I'm trying to make here is that Christian claims about the "Fall of Man" are simply without any support whatsoever in the Garden Story.

The most important point I'm trying to make is that knowledge of good and evil is a moral sine qua non, and if the Garden Story has any meaning, it's that Eve is an authentic heroine of mankind, even though only in a story.

 

[exchemist]

This doctrine is probably unique to our church. Evidence for it comes from what we consider to be scripture: The Book of Mormon, Another Testament of Jesus Christ: “…if Adam had not transgressed he would not have fallen, but he would have remained in the garden of Eden. And all things which were created must have remained in the same state in which they were after they were created; and they must have remained forever, and had no end. And [Adam and Eve] would have had no children; wherefore they would have remained in a state of innocence, having no joy, for they knew no misery; doing no good, for they knew no sin. But behold, all things have been done in the wisdom of him who knoweth all things. Adam fell that men might be; and men are, that they might have joy.” (2 Nephi 2:22-25).

And also from The Pearl of Great Price: “…Adam blessed God and was filled, and began to prophesy concerning all the families of the earth, saying: Blessed be the name of God, for because of my transgression my eyes are opened, and in this life I shall have joy, and again in the flesh I shall see God. And Eve, his wife, heard all these things and was glad, saying: Were it not for our transgression we never should have had seed, and never should have known good and evil, and the joy of our redemption, and the eternal life which God giveth unto all the obedient.” (Moses 5:10-11)

I think these details about the fall present a fuller/richer purpose to our existence here.

Thanks for the explanation.

I am uncomfortable with this, as it seems to me to stray close to the notion that sex is sinful. There are whiffs of a similar idea in more orthodox forms of Christianity as well.

Such an idea seems an aberration to me, given that sexual reproduction is fundamental to the development of life and to the evolution of species. But maybe that is not what is intended.

 

[Sand Dancer]

The LDS has it's prophet to uphold and so says that going against the command of God is a positive.

They take the Bible seriously and answer questions that mainstream Christianity doesn't address. It's also more people friendly and less harsh, like Jesus was.

 

[Brian2]

The second most important point I'm trying to make here is that Christian claims about the "Fall of Man" are simply without any support whatsoever in the Garden Story.

We did go from pure innocence to people who are at times overwhelmed with the evil in ourselves.

The most important point I'm trying to make is that knowledge of good and evil is a moral sine qua non, and if the Garden Story has any meaning, it's that Eve is an authentic heroine of mankind, even though only in a story.

We started off as moral beings and I don't think you can show that God was not trying to teach us about good and evil while we were still innocent so that we kept choosing the good and trusting Him, and their descendants did not have to go through what we have gone through.

 

[Brian2]

They take the Bible seriously and answer questions that mainstream Christianity doesn't address. It's also more people friendly and less harsh, like Jesus was.

It's built on further revelations that go beyond what the Bible says and end up contradicting the Bible imo.

 

[blü 2]

We did go from pure innocence to people who are at times overwhelmed with the evil in ourselves.

We are the end product of an evolutionary line throughout which the distinguishing features of our ancestors was surviving long enough to breed across better than 3.5 billion years. Our morals evolved as part of our living in tribes, so that we have access to that essential human practice of cooperation.

 

[Brian2]

We are the end product of an evolutionary line throughout which the distinguishing features of our ancestors was surviving long enough to breed across better than 3.5 billion years. Our morals evolved as part of our living in tribes, so that we have access to that essential human practice of cooperation.

When God made humans is open to debate even if our body may have evolved mainly as the other animals did.
True we did learn morals over time and in communities and sort of got it right but needed God's intervention to stay on track with many things.

 

[blü 2]

When God made humans is open to debate even if our body may have evolved mainly as the other animals did.
True we did learn morals over time and in communities and sort of got it right but needed God's intervention to stay on track with many things.

I don't know on what basis you can make that claim.

The morals of God as revealed in the Tanakh and NT are entirely appalling, by my standards anyway. Are you morally happy with invasive war, massacres of populations, mass rape, human sacrifice, murderous religious intolerance, women as property, slavery as normality, and more? God commands all those things out loud and proud according to the bible. And in the NT an enthusiasm for sending people to perpetual torment in the lake of fire &c.

Whereas we know from research that humans have evolved certain moral tendencies, regardless of their views regarding religion, and where in the world they live. Those tendencies are child nurture and protection (common in nature), dislike of the one who harms, like of fairness and reciprocity, respect for authority, loyalty to the group, and a sense of self-worth through self-denial. We've also evolved to have a conscience and a capacity for empathy. The rest of our morality, the rules of living in society as it were, are more variable, and we get them from our upbringing, culture, education and experience.

 

[Brian2]

The morals of God as revealed in the Tanakh and NT are entirely appalling, by my standards anyway. Are you morally happy with invasive war, massacres of populations, mass rape, human sacrifice, murderous religious intolerance, women as property, slavery as normality, and more? God commands all those things out loud and proud according to the bible. And in the NT an enthusiasm for sending people to perpetual torment in the lake of fire &c.

I'm happy with the God of the universe, the creator and judge actually judging a group of people and giving their land to others.
Sometimes that included killing that population for the benefit of the people to whom God gave the land. Sometimes that included slavery to benefit the people God gave the land to,,,,,,,,,,,,and it also meant those people did not die.
Slavery was part of the economy in those days and the God made it as humane as possible in those days in His laws.
The Jews had just come out of slavery and that was fine until it turned into harsh and inhumane slavery. The Jews were constantly reminded of their slavery and to treat aliens in the land well.
There was no mass rape unless you think that keeping women from war and letting them live on as their wives was rape. It was that or they would have been killed.
Do you think that it was good that the Jews were treated inhumanely as slaves in Egypt and do you think that their salvation was a bad thing or do you think that other nations would invite them in after their escape and there was going to be no wars and killing.
God was against human sacrifice and says that.
God set up a country which was a theocracy and the Jews were to have God as their God and no others. Foreigners had their own gods but the Jews were not to partake. That is not intolerance.
Women seem to have been seen more as property than is the case these days in the patriarchies of the time and that God was not out to change everything at once.
In the New Testament we are told God is going to judge everyone and some people will be punished and destroyed. God has the authority to do that.

Whereas we know from research that humans have evolved certain moral tendencies, regardless of their views regarding religion, and where in the world they live. Those tendencies are child nurture and protection (common in nature), dislike of the one who harms, like of fairness and reciprocity, respect for authority, loyalty to the group, and a sense of self-worth through self-denial. We've also evolved to have a conscience and a capacity for empathy. The rest of our morality, the rules of living in society as it were, are more variable, and we get them from our upbringing, culture, education and experience.

Do you think animals have morals?
There are different norms in different places but God expects love of neighbour in all places.

 

[blü 2]

I'm happy with the God of the universe, the creator and judge actually judging a group of people and giving their land to others.
Sometimes that included killing that population for the benefit of the people to whom God gave the land. Sometimes that included slavery to benefit the people God gave the land to,,,,,,,,,,,,and it also meant those people did not die.

I hope you're joking because I'm not when I say I find those things you speak of to be appalling.

Slavery was part of the economy in those days and the God made it as humane as possible in those days in His laws.

That rule that says if you beat your slave and he or she dies but not within 24 hours of the beating, then it isn't murder, isn't punishable ─ or the rules on how to sell your daughter ─ those are the sorts of things you have in mind then?

There was no mass rape unless you think that keeping women from war and letting them live on as their wives was rape. It was that or they would have been killed.

Yes, massacred by God's people. Women as property meets with your approval then?

Do you think that it was good that the Jews were treated inhumanely as slaves in Egypt

As you may know, there's no archaeological evidence for the Egyptian Captivity. And regardless, as you may also have noticed, in the story it's not Pharaoh who decides to prevent the Jews from leaving Egypt, but God, intervening to alter Pharaoh's intentions.

do you think that their salvation was a bad thing or do you think that other nations would invite them in after their escape and there was going to be no wars and killing.

Why should any nation not defend its own boundaries? Because someone else's god is said to approved the invasion? No, that's silly.

God was against human sacrifice and says that.

Exodus 22:29-30 You must give me the firstborn of your sons. Do the same with your cattle and your sheep. Let them stay with their mothers for seven days, but give them to me on the eighth day.​

God ordained the human sacrifice of Isaac. [He] changed [his] mind but that was later, and meanwhile no one thought [he] was joking. God made a deal with Jephthah, a human sacrifice in exchange for a military victory. God gave the victory, Jephthah gave the human sacrifice, and God made Jephthah boss man of Israel.

God required the human sacrifice by impalement of the 'sons of Saul' before [he]'g agree to lift the famine,

Oh, and then God sacrificed [his] son to [him]self, for reasons that remain totally opaque to me.

Women seem to have been seen more as property than is the case these days in the patriarchies of the time and that God was not out to change everything at once.

Why not? The obvious reason is that [he] approved of it.

Do you think animals have morals?

Humans have moral instincts and many animals have moral instincts. The big example is child nurture and protection, particularly with mammals but also with birds, many lizards, many amphibians, and so on. But our primate cousins also have instincts for social structure as they live in tribes.

 

[Strengthen Thy Brethren]

Then again maybe there is just a method in the madness of God that is not easily understood but is actually a good thing.
Pain in birth might even be helpful for a mother's love for her baby and may be part of preventing sexual promiscuity.

Might God include suffering in the mortal experience to potentially help us become better creatures? Suffering has the potential of either good or bad: turning us toward God “…we glory in tribulations also: knowing that tribulation worketh patience” (Romans 5:3), or away from God--eliciting bitterness and resentment.

 

[Strengthen Thy Brethren]

What you said in that last paragraph seems contradictory to what you said before. Did they sin and end up in a sinful state or not?

Perhaps I should have expressed it as “transgressed state” rather than “sinful state”. Regardless, by partaking of the fruit, they were no longer pure, and as such could not live in the presence of God.

 

[Strengthen Thy Brethren]

Thanks for the explanation.

I am uncomfortable with this, as it seems to me to stray close to the notion that sex is sinful. There are whiffs of a similar idea in more orthodox forms of Christianity as well.

Such an idea seems an aberration to me, given that sexual reproduction is fundamental to the development of life and to the evolution of species. But maybe that is not what is intended.

The notion that sex is sinful is not intended at all. In fact, the first commandment that God gave (probably in indication of its importance as well) was to “multiply and replenish the earth” (Genesis 1:28). As you’ve said, this makes possible the potential progression of mankind. We consider the power to create mortal life to be the most exalted, sacred power God has given to His children—but that He gives it with a caveat, that it be confined within the relationship of marriage. Within marriage, human intimacy becomes a sacrament/symbol that unites us with God in the miraculous power of creation. It is hardly any surprise that all things relating to procreation are prime targets of the adversary (Satan) to thwart God’s plan for our return to Him.

The idea of “Original Sin” I believe started with Augustin in about 400AD, and is not part of the original gospel of Christ. As I understand it, the doctrine of Original Sin says that all mankind is sinful because of the sin of Adam and Eve in partaking of the fruit, and justifying Eve’s condemnation. Our church doctrine states, “We believe that men will be punished for their own sins, and not for Adam’s transgression” (Pearl of Great Price, Article of Faith 2).

 

[Valjean]

Yes, quite specifically. If the humans have knowledge of good and evil, they'll become like God (Genesis 3:5 as to knowledge of good and evil, Genesis 3:22 for the knowledge of good and evil plus living forever), and no right-minded god is going to put up with nonsense like that.
Ah, Harry's Obliviate! charm! No, what the Garden story suggests is that just as Adam and Eve were new to being humans, so God was new to godding and [his] technique here points to much inexperience. Perhaps it was this that later prompted [him] to use [his] omnipotence and make [him]self omniscient.
No, that's like quibbling about whether Rapunzel's shampoo was up to the job or not. Stories have their own rules.

Your perfect god has a surprising lot of human foibles.
Aren't Christians exhorted to: "Be ye therefore perfect, even as your Father which is in heaven is perfect" (Matthew, 5.48)?

 

[Strengthen Thy Brethren]

Thanks for the explanation.

I am uncomfortable with this, as it seems to me to stray close to the notion that sex is sinful. There are whiffs of a similar idea in more orthodox forms of Christianity as well.

Such an idea seems an aberration to me, given that sexual reproduction is fundamental to the development of life and to the evolution of species. But maybe that is not what is intended.

I was just listening to a talk that I think expresses what we’ve been discussing, but in a more holistic way—which helps clarify some issues/doctrines that may otherwise be misunderstood when taken piecemeal. It was given just a week ago by one of our apostles: The Love of God

 

[blü 2]

Your perfect god has a surprising lot of human foibles.
Aren't Christians exhorted to: "Be ye therefore perfect, even as your Father which is in heaven is perfect" (Matthew, 5.48)?

Kind of you to point out that's actually an escape clause.

 

[Muffled]

In the Garden story, God creates Adam, puts him in the Garden, points to “the tree of the knowledge of good and evil” [the ‘Tree’], and says to Adam “of the [Tree] you shall not eat, for in the day that you eat of it you shall die” (Genesis 2:17).

A bit later God takes a rib from Adam and “made [it] into a woman and brought her to the man.”

Next, Eve says to the snake, “God said, ‘You shall not eat of the fruit of the [Tree] [...] neither shall you touch it, lest you die.’ ” (3:3).

The snake replies – completely truthfully – “You will not die. For God knows that when you eat of it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good from evil.” (3:5)

“So when the woman saw that [...] the [Tree] was to be desired to make one wise, she took of its fruit and ate.” (3:6).

And she gave some to Adam too.

“Then the eyes of both were opened.” (3:7).

And after that they were both able to distinguish good from evil.

Christians blame Eve for the Fall. They say she and Adam sinned. (Nothing of the kind is in the Garden story, and sin's impossible for people who are denied knowledge of good and evil, and Ezekiel 18:20 says unequivocally that sin isn’t inheritable. But leave that aside.)

This is the point.

Isn’t it an extremely good thing that Eve is said to have done? Shouldn't we hold her legend in the highest regard, since we, like Eve, think it’s extremely good to be wise?

Shouldn’t we have statues and images of Eve in all our churches and public spaces as a symbol of Human Wisdom?

Something we often seem not to have enough of?

I believe the serpent lied to her when he said it would make her wise. Knowing good and evil, which he promised truly, won't make a person wise.

 

[Muffled]

In churches? Surely not. It is a Christian imperative, as it is also confirmed by your analysis, that the more you know, or try to know, the worse it is. It is even engraved in that theology to the point of condemning the whole universe, on account of challenging authority to gain more knowledge. And that for obvious reasons.

Ciao

- viole

I believe I don't know where you get that from.

I believe knowing evil never does us any good.

 

[Muffled]

I always thought that the snake told the truth and that it was fine for Eve to eat from the tree of knowledge, and that God comes across as a liar and a jerk in this story.

I believe that is spoken like a real serpent lover.