Blinded or unblinded?

[theplains]

Moses 4:4 says, "And he became Satan, yea, even the devil, the father of all lies, to deceive and to blind men, and to
lead them captive at his will, even as many as would not hearken unto my voice."

When Adam and Eve did not hearken unto God's voice and chose disobedience instead, was this act considered a
blinding by Satan or was it really an unblinding by God?

Thanks,
Jim

[Duncan]

8 minutes ago, theplains said:

Moses 4:4 says, "And he became Satan, yea, even the devil, the father of all lies, to deceive and to blind men, and to
lead them captive at his will, even as many as would not hearken unto my voice."

When Adam and Eve did not hearken unto God's voice and chose disobedience instead, was this act considered a
blinding by Satan or was it really an unblinding by God?

Thanks,
Jim

I don't know but remember whatever it was they were forgiven, so they could see better now!

[pogi]

2 minutes ago, theplains said:

Moses 4:4 says, "And he became Satan, yea, even the devil, the father of all lies, to deceive and to blind men, and to
lead them captive at his will, even as many as would not hearken unto my voice."

When Adam and Eve did not hearken unto God's voice and chose disobedience instead, was this act considered a
blinding by Satan or was it really an unblinding by God?

Thanks,
Jim

Good question!  On one hand, their "eyes were opened", but on the other hand, what can you spiritually see when in hiding from God?

What did Adam and Eve see when they partook of the fruit?  Their eyes would have been opened first to one of two things, knowledge of good, or knowledge of evil.  It is my belief that if Adam and Eve would have waited and been patient on the Lord, their eyes would have been opened to good first, as the fruit would have been offered by the hand of God as they were prepared; but instead they partook from the hand of Lucifer.  Their eyes were opened to evil - darkness.  Satan cast the spell of toxic shame upon them causing them to hide from the source of spiritual light.

Yes, their eyes were opened to a new spiritual capacity of good and evil , but what they first saw was evil and darkness - spiritual blindness.  Only upon coming out of hiding were they exposed to the light, and saw for the first time...goodness.   

[Robert F. Smith]

8 hours ago, pogi said:

Good question!  On one hand, their "eyes were opened", but on the other hand, what can you spiritually see when in hiding from God?

What did Adam and Eve see when they partook of the fruit?  Their eyes would have been opened first to one of two things, knowledge of good, or knowledge of evil.  It is my belief that if Adam and Eve would have waited and been patient on the Lord, their eyes would have been opened to good first, as the fruit would have been offered by the hand of God as they were prepared; but instead they partook from the hand of Lucifer.  Their eyes were opened to evil - darkness.  Satan cast the spell of toxic shame upon them causing them to hide from the source of spiritual light.

Yes, their eyes were opened to a new spiritual capacity of good and evil , but what they first saw was evil and darkness - spiritual blindness.  Only upon coming out of hiding were they exposed to the light, and saw for the first time...goodness.   

I think that you are reading more into it than is actually there.  It is not about priority of darkness & light.  The eating of the fruit is merely symbolic of the new capacity in Adam & Even to discern the differences in all things.  Good cannot exist without evil, the sweet cannot exist without the bitter, etc., because they are all twins -- you cannot have one without the other.  Free agency cannot exist without the polar choices. In fact the universe could not exist without opposition in all things.

[CV75]

15 hours ago, theplains said:

Moses 4:4 says, "And he became Satan, yea, even the devil, the father of all lies, to deceive and to blind men, and to
lead them captive at his will, even as many as would not hearken unto my voice."

When Adam and Eve did not hearken unto God's voice and chose disobedience instead, was this act considered a
blinding by Satan or was it really an unblinding by God?

Thanks,
Jim

It was neither. Anyone of less stature and intelligence than God is inherently handicapped to a fulness of spiritual sight. See Abraham 3:12 in relation to Abraham 3:18-19. Abraham could not see the end thereof because he was blinded by Satan? No. Did God "unblind" him in order see? No. God did quicken Abraham, but that's a different topic.

[pogi]

7 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

I think that you are reading more into it than is actually there.  It is not about priority of darkness & light.  The eating of the fruit is merely symbolic of the new capacity in Adam & Even to discern the differences in all things.  Good cannot exist without evil, the sweet cannot exist without the bitter, etc., because they are all twins -- you cannot have one without the other.  Free agency cannot exist without the polar choices. In fact the universe could not exist without opposition in all things.

I agree that the fruit only gave them the capacity to see good and evil.  I am not commenting on whether it is symbolic or not.  The fruit did not show them all good and all evil, it only allowed them the capacity to experience it based upon their choices and experiences.  So was their first choice experience good or evil?  Who was there in front of them when their eyes were first opened, good or evil?  What was first imprinted on their heart when Lucifer convinced them that they were unworthy to be in the presence of God?  What was their very first choice that they made with their newly opened eyes and moral agency?  Was it a good choice or a bad choice?  Their very first choice was to hide from God.  The first imprint on their newly formed spiritual hearts was not good, it was toxic shame, which always leads to self-imposed isolation and hiding.  Which is exactly what they did.  Adam and Eve were first led into spiritual blindness (that is what Satan does) before they saw the light. 

[Robert F. Smith]

13 hours ago, pogi said:

I agree that the fruit only gave them the capacity to see good and evil.  I am not commenting on whether it is symbolic or not.  The fruit did not show them all good and all evil, it only allowed them the capacity to experience it based upon their choices and experiences.  So was their first choice experience good or evil?  Who was there in front of them when their eyes were first opened, good or evil?  What was first imprinted on their heart when Lucifer convinced them that they were unworthy to be in the presence of God?  What was their very first choice that they made with their newly opened eyes and moral agency?  Was it a good choice or a bad choice?  Their very first choice was to hide from God.  The first imprint on their newly formed spiritual hearts was not good, it was toxic shame, which always leads to self-imposed isolation and hiding.  Which is exactly what they did.  Adam and Eve were first led into spiritual blindness (that is what Satan does) before they saw the light. 

I prefer the both-and paradigm here, rather than either-or.  Like most humans, any choices made by Adam and Eve are fraught with difficulty and lack of clarity.  Experience carries with it both bitter and sweet consequences, and that is how we all learn.  Like any carnival barker, Satan makes claims and seeks to con the young couple, telling them both truths and lies.  It is very hard to place blame on their ignorant choices, and we are better off providing a descriptive rather than prescriptive accounting, since all humans live lives of mixed value, neither wholly "bad" nor wholly "good."  And making final value judgments may be well beyond our limited human capacity.

In any case, hiding due to shame doesn't seem to me to qualify as a "sin."  Seems quite normal and harmless.

[pogi]

9 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

I prefer the both-and paradigm here, rather than either-or.  Like most humans, any choices made by Adam and Eve are fraught with difficulty and lack of clarity.  Experience carries with it both bitter and sweet consequences, and that is how we all learn.  Like any carnival barker, Satan makes claims and seeks to con the young couple, telling them both truths and lies.  It is very hard to place blame on their ignorant choices, and we are better off providing a descriptive rather than prescriptive accounting, since all humans live lives of mixed value, neither wholly "bad" nor wholly "good."  And making final value judgments may be well beyond our limited human capacity.

In any case, hiding due to shame doesn't seem to me to qualify as a "sin."  Seems quite normal and harmless.

I think as a whole, you are right, humans have lives of mixed values.  I am not making a comprehensive final value judgment of Adam and Eve, rather I am assessing their individual choices in the story.  This is a story about right and wrong, good and evil, the role of Lucifer, the role of God, our ability to choose between them (agency), and the consequences of our actions, be they right or wrong. The point of the story is to place ourselves in their shoes, and to relate the story to our own lives, to glean spiritual/moral meaning and direction from it.  We are required to make value judgments.  That seems to be the point of the story and the point of our lives, to decide between right and wrong, good and evil.

If your version works for you, that is great, run with it.  But I think we need to be allowed a personal reading and rendering as guided by the spirit.  I personally feel that there are layers of meaning and application in our lives that can be applied in different scenarios.  

As far as hiding goes - again, this is a story about us.  How do we apply it to ourselves and learn from it?  To dismiss that part of the story as inconsequential details, I think misses part of the crux of the overall story of our lives.  I have a lot to say about that telling part of the story, but it will have to wait...

[mfbukowski]

On 4/11/2018 at 3:34 PM, theplains said:

Moses 4:4 says, "And he became Satan, yea, even the devil, the father of all lies, to deceive and to blind men, and to
lead them captive at his will, even as many as would not hearken unto my voice."

When Adam and Eve did not hearken unto God's voice and chose disobedience instead, was this act considered a
blinding by Satan or was it really an unblinding by God?

Thanks,
Jim

They did not "disobey". The question is framed in such a way that there is no answer that makes sense.

God gave them to incompatible Commandments, multiply and replenish the Earth and do not eat of the tree. They could not do both. And allowed them to figure out the plan and make the correct decision. There was no Disobedience there it was a puzzle which they solved the way they were supposed to. The result was aquiring knowledge of Good and Evil which was the plan all along.

The question as stated is a false dichotomy.

 

[mfbukowski]

1 hour ago, pogi said:

I think as a whole, you are right, humans have lives of mixed values.  I am not making a comprehensive final value judgment of Adam and Eve, rather I am assessing their individual choices in the story.  This is a story about right and wrong, good and evil, the role of Lucifer, the role of God, our ability to choose between them (agency), and the consequences of our actions, be they right or wrong. The point of the story is to place ourselves in their shoes, and to relate the story to our own lives, to glean spiritual/moral meaning and direction from it.  We are required to make value judgments.  That seems to be the point of the story and the point of our lives, to decide between right and wrong, good and evil.

If your version works for you, that is great, run with it.  But I think we need to be allowed a personal reading and rendering as guided by the spirit.  I personally feel that there are layers of meaning and application in our lives that can be applied in different scenarios.  

As far as hiding goes - again, this is a story about us.  How do we apply it to ourselves and learn from it?  To dismiss that part of the story as inconsequential details, I think misses part of the crux of the overall story of our lives.  I have a lot to say about that telling part of the story, but it will have to wait...

I agree but the question was about eating the fruit and Disobedience. Hiding had nothing to do with disobedience. But clearly to me the act of hiding symbolizes the first desire to separate oneself from God. Though it might be a normal reaction between humans to hide ones nakedness, in this context it represents a deliberate separation from God. I agree with Ostler that that might have been the first sin.

But if it was it was not disobedience. God never commanded them to not hide themselves.

[pogi]

59 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

I agree but the question was about eating the fruit and Disobedience. Hiding had nothing to do with disobedience. But clearly to me the act of hiding symbolizes the first desire to separate oneself from God. Though it might be a normal reaction between humans to hide ones nakedness, in this context it represents a deliberate separation from God. I agree with Ostler that that might have been the first sin.

But if it was it was not disobedience. God never commanded them to not hide themselves.

Yes, it was a deliberate separation from God.  Adam knew that God was looking for him and calling after him.  He knew that it was God's will for Adam to reply in obedience.  Instead, Adam hid in a deliberate act of "my will not thine be done."  While there was no written law or command to not hide, surely they were being disobedient to the light of their newly formed spiritual/moral conscience.  One cannot hear the voice of God calling after them, and hide in good conscience.  In that way, I do see it as disobedience.  God was testing their newly formed conscience - will they use it to come into the light, or to hide in the shadows?  We need not be formally commanded in all things, to disobey the light of Christ.  Sin cannot be sin unless it is a form of disobedience to conscience or law. 

Yes, the original question was about disobedience in eating the fruit.  I included the part about hiding, and subsequently coming out of hiding to demonstrate the evolution of their conscience and experience from dark to light.

Edited April 13, 2018 by pogi

[pogi]

43 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

God gave them to incompatible Commandments, multiply and replenish the Earth and do not eat of the tree. They could not do both.

On this point, as you are aware by now, I disagree.  We are supposed to liken this story unto us.  If this story is a ritualistic parallel of our lives, I fail to see the parallel in that interpretation.  It is inconsistent with the nature of God to not prepare a way to obey his commandments. 

Quote

 

1 Neophi 3:7

And it came to pass that I, Nephi, said unto my father: I will go and do the things which the Lord hath commanded, for I know that the Lord giveth no commandments unto the children of men, save he shall prepare a way for them that they may accomplish the thing which he commandeth them.

1 Ne. 17: 3, 50.
3) And thus we see that the commandments of God must be fulfilled. And if it so be that the children of men keep the commandments of God he doth nourish them, and astrengthen them, and provide means whereby they can accomplish the thing which he has commanded them; wherefore, he did bprovide means for us while we did sojourn in the wilderness. 50) And I said unto them: aIf God had commanded me to do all things I could do them. If he should command me that I should say unto this water, be thou earth, it should be earth; and if I should say it, it would be done.

D&C 5: 34.
Yea, for this cause I have said: Stop, and astand still until I command thee, and I will bprovide means whereby thou mayest accomplish the thing which I have commanded thee.

1 Corinth 10:13
There hath no temptation taken hold of you but such as is common to man. But God is faithful; He will not suffer you to be tempted beyond that which ye are able to bear, but with the temptation will also make a way to escape, that ye may be able to bear it.

 

They did disobey, hence it was called a "transgression"..  It was a transgression because they disobeyed and transgressed the law.  It was not a sin however, because one cannot sin in moral ignorance.  Their decision to eat the fruit was not a moral decision.  They did not solve the puzzle or figure out the plan, but they were intellectually "deceived" by Lucifer.  They didn't know the plan until after they came out of hiding.  Only then was it taught them - that there would be a savior.  Their plan was to hide from God, and perhaps avoid the promise of death.  

 

  

[Robert F. Smith]

5 hours ago, pogi said:

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

As far as hiding goes - again, this is a story about us.  How do we apply it to ourselves and learn from it?  To dismiss that part of the story as inconsequential details, I think misses part of the crux of the overall story of our lives.  I have a lot to say about that telling part of the story, but it will have to wait...

Of course it does depend very heavily on what we mean by "story," because the Garden Story is not quite the same as our lives outside the Garden.  In fact the Garden Story is not a story at all, but rather a liturgical enactment -- as it is for any of us who go through it -- which removes the moral element from the choices made, and casts them as esoteric ritual required for eternal salvation and exaltation.  Each choice is scripted and required, with ultimate good to be found at the end of that rainbow (due to the profound oaths and covenants entered into, and the endowment of power received).  The story is told and retold in hopes that we will remember it well, not because it is a historical narrative, which it is not.

[pogi]

22 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

Of course it does depend very heavily on what we mean by "story," because the Garden Story is not quite the same as our lives outside the Garden.  In fact the Garden Story is not a story at all, but rather a liturgical enactment -- as it is for any of us who go through it -- which removes the moral element from the choices made, and casts them as esoteric ritual required for eternal salvation and exaltation.  Each choice is scripted and required, with ultimate good to be found at the end of that rainbow (due to the profound oaths and covenants entered into, and the endowment of power received).  The story is told and retold in hopes that we will remember it well, not because it is a historical narrative, which it is not.

I view the garden story as more than a liturgical esoteric ritual, only to be performed in temples.  It is also a pattern of spiritual progression that we are to apply in our daily lives.  It very much parallels our lives (if we allow it) in very symbolic ways from innocence --> spiritual darkness --> light. 

[Guest]

On April 11, 2018 at 6:34 PM, theplains said:

Moses 4:4 says, "And he became Satan, yea, even the devil, the father of all lies, to deceive and to blind men, and to
lead them captive at his will, even as many as would not hearken unto my voice."

When Adam and Eve did not hearken unto God's voice and chose disobedience instead, was this act considered a
blinding by Satan or was it really an unblinding by God?

Thanks,
Jim

It is sin that blinds men to the truth, and that is Satan's goal. Although Adam and Eve "sin or transgressed", those things did not open their eyes. Their eyes were opened by "knowledge", and the ability to know "good from evil", this is a choice they would have one day reached. Satan was cured as he was, for his desire to blind men and women, through half truths, and outright lies. Also cursed most of all for leading Adam and Eve to making a choice before they were ready to do so, and unable to understand the consequences, both good an bad. 

[Jeanne]

I happen to believe..that "in the beginning"..it wasn't quite this way.  It is all kind of a mythology and story that comes with a slow creation of a world/species in it.  Doesn't mean that Gods hand are not on it..only that a more natural way with natural laws took place.  Adam and Eve are names given for the human species that evolved.  And then there is all that beggatten' stuff

[Robert F. Smith]

2 hours ago, pogi said:

I view the garden story as more than a liturgical esoteric ritual, only to be performed in temples.  It is also a pattern of spiritual progression that we are to apply in our daily lives.  It very much parallels our lives (if we allow it) in very symbolic ways from innocence --> spiritual darkness --> light. 

Yes, the liturgy certainly follows the stages of spiritual growth in most religious traditions.

[theplains]

18 hours ago, Bill "Papa" Lee said:

It is sin that blinds men to the truth, and that is Satan's goal. Although Adam and Eve "sin or transgressed", those things did not open their eyes. 

The March 2008 Ensign magazine article refers to it as a sin. Former LDS President Joseph F. Smith also taught
the same (chapter 10, page 89).

What action caused Adam and Eve to realize they were naked?

Thanks,
Jim

[Guest]

5 hours ago, theplains said:

The March 2008 Ensign magazine article refers to it as a sin. Former LDS President Joseph F. Smith also taught
the same (chapter 10, page 89).

What action caused Adam and Eve to realize they were naked?

Thanks,
Jim

The knowledge of good and evil, the opposition in all things. 

[theplains]

On 15/04/2018 at 6:25 PM, Bill "Papa" Lee said:

The knowledge of good and evil, the opposition in all things. 

How did the knowledge of good and evil lead Adam and Eve to try and hide their shame?

Jim

[Guest]

24 minutes ago, theplains said:

How did the knowledge of good and evil lead Adam and Eve to try and hide their shame?

Jim

Was it "shame" or knowing they were naked they sought to cover?

[Bernard Gui]

On 4/17/2018 at 3:44 PM, Bill "Papa" Lee said:

Was it "shame" or knowing they were naked they sought to cover?

Shame because of guilt. By disobeying the Father they became exposed to the law if justice. For the first time in their existence they felt guilt because they were now exposed (naked) to His law and susceptible to his wrath.

Edited April 19, 2018 by Bernard Gui

[theplains]

On 17/04/2018 at 6:44 PM, Bill "Papa" Lee said:

Was it "shame" or knowing they were naked they sought to cover?

I would agreed with Bernard, that it was the shame of guilt.  But at the same time they
realized they were physically naked and sought to cover themselves with physical fig leaf
aprons.

Prior to their disobedience, they did not feel any shame because they were in a flawless
relationship with their Creator. When they sinned, this relationship was damaged. 

Jim

[Calm]

If they actually used fig leaves, they must have been feeling really guilty.

http://www.themichigancatholic.org/2015/06/adam-and-the-fig-leaf-an-uncomfortable-wardrobe-choice/

"Fig trees are not very user-friendly. They contain an enzyme call “ficin,” which, when touched, can cause severe skin irritation. If you’d like to see how gruesome fig tree rashes can get, jump on your favorite search engine and type “fig tree rash.” Trust me. These rashes are not pretty."