Adam and Eve - blessings for disobedience

[bluebell]

31 minutes ago, halconero said:

I have to be careful here, because there's temple content. A live session actually kind of addresses the intermediary part, not in the dialogue, but in the actions performed (though at a deeper level in other ordinances a woman must also eventually acts as intermediary for her husband upon the full realization of the covenants made in the endowment). It is also somewhat addressed in the dialogue with the differentiation in covenants, partially predicated upon the different reasons why Adam & Eve partook of the fruit.

I actually tend to view it not as negative, but as tremendously positive. Think about it, the first covenant made between God and humanity was made between God and woman. Though Timothy is likely pseudipigraphal, the text could be read in such a way where woman actually recapitulates the fall in a divine way. Eve received her name due to becoming the mother of all living, and what the apostle here advocates is a recapitulation of that event wherein the faithful woman becomes an Eve unto herself.

There are other scriptures, and prophets including Joseph Smith and Brigham Young elaborated on the issue, but in no sense does the differentiation in covenants or transgressions prove something negative for Eve. Just that different acts were performed by both, with different results in covenant responsibilities.

I agree it's difficult to discuss.

And maybe i'm misremembering (which is easy to do, it's been a couple of weeks since i've been thru a session and i wasn't trying to memorize this part when i was there) but it seems like the first covenant was actually between Eve and adam, and that the first time humanity covenants with God, it's Adam.

Also, this is not the only time during the endowment where Adam is between God and Eve.

But to go back to the original issue-if Adam did not transgress in the garden, why does the church teach everyone (at least before they go to the temple) that he transgressed too?  Why teach it if it's not what the leaders actually believe is true?  As i said above, there are 3 pages of teachings on LDS.org (lessons in manuals as well as conference addresses and Ensign articles) which specifically say that Adam transgressed as well as Eve.

That's odd if it's not true.

[ALarson]

8 minutes ago, bluebell said:

I agree it's difficult to discuss.

And maybe i'm misremembering (which is easy to do, it's been a couple of weeks since i've been thru a session and i wasn't trying to memorize this part when i was there) but it seems like the first covenant was actually between Eve and adam, and that the first time humanity covenants with God, it's Adam.

It's online to read (if you're not opposed to doing that).   Just google "Law of Obedience" woman.  (I won't post a link here, of course.)

.

Edited March 24, 2016 by ALarson

[Bobbieaware]

8 minutes ago, ALarson said:

But only Eve was cut off from God and needs their husband to be their intermediary?

 

This seems to contradict the scripture you quoted above:

.

The scriptures make it clear that for their disobedience both Adam and Eve were punished by being cut off from the presence of God and suffering a change from an Immoral to a mortal physical state.

In her wisdom, Eve realized even though she was transgressing the Law of God, it would all work out for the best, which it did. Nephi struggled with the execution of Laban, because he had taken to heart the commandment not to kill, but he went ahead and did it anyway; because in his heart he knew it was necessary and that a greater good would result from his apparent disobedience (from a human point of view, that is).

[ALarson]

4 minutes ago, Bobbieaware said:

In her wisdom, Eve realized even though she was transgressing the Law of God, it would all work out for the best, which it did. 

How do you know what "Eve realized"?

Your two quotes still contradict each other:

Quote

14 And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression.

And:

Quote

Eve disobeyed because in her wisdom she could see there was no other way to have a meaningful existence.

So, was Eve "deceived" or did she sin "because in her wisdom she could see"?

.

Edited March 24, 2016 by ALarson

[halconero]

7 minutes ago, bluebell said:

I agree it's difficult to discuss.

And maybe i'm misremembering (which is easy to do, it's been a couple of weeks since i've been thru a session and i wasn't trying to memorize this part when i was there) but it seems like the first covenant was actually between Eve and adam, and that the first time humanity covenants with God, it's Adam.

Also, this is not the only time during the endowment where Adam is between God and Eve.

But to go back to the original issue-if Adam did not transgress in the garden, why does the church teach everyone (at least before they go to the temple) that he transgressed too?  Why teach it if it's not what the leaders actually believe is true?  As i said above, there are 3 pages of teachings on LDS.org (lessons in manuals as well as conference addresses and Ensign articles) which specifically say that Adam transgressed as well as Eve.

That's odd if it's not true.

With regards to the first point, the covenant places the relationship between Eve and God first and her relationship to her husband second. Her obligation is to keep the laws of God, and the promise is made before him, along with his witnesses both angelic and mortal.

But your second point is true. There are numerous times where an intermediary relationship between Adam, Eve, and God is established. This is especially true in live sessions in the giving of the physical ordinances. Yet, I would reiterate that in future blessings predicated upon keeping the endowment, the wife (representative of Eve) reverses this role and acts as an intermediary between God and her husband.

To the last point. I was wrong. Adam transgressed as well. There is a differentiation in the transgression, in so far that Adam was not beguiled nor "found in transgression" (I have no clue what that phrase means...it just keeps popping up...) yet transgressed all the same.

[Bobbieaware]

14 minutes ago, ALarson said:

How do you know what "Eve realized"?

Your two quotes still contradict each other:

And:

So, was Eve "deceived" or did she sin "because in her wisdom she could see"?

.

She was not totally deceived because much of what she heard that persuaded her to partake of the fruit turned out to be quite true, Surely, there really is no other way than to have our eyes fully opened to both good and evil before we can hope to  fimd true happiness. Remember, after the fall the Lord said the man and woman have become like us, knowing good and evil, so that was true. Eve was deceived by the adversary's lie that she would not die. Lucifer used truth mixed with error to deceive her.

[halconero]

37 minutes ago, Bobbieaware said:

Nephi struggled with the execution of Laban, because he had taken to heart the commandment not to kill, but he went ahead and did it anyway; because in his heart he knew it was necessary and that a greater good would result from his apparent disobedience (from a human point of view, that is).

I won't derail more than to say that I think Nephi's struggle was not so much against the commandments, but that under Mosaic Law the duty to be the de facto "go'el ha-dam" (avenger of blood) had devolved upon him in the absence of a readily convened Sanhedrin. Laban was guilty of both Unlawful Premeditated Murder (attempted still counts) and of Being a member (and more specifically a probable leader) of a city gone astray. Both of these crimes were punished by beheading via the appointed "go'el ha-dam" under Mosaic Law, preferably after a rendered judgement from a Sanhedrin, but in emergency situations it could be undertaken by the go'el in accordance with their own will and obligation.

Nephi wasn't struggling with the commandments. He was struggling with the fact that in fulfilling one he would have to take a life. In a manner, this incident is another one of many in the first two books of Nephi wherein he was demonstrating both obedience, and the involvement of God in aiding the individual in fulfilling the commandments.

[Bobbieaware]

12 minutes ago, halconero said:

I won't derail more than to say that I think Nephi's struggle was not so much against the commandments, but that under Mosaic Law the duty to be the de facto "go'el ha-dam" (avenger of blood) had devolved upon him in the absence of a readily convened Sanhedrin. Laban was guilty of both Unlawful Premeditated Murder (attempted still counts) and of Being a member (and more specifically a probable leader) of a city gone astray. Both of these crimes were punished by beheading via the appointed "go'el ha-dam" under Mosaic Law, preferably after a rendered judgement from a Sanhedrin, but in emergency situations it could be undertaken by the go'el in accordance with their own will and obligation.

Nephi wasn't struggling with the commandments. He was struggling with the fact that in fulfilling one he would have to take a life. In a manner, this incident is another one of many in the first two books of Nephi wherein he was demonstrating both obedience, and the involvement of God in aiding the individual in fulfilling the commandments.

Of course I realized Nephi's internal struggle was not strictly analogous to Eve"s experience, but I brought it up as a way to demonstrate that making correct decisions within the Gospel framework aren't always easy to decide. Abraham's attempted sacrifice of Isaac is another example of such a struggle. And though it"s not strictly analogous to Eve's situation, it too demonstrates that doing the right thing isn't always as clear-cut a decision as one would hope to find. The Lord's commandment to utterly exterminate the Canaanites is another example.

[CV75]

19 hours ago, theplains said:

I had a question on the January 2004 Ensign article "Book of Mormon Principles: Favored of the Lord."

"The God of heaven has never made covenants that are independent of obedience and righteousness."

This seems to be a contradiction in what the teaching manual Gospel Principles says; that God 
bestowed great blessings on Adam and Eve for their disobedience.

Is this the first time God ever gave people blessings for disobeying Him or are there other
examples?

Thanks,
Jim

His grace constantly blesses the disobedient, after all we can do. I think this describes Adam and Eve's situation as well.

Also, the covenants established for one dispensation can be broken in another without penalty since new covenants are established and old ones are done away.

What covenant(s) did God make with Adam and Eve that they broke in the Garden of Eden? We have the marriage covenant (which is reestablished in every dispensation) at least, and they seem to have kept that one.

[MDalby]

17 hours ago, JLHPROF said:

Nope no contradiction.
They were blessed for righteously obeying higher laws despite having to disobey a lower one to do it.

Did Eve disobey a lower law in order to keep a higher law or was she deceived and beguiled by Satan?  Since I believe Eve was deceived, I don't think she acted with full understanding as your statement may suggest.

 

 

[JLHPROF]

7 minutes ago, MDalby said:

Did Eve disobey a lower law in order to keep a higher law or was she deceived and beguiled by Satan?  Since I believe Eve was deceived, I don't think she acted with full understanding as your statement may suggest.

That has always been the million dollar question.

And the best explanation has to do with how we think the veil of forgetfulness was applied.
We may not know for sure, but we do know some things:

1. The fall was the plan from the beginning.  Eve was always going to eat of the fruit and mankind were to fall to mortality.  We know this because a Savior to redeem us from fallen mortality was chosen long before the Fall happened.
2. As we learn in the temple, Lucifer and Eve did exactly what was done on other worlds.
3. Eve rejoiced in the occurrence of the Fall because it allowed them to have children.  This was a commandment from God to multiply and replenish the earth given before the fall, showing that God gave a command that could not be fulfilled without the fall.

So given all of this, that Eve's actions and the fall were the norm and the plan, was Eve still deceived especially if she had forgotten the plan?  Maybe, you decide.

[halconero]

With regards to point #2, I've always been somewhat uncertain as to whether that referred to the action of partaking the fruit, or if it involved a deceiver. My guess is the former.

[theplains]

19 hours ago, Bobbieaware said:

So as you can see, Adam and Eve were most certainly punished by Almighty God for their disobedience in the Garden, and that punishment is surely the ultimate and most terrible of all possible divine punishments.

Gospel Principles, in chapter 6, said great blessings resulted from the transgression.

Is this the first and only time God blessed people for transgression?

Thanks,
Jim

[theplains]

1 hour ago, CV75 said:

What covenant(s) did God make with Adam and Eve that they broke in the Garden of Eden? We have the marriage covenant (which is reestablished in every dispensation) at least, and they seem to have kept that one.

I believe the covenant of marriage is hand in hand with procreation.

Jim

[bluebell]

4 minutes ago, halconero said:

With regards to point #2, I've always been somewhat uncertain as to whether that referred to the action of partaking the fruit, or if it involved a deceiver. My guess is the former.

My thoughts too. 

If a deceiver enticing an eve to eat the fruit was what had been done in other worlds, Satan would not have been surprised and angry at the punishment that he received. 

It makes me question if there is way for Eve and Adam to receive the fruit that had nothing to do with the way Satan did it. 

[theplains]

15 hours ago, Freedom said:

Adam and Eve transgressed the law, they did not sin. This is an important distinction. Sin is a type of transgression. The police transgress the law when they speed to an emergency, but they are not violating the law. We have a rule in our house that you take off your shoes when inside, but of course we must transgress this law when we enter and leave because we must either put our shoes on or take them off while inside. Adam and Eve celebrated when they let the garden so they clearly did not sin and were clearly not in need of repenting. Eve introduced live and knowledge. The following article certainly is not LDS doctrine but it is a wonderful way to consider the roll of Eve in the plan of salvation. They did not break the law, they transcended it. 

http://www.fairmormon.org/perspectives/fair-conferences/2010-fair-conference/2010-the-two-trees

There is a lot of disagreement about this.  See "Adam sinned" vs "Adam did not sin."  

Thanks,
Jim

[Bobbieaware]

9 minutes ago, theplains said:

Gospel Principles, in chapter 6, said great blessings resulted from the transgression.

Is this the first and only time God blessed people for transgression?

Thanks,
Jim

As I've already said, the curse that came upon Adam and Eve, as a consequence oftheir disobedience, was physical death and and being cut off from the presence of God forever. The blessings that came to Adam and Eve -- and to us -- after the fall were due 100% to the mercy of God through Jesus Christ. If God had not intervened to mitigate the effects of the curse of the fall through the atonement of Christ, Adam and Eve -- and all the rest of us -- would be in hell forever with the devil, without hope and without a resurrection. So yes, good things did happen to Adam and Eve after the fall; but they had no power in and of themselves to bring those good things to pass; only God could do that. So what happened is that God took a very bad situation and made it good. So because of the love and mercy of God -- and only his love and mercy -- a bad situation became a blessing in disguise. Therefore, in a manner of spreaking, because of the goodness of God good things happened as a consequence of the fall.

[bluebell]

3 minutes ago, Bobbieaware said:

As I've already said, the curse that came upon Adam and Eve, as a consequence oftheir disobedience, was physical death and and being cut off from the presence of God forever. The blessings that came to Adam and Eve -- and to us -- after the fall were due 100% to the mercy of God through Jesus Christ. If God had not intervened to mitigate the effects of the curse of the fall through the atonement of Christ, Adam and Eve -- and all the rest of us -- would be in hell forever with the devil, without hope and without a resurrection. So yes, good things did happen to Adam and Eve after the fall; but they had no power in and of themselves to bring those good things to pass; only God could do that. So what happened is that God took a very bad situation and made it good. So because of the love and mercy of God -- and only his love and mercy -- a bad situation became a blessing in disguise. Therefore, in a manner of spreaking, because of the goodness of God good things happened as a consequence of the fall.

This is how other Christians view the Fall, but our doctrine (in addition to what you've explained, which is certainly true) is that God's plan would have been frustrated without the Fall. We HAD to experience mortality. 

 

[Bobbieaware]

26 minutes ago, bluebell said:

This is how other Christians view the Fall, but our doctrine (in addition to what you've explained, which is certainly true) is that God's plan would have been frustrated without the Fall. We HAD to experience mortality. 

 

Obviously. But I'm carefully tailoring my responses to an individual who is a non-believer in the LDS Church.

[bluebell]

1 minute ago, Bobbieaware said:

Obviously. But I'm carefully tailoring my responses to an individual who is a non-believer in the LDS Church.

Makes sense. But since he's asking about the specific LDS point of view of the Fall being a blessing, it seems important to deal with the LDS doctrine concerning the Fall and not just general Christian theology. 

[JLHPROF]

1 hour ago, theplains said:

There is a lot of disagreement about this.  See "Adam sinned" vs "Adam did not sin."

Thanks,
Jim

Adam did not sin, he transgressed.

The meaning of the word transgress is "to step across".

Now THAT is an interesting choice of words.

[bluebell]

2 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

Adam did not sin, he transgressed.

The meaning of the word transgress is "to step across".

Now THAT is an interesting choice of words.

I think it was Elder Oaks who explained the difference between a sin and a transgression. 

A sin is morally wrong while a transgression is only wrong because it has been prohibited by the law. 

Like the difference between speeding and stealing. 

 

[CV75]

1 hour ago, theplains said:

I believe the covenant of marriage is hand in hand with procreation.

Jim

Their marriage covenant was in place prior to the commandment to multiply and replenish.

What commandments do you think were in place prior to marriage? Marriage took place in the paradisaical world, but certain other commandments and covenants preceded it and were set in the pre-paradise spirit world (See Alma 13 -- the "holy order" that was in place from the foundation of the world is built upon the oath and covenant of the priesthood with attendant commandments in which to place our faith and good works, even in the pre-mortal / pre-paradise spirit world).

[Bobbieaware]

22 minutes ago, bluebell said:

Makes sense. But since he's asking about the specific LDS point of view of the Fall being a blessing, it seems important to deal with the LDS doctrine concerning the Fall and not just general Christian theology. 

I'm taking my que from Jacob's teachings in 2 Nephi 9, Doesn't  get much more "Mormon" than that. But while still keeping Jacob's teachings in mind, the LDS position on the consequences of Adam and Eve's disobedience are best summarized by Lehi's profound statement in 2 Nephi 2:

"Adam fell that men might be, and men are that they might have joy."

[CV75]

Another idea is that Adam and Eve were not blessed for partaking of the forbidden fruit, but offered redemption after they began to suffer the curse of the Fall. One might say that such an extension of grace is a blessing in itself, but it doesn't become a blessing unless and until we choose and behave in such as way as to receive it (just as the Fall didn't become a curse unless and until Adam and Eve chose and behaved in such a way as to receive it). They were not receiving grace in their paradisaical state, but neutrally abiding in the plan until they dealt with the enticement of the fruit of the two opposing trees of their own accord.