The beguiling of Eve

[mfbukowski]

On 4/10/2018 at 3:02 PM, Tacenda said:

Matthew 22:30 English Standard Version (ESV)

³⁰ For in the resurrection they neither marry nor are given in marriage, but are like angels in heaven.

Yep that's exactly right, what is the problem?

One must be sealed BEFORE the resurrection, that's why we have temples for people to get sealed in the spirit world, before they are resurrected.

 

[Robert F. Smith]

On 4/7/2018 at 10:51 PM, Tacenda said:

A while back in the thread you said I don't get it, I get it. I know what the Bible says, and I know where we got the Adam & Eve story in the temple. From the Bible in Genesis.http://www.bible.ca/marriage/submission-independent-of-culture.htm

Joseph took what is in these scriptures and applied them to the temple ceremony. I'll never forget the day I was endowed and had to promise to obey my husband. I tried to conceal the shock on my face that day. They've since toned it down, and now it has the woman hearkening unto her husband as he hearkens unto the Lord.

Non-Mormon biblical scholars see the Creation and Garden events as a temple story.  That notion does not originate with Mormons.  It is already there in Scripture.  It doesn't need to be invented by Mormons.  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b88nY_qIGL0 .

Quote

In the Bible, Adam was in trouble for listening to Eve, so maybe that's why women are forever paying for Eve's mistake. But you know what? What if it's all allegory, what if men wanted to rule over women and wrote Genesis for that purpose. Maybe if it hadn't been written like that, women wouldn't be abused like they have for thousands of years.

........................

But Eve made no mistake.  As this Chassidic rabbi makes clear.  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Adawzgwmnjc (Rabbi Manis Friedman):  Adam & Havva are innocent (no urge to commit sin exists for them), God wants them to eat of the Tree of Knowledge, and Satan does not lie to them.  It is all part of the plan which must be fulfilled.  Humans must fix the world.  So they come down from Heaven, and must die in the lower world.  Everything has a purpose.  Women being abused has always been a problem in earthlife. Why?  Because physical strength dominates in nature.  Yet women are every bit as smart as men, and find ways to attenuate that problem.  You are ignoring the nature of reality, Tacenda.  Men and women have powerful desires for each other, and are often so very kind to one another.  It is so easy to overlook that truth.

 

Edited April 16, 2018 by Robert F. Smith

[RevTestament]

2 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

Non-Mormon biblical scholars see the Creation and Garden events as a temple story.  That notion does not originate with Mormons.  It is already there in Scripture.  It doesn't need to be invented by Mormons.  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b88nY_qIGL0 .

Agreed. The Garden of Eden is the temple motif of the first seal. Noah's Ark is the temple motif of the second. Mount Sinai and the tabernacle are the temple motif of the third, etc.

Quote

But Eve made no mistake.  As this Chassidic rabbi makes clear.  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Adawzgwmnjc (Rabbi Manis Friedman):  Adam & Havva are innocent (no urge to commit sin exists for them), God wants them to eat of the Tree of Knowledge, and Satan does not lie to them.  It is all part of the plan which must be fulfilled.  Humans must fix the world.  So they come down from Heaven, and must die in the lower world.  Everything has a purpose.  

I don't fully agree with this rabbi. God tells them the day you eat from the tree you will surely die. Ok, as a kid that confused me, because they don't seem to die. But the story is talking about spiritual death. So the serpent does lie, because he contradicts God, and says "you will NOT surely die, for God knows that the day you eat from it, you will be as Elohim - knowing good and evil.": Protestants always focus on the latter part as if it is bad, but that is the truth. The lie was the former part - that they would not die. By eating of the tree, they consent to death, but become as Elohim - knowing good and evil. Gen 3:22.But God puts a kink in the plan and puts a space between them and the tree of life through the repentance process. As the plan progresses there ends up only being one gate to the tree of life.

[Robert F. Smith]

23 minutes ago, RevTestament said:

Agreed. The Garden of Eden is the temple motif of the first seal. Noah's Ark is the temple motif of the second. Mount Sinai and the tabernacle are the temple motif of the third, etc.

I don't fully agree with this rabbi. God tells them the day you eat from the tree you will surely die. Ok, as a kid that confused me, because they don't seem to die. But the story is talking about spiritual death. So the serpent does lie, because he contradicts God, and says "you will NOT surely die, for God knows that the day you eat from it, you will be as Elohim - knowing good and evil.": Protestants always focus on the latter part as if it is bad, but that is the truth. The lie was the former part - that they would not die. By eating of the tree, they consent to death, but become as Elohim - knowing good and evil. Gen 3:22.But God puts a kink in the plan and puts a space between them and the tree of life through the repentance process. As the plan progresses there ends up only being one gate to the tree of life.

Both God and Satan are correct, but for different reasons:  Why?  Because there are two types of death, not merely one (spiritual death and physical death).  You will note that Satan is correct:  They did not keel over dead when they ate of the Tree.  You could say that they began to die physically, but death was not instantaneous.  They merely became mortal.  Indeed, they will ultimately become as gods, and become immortal.  Exaltation was simply out of their reach without eating of that Tree.  They had avoided losing their First Estate, but would have never kept their Second Estate.  All that without even considering the First and Second Deaths.

We see the same type of dual meaning confusing readers in Jesus' declaration that Herod's Temple would be destroyed, not one stone left atop another (Matt 24:1-2).  Does archeology prove Jesus a liar?  After all, many courses of the original Herodian stones of the Temple Mount are still in place.  In fact, however, Jesus uses a term there for the sacred precinct or temenos (hieron), which is much more limited in area than the entire Temple Mount (Islamic Haram el-Sharif).  The still more limited term for the temple edifice itself is different (naos), and each term is used accurately in the New Testament for different occasions.  Such Greek terms are naturally merely translations of the corresponding Aramaic and Hebrew terms actually used by Jesus.  The KJV translators unwisely used the same word, "temple," to refer to separate things.

[mfbukowski]

1 hour ago, RevTestament said:

Agreed. The Garden of Eden is the temple motif of the first seal. Noah's Ark is the temple motif of the second. Mount Sinai and the tabernacle are the temple motif of the third, etc.

I don't fully agree with this rabbi. God tells them the day you eat from the tree you will surely die. Ok, as a kid that confused me, because they don't seem to die. But the story is talking about spiritual death. So the serpent does lie, because he contradicts God, and says "you will NOT surely die, for God knows that the day you eat from it, you will be as Elohim - knowing good and evil.": Protestants always focus on the latter part as if it is bad, but that is the truth. The lie was the former part - that they would not die. By eating of the tree, they consent to death, but become as Elohim - knowing good and evil. Gen 3:22.But God puts a kink in the plan and puts a space between them and the tree of life through the repentance process. As the plan progresses there ends up only being one gate to the tree of life.

Literalists maintain that indeed they did die that day because for the Lord a day is a thousand years and they lived less than a thousand years.

Where there is a will there is a way.

 

[RevTestament]

1 hour ago, Robert F. Smith said:

Both God and Satan are correct, but for different reasons:  Why?  Because there are two types of death, not merely one (spiritual death and physical death).  You will note that Satan is correct:  They did not keel over dead when they ate of the Tree.  You could say that they began to die physically, but death was not instantaneous.  They merely became mortal.  Indeed, they will ultimately become as gods, and become immortal. 

Gen 2:16 says that in the day you eat thereof you shall surely die. 

But they didn't die, so God is not speaking of physical death. Beginning to die physically is not dying in the day that they ate of it. However, they did spiritually die in that day and had to exit paradise.

Let me ask you - How do you reconcile homo sapiens living and dying before Adam? Do you reject archaeology?

Helaman 14:16 Yea, behold, this death bringeth to pass the resurrection, and redeemeth all mankind from the first death—that spiritual death; for all mankind, by the fall of Adam being cut off from the presence of the Lord, are considered as dead, both as to things temporal and to things spiritual.

Temporal just means worldly. When homo sapiens became man, spiritual death resulted. 

[Robert F. Smith]

5 hours ago, RevTestament said:

Gen 2:16 says that in the day you eat thereof you shall surely die. 

But they didn't die, so God is not speaking of physical death. Beginning to die physically is not dying in the day that they ate of it. However, they did spiritually die in that day and had to exit paradise.

Exactly my point:  Both God and Satan told the truth.

5 hours ago, RevTestament said:

Let me ask you - How do you reconcile homo sapiens living and dying before Adam? Do you reject archaeology?

I have no problem with millions of years of life on Earth before that specific ceremony in that Garden-temple.  Marking the beginning of a dispensation which applies retroactively is the easy part, since sequential time is not part of the Garden ritual experience.

5 hours ago, RevTestament said:

Helaman 14:16 Yea, behold, this death bringeth to pass the resurrection, and redeemeth all mankind from the first death—that spiritual death; for all mankind, by the fall of Adam being cut off from the presence of the Lord, are considered as dead, both as to things temporal and to things spiritual.

Temporal just means worldly. When homo sapiens became man, spiritual death resulted. 

The Fall of Adam is a ritual  occasion which we all repeat.

[Glenn101]

5 hours ago, RevTestament said:

Gen 2:16 says that in the day you eat thereof you shall surely die. 

But they didn't die, so God is not speaking of physical death. Beginning to die physically is not dying in the day that they ate of it. However, they did spiritually die in that day and had to exit paradise.

Was God speaking of one of His years or a mortal earth year? I suspect that it was the former since mankind and womankind had not begun their mortal existence at that time. Using that perspective, God was absolutely correct. He did not say in that instance, but in that day.

Glenn

[RevTestament]

3 hours ago, Glenn101 said:

Was God speaking of one of His years or a mortal earth year? I suspect that it was the former since mankind and womankind had not begun their mortal existence at that time. Using that perspective, God was absolutely correct. He did not say in that instance, but in that day.

Glenn

Where did you get "years" from? Neither God nor I said anything about years.  The generations of the creation have an unknown determinator, but that is outside the story of Adam and Eve. The story of Adam and Eve is about the gospel, and God introducing His word to man. The fact that Adam and Eve immediately suffered spiritual death, but not physical death indicates that the word day in that context had a normal meaning.

[RevTestament]

3 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

Exactly my point:  Both God and Satan told the truth.

Satan lied. Spiritual death brings about temporal death eventually by Satan.

Quote

I have no problem with millions of years of life on Earth before that specific ceremony in that Garden-temple.  Marking the beginning of a dispensation which applies retroactively is the easy part, since sequential time is not part of the Garden ritual experience.

That's a convenient way to look at it. Maybe when you become God, you can make rules like that....  but the word "day" has a fairly common meaning pertaining to sequential time.

Quote

The Fall of Adam is a ritual  occasion which we all repeat.

Well those who reach the age of accountability. However, how about those before Adam? There was no law pertaining to them... at least in my book... therefore no spiritual death nor fall as far as we know. I find this fascinating, but like other things, we simply do not know. Perhaps they are as little children who do not reach the age of accountability. However, I have never studied the subject thoroughly. 

[Robert F. Smith]

3 hours ago, RevTestament said:

Satan lied. Spiritual death brings about temporal death eventually by Satan.

You miss the paradox in both clearly telling the truth, as though you want Satan to be a liar.  We must not force texts to fit our apriori demands.

3 hours ago, RevTestament said:

That's a convenient way to look at it. Maybe when you become God, you can make rules like that....  but the word "day" has a fairly common meaning pertaining to sequential time.

Only careless recent Creationist evangelicals usually claim that one meaning for Hebrew "day," but a Mormon must not forget that Peter, James, and John are there present with Adam & Eve, thousands of years before they are incarnate as apostles of the Lord Jesus Christ -- whom they claim as their Master there and then, already celebrating the fruits of his Crucifixion.  That is anything but sequential time.  Indeed, time can be diachronic and synchronic, and eternity can be static and dynamic.  An infinite Atonement is timeless, reaching both backward and forward.  It is in the nature of ordinances.

3 hours ago, RevTestament said:

Well those who reach the age of accountability. However, how about those before Adam? There was no law pertaining to them... at least in my book... therefore no spiritual death nor fall as far as we know. I find this fascinating, but like other things, we simply do not know. Perhaps they are as little children who do not reach the age of accountability. However, I have never studied the subject thoroughly. 

Again, this was already determined before the foundation of the world.  Surely you understand the principle of proxy ordinances applied to those who have already gone before.  How else do you imagine that a formal covenant relationship can be entered into which is valid after the fact?  All of us reenact the Adam & Eve rite, and it is as valid now as it was then.

[RevTestament]

1 hour ago, Robert F. Smith said:

You miss the paradox in both clearly telling the truth, as though you want Satan to be a liar.  We must not force texts to fit our apriori demands.

I am not trying to make Satan out to be something he is not. He is a liar who lied from the beginning. That is why God cursed him. God didn't curse him for telling the truth.

Quote

Only careless recent Creationist evangelicals usually claim that one meaning for Hebrew "day," but a Mormon must not forget that Peter, James, and John are there present with Adam & Eve, thousands of years before they are incarnate as apostles of the Lord Jesus Christ -- whom they claim as their Master there and then, already celebrating the fruits of his Crucifixion.  That is anything but sequential time.  Indeed, time can be diachronic and synchronic, and eternity can be static and dynamic.  An infinite Atonement is timeless, reaching both backward and forward.  It is in the nature of ordinances.

There is no reason to assume that time in the garden was any different than we experience time. Assuming something else is going beyond the scriptures. The infinite atonement is not a term that applies to time, but to scope. In this I disagree with some GAs in the Church who have applied it to all prior worlds and subsequent worlds. To me the very idea is absurd. It's like going back to the Middle Ages and trying to make the earth the center of the solar system and the universe. It seems it is easy to talk man into thinking much of himself.

[Glenn101]

8 hours ago, RevTestament said:

Where did you get "years" from? Neither God nor I said anything about years.  The generations of the creation have an unknown determinator, but that is outside the story of Adam and Eve. The story of Adam and Eve is about the gospel, and God introducing His word to man. The fact that Adam and Eve immediately suffered spiritual death, but not physical death indicates that the word day in that context had a normal meaning.

I should have said "days" rather than years. As in one day with God is like a thousand years with man. It is not apparent that Adam and Eve suffered spiritual death immediately after taking of the "Forbidden Fruit." After all, they had time to discover a few things about themselves and to fashion some clothes out of fig leaves. It is not known how long a period of time elapsed between the act and the banishment. But it really does not matter. Physical death and spiritual death both happened.

[Maidservant]

I don't know what the Hebrew says but in English the phrase 'in the day' modifies the eating, it does NOT modify the dying.  The English does NOT say that the death will take place on that day.  It says, on the day you eat, (then) you will (will) surely (surely) die.

[Robert F. Smith]

9 hours ago, RevTestament said:

I am not trying to make Satan out to be something he is not. He is a liar who lied from the beginning. That is why God cursed him. God didn't curse him for telling the truth.

The text of Genesis does not say that the "serpent" is cursed because he lied.  Since he did not lie, that would be impossible in any case.  He told the truth to Eve, which is why she ate of the fruit, which is what God wanted her to do in any case.  The curse is a requirement of the contract between God and man (part of the standard curses and blessings in all contracts, treaties, etc.), and the "serpent" is merely uttering his part in the script of that ordinance establishing the covenant.  Everyone already knew what his role was from the time that he rejected the plan of God in the Grand Council in Heaven.  As in Job, his role is official and absolutely necessary.  That may discomfit, but is a consequence of opposition in all things.

9 hours ago, RevTestament said:

There is no reason to assume that time in the garden was any different than we experience time. Assuming something else is going beyond the scriptures.

Since dischronology is a mainstay of the Creation and Garden experience, from the disjuncture with characters who could not even exist until thousands of years later, and time being the 1,.000 years to 1 year of God until the Fall, we can hardly depend upon a rigid and narrow evangelical reading of the text.  Sacred time is just not the same as secular time.

9 hours ago, RevTestament said:

The infinite atonement is not a term that applies to time, but to scope. In this I disagree with some GAs in the Church who have applied it to all prior worlds and subsequent worlds. To me the very idea is absurd. It's like going back to the Middle Ages and trying to make the earth the center of the solar system and the universe. It seems it is easy to talk man into thinking much of himself.

The infinite atonement reaches back to all those who ever lived on Earth (your red herring not applicable), and on into the future forever to that one population.  Not to others with which we are unconcerned -- from other worlds.  Your demand would limit that Atonement to just those persons and times after Jesus' Crucifixion, and would make it impossible for Him to be the already promised Savior before the foundation of the world -- as though all relevant acts had already taken place.

[RevTestament]

30 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said:

The text of Genesis does not say that the "serpent" is cursed because he lied.  Since he did not lie, that would be impossible in any case.  He told the truth to Eve, which is why she ate of the fruit, which is what God wanted her to do in any case.  The curse is a requirement of the contract between God and man (part of the standard curses and blessings in all contracts, treaties, etc.), and the "serpent" is merely uttering his part in the script of that ordinance establishing the covenant.  Everyone already knew what his role was from the time that he rejected the plan of God in the Grand Council in Heaven.  As in Job, his role is official and absolutely necessary.  That may discomfit, but is a consequence of opposition in all things.

Just to be clear Robert, I do not agree with you. While I enjoyed our little chat, I do find your position on this matter to be disconcerting. I pose that you should rethink it.

John 8:44 Ye are of your father the devil, and the lusts of your father ye will do. He was a murderer from the beginning, and abode not in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he speaketh a lie, he speaketh of his own: for he is a liar, and the father of it.

Quote

Since dischronology is a mainstay of the Creation and Garden experience, from the disjuncture with characters who could not even exist until thousands of years later, and time being the 1,.000 years to 1 year of God until the Fall, we can hardly depend upon a rigid and narrow evangelical reading of the text.  Sacred time is just not the same as secular time.

Again, just to be clear I do agree with you that prophetic or sacred time can be defined differently than secular time. For instance, I believe the days of creation are set within a concept of generations rather than single earth days. I am just saying in the context of the story of Adam and Even there is no textual reason to do so.

Quote

The infinite atonement reaches back to all those who ever lived on Earth (your red herring not applicable), and on into the future forever to that one population.  Not to others with which we are unconcerned -- from other worlds.  Your demand would limit that Atonement to just those persons and times after Jesus' Crucifixion, and would make it impossible for Him to be the already promised Savior before the foundation of the world -- as though all relevant acts had already taken place.

My comment about prior and subsequent worlds was not a red herring at all, but is a known Mormon concept which fits within the context in which you originally used the term infinite atonement. It seems you do not agree with that concept, which I consider welcome - Sometimes it seems I always fall outside the realms of modern Mormon thought. I will stand by my position though that the term infinite atonement refers to scope. Nevertheless, I do agree that the atonement applies to all on this earth despite your red herring, and your attempt to limit my definition only to those during and after Jesus' life. The term is used within the scope of the gospel, which applies to all who have lived or will live on this earth. BTW that is not an infinite number, although it is many. The term infinite atonement I believe applies to a conceivably infinite number of sins with some exceptions for unforgiveable sins. The Savior atoned for however so many sins as man shall commit. Perhaps not even God knows that number beforehand. It is a term which applies to depth and breadth rather than time.

[Robert F. Smith]

5 hours ago, RevTestament said:

Just to be clear Robert, I do not agree with you. While I enjoyed our little chat, I do find your position on this matter to be disconcerting. I pose that you should rethink it.

John 8:44 Ye are of your father the devil, and the lusts of your father ye will do. He was a murderer from the beginning, and abode not in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he speaketh a lie, he speaketh of his own: for he is a liar, and the father of it.

One of the hallmarks of all liars is that even they tell the truth at times, particularly when it suits their ultimate purposes.  To declare that everything they say is a lie is self-defeating. It is also dangerous to misread texts or situations and thus miss the true nature of actual encounters.  God's relationship with even those who oppose him is a power relationship which demands obedience to formal ordinances.  Satan has no choice in such instances, as though his prior choices compel subsequent actions.  Free agency has consequences.

5 hours ago, RevTestament said:

Again, just to be clear I do agree with you that prophetic or sacred time can be defined differently than secular time. For instance, I believe the days of creation are set within a concept of generations rather than single earth days. I am just saying in the context of the story of Adam and Even there is no textual reason to do so.

My comment about prior and subsequent worlds was not a red herring at all, but is a known Mormon concept which fits within the context in which you originally used the term infinite atonement. It seems you do not agree with that concept, which I consider welcome - Sometimes it seems I always fall outside the realms of modern Mormon thought. I will stand by my position though that the term infinite atonement refers to scope. Nevertheless, I do agree that the atonement applies to all on this earth despite your red herring, and your attempt to limit my definition only to those during and after Jesus' life. The term is used within the scope of the gospel, which applies to all who have lived or will live on this earth. BTW that is not an infinite number, although it is many. The term infinite atonement I believe applies to a conceivably infinite number of sins with some exceptions for unforgiveable sins. The Savior atoned for however so many sins as man shall commit. Perhaps not even God knows that number beforehand. It is a term which applies to depth and breadth rather than time.

You are now correct to keep the infinite atonement within the bounds of the Gospel, but that does not make of the word "infinite" mere hyperbole, since in set theory one may have an infinity within a set.  It may seem contrary to intuition, but it is mathematically correct.  And, as you suggest, even God may not know how much his Son should bear in pain to pay the price.  So, it must be infinite in extent so as to cover any amount.  A notion, perhaps, that only a god could understand.

[nuclearfuels]

He sought to beguile them both.

Adam said no, so Satan went to Eve.

Kind of like when kids ask one parent for a snack. First parent says no, second parent might eventually relent.

God knew Satan would tempt Adam and Eve to do the opposite of whatever God told them to do, even if it ended up allowing all mankind to obtain physical bodies.

[MormonMason]

On ‎04‎/‎10‎/‎2018 at 4:02 PM, Tacenda said:

Matthew 22:30 English Standard Version (ESV)

³⁰ For in the resurrection they neither marry nor are given in marriage, but are like angels in heaven.

I see Jesus's words more straightforward in referring to specific individuals rather than the entire world for all time in this text.  The "they" were the seven brothers the questioners knew.

Quote

Now there were seven brothers among us. The first married and died, and having no children left his wife to his brother.

(Matt. 22:25, ESV)

"They" were under the law of Moses and were not eligible for eternal marriage, which was something that Jesus did not yet begin to teach.  Jesus was addressing questioners regarding the seven individuals and the woman, not the entire world, nor those who would not be under the law of Moses once fulfilled.

Edited May 9, 2018 by MormonMason

[MormonMason]

On ‎04‎/‎17‎/‎2018 at 7:21 AM, Maidservant said:

I don't know what the Hebrew says but in English the phrase 'in the day' modifies the eating, it does NOT modify the dying.  The English does NOT say that the death will take place on that day.  It says, on the day you eat, (then) you will (will) surely (surely) die.

The Hebrew makes it sound more like a process of death.  More literally it is roughly, "For on the day you eat from it, dying, you shall die."  "The day" in this text also does not carry within it a meaning of "in that very day."  The form בַּיֹּום (the vowel indicating the presence of the article though not actually written) could represent such a thought but it isn't used in that text.  The process of dying begins on the day they eat but does not necessarily culminate in physical death in one literal day.