The coats of skin

[theplains]

Moses 4:12-13,27 says, "And when the woman saw that the tree was good for food, and that it became pleasant
to the eyes, and a tree to be desired to make her wise, she took of the fruit thereof, and did eat, and also gave unto
her husband with her, and he did eat. And the eyes of them both were opened, and they knew that they had been
naked. And they sewed fig-leaves together and made themselves aprons ... Unto Adam, and also unto his wife, did
I, the Lord God, make coats of skins, and clothed them."

After being clothed by God with animal skins, did they realize their own choice to cover themselves with fig
leaves was rejected by God because it represented their own attempt to hide their sin and shame?

Do you believe God ever approved of Adam and Eve's method of covering their nakedness?

What examples (of either symbolic or literal 'fig leaf' coverings) do people put on today that God needs to
remove?

Thanks,
Jim
 

[Maidservant]

The record does not note God directly addressing the issue of what Adam and Eve had chosen to clothe themselves with.  So any guess as to God's feeling about that would have to come from personal pondering and would be just that--a guess.  I'm not of aware of any comment from a past prophet on it.  And currently, we are not told what to think of such things, but are encouraged to go through our own learning and revelation process.

Please also note that nowhere does it say 'animal' and I would submit to you that the phrase 'coat of skins' is an idiom and sacred phrase and has nothing to do whatsoever with animals.  (I say this to Mormons also, since they would make the same assumption.)

I noticed just now that they were clothed in the 'coat of skins' before God pronounces that they have 'become as one of us'; so I am now curious about the order here and will ponder on it further.

Does God agree with Adam and Eve that they are naked and need to not be (by whatever means--fig leaves or coats)?  Or is God trying to tell them that they are not naked, and why do they think that they are?  Who told you that you are naked?

In any case, the act that God did to clothe them does not necessarily mean he disapproved of their own previous act.  Possibly he was simply giving them better from what the best they had done so far. 

Also please note that nowhere in the record does it say that God was displeased with their state of nakedness at all.  It was Adam who was afraid of that state.  God initiated Adam and Eve in that state (or did he? again--maybe he is saying, you were never naked)--but if he did initiate the state of nakedness, then I would say that he has no problem with it.  It is Adam, Eve, and possibly the serpent that have the problem with it.

Nowhere in the record does it say that God removed the fig leaves.  It may be our assumption that if you put on a second outfit, you remove the first.  But it doesn't actually say that.

We also need to be careful what emotions or states we assign to the story.  The only emotion named is when Adam says that he was afraid.  Talking about sin or shame may also be an unwarranted assumption over the text.  He was afraid of being naked in the presence of God.  But it doesn't say God was afraid or disapproved of that or needed to fix that.  Also I don't think we can say that nakedness = sin, shame.  At least from this particular record.  There are, by the way, a lot of great and good things that could induce fear--like standing naked before your God.  Hmmmm.

Edited May 7, 2018 by Maidservant

[mfbukowski]

Can't touch this!

 

[CV75]

3 hours ago, theplains said:

Moses 4:12-13,27 says, "And when the woman saw that the tree was good for food, and that it became pleasant
to the eyes, and a tree to be desired to make her wise, she took of the fruit thereof, and did eat, and also gave unto
her husband with her, and he did eat. And the eyes of them both were opened, and they knew that they had been
naked. And they sewed fig-leaves together and made themselves aprons ... Unto Adam, and also unto his wife, did
I, the Lord God, make coats of skins, and clothed them."

After being clothed by God with animal skins, did they realize their own choice to cover themselves with fig
leaves was rejected by God because it represented their own attempt to hide their sin and shame?

Do you believe God ever approved of Adam and Eve's method of covering their nakedness?

What examples (of either symbolic or literal 'fig leaf' coverings) do people put on today that God needs to
remove?

Thanks,
Jim
 

Seeing how these threads of yours usually go, and with as minimal personal insight as possible, what "coverings" you have in mind that LDS put on that God needs to remove?

[Calm]

Personally I think .God rejected the fig leaves coverings because he didn't think having a perpetual rash would be all that helpful for Adam and Eve in terms of procreation.

http://www.tandurust.com/allergies/fig-tree-and-fruit-allergy.html

[JayneAdelle]

The entire "Garden of Eden" story is a metaphor. Taking it all as a literal, historically accurate account of events prevents us from mining the story for deeper meanings and truths. You're getting the hint of an idea with the metaphorical "coverings needing to be removed" question but I think you could benefit from going much deeper.

[Rajah Manchou]

10 hours ago, theplains said:

What examples (of either symbolic or literal 'fig leaf' coverings) do people put on today that God needs to
remove?

Pants?

[Robert F. Smith]

11 hours ago, theplains said:

..............................After being clothed by God with animal skins, did they realize their own choice to cover themselves with fig
leaves was rejected by God because it represented their own attempt to hide their sin and shame?

Do you believe God ever approved of Adam and Eve's method of covering their nakedness?

What examples (of either symbolic or literal 'fig leaf' coverings) do people put on today that God needs to
remove?.................

The Garden is God's temple, and Adam & Eve undergo an initiation in that Garden.  The story is not a narrative historical account, but a holy dramatic presentation of a ritual process.  Aprons and coats of skins are part of the symbolic ceremonial regalia.  Oaths and covenants are included.  As Dr Jordan B. Peterson points out:

"Great dramas are more real than real.  They're hyper-real."

[smac97]

6 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

The Garden is God's temple, and Adam & Eve undergo an initiation in that Garden.  The story is not a narrative historical account, but a holy dramatic presentation of a ritual process.  Aprons and coats of skins are part of the symbolic ceremonial regalia.  Oaths and covenants are included.  As Dr Jordan B. Peterson points out:

"Great dramas are more real than real.  They're hyper-real."

Here's an interesting remark about the "coat of skins" and its potential re-emergence in the biblical narrative after Adam and Eve:

Quote

Some scholars believe that one symbol of the birthright was Joseph’s “coat.” William Wilson, Old Testament Word Studies (Grand Rapids: Kregel, 1978), 82. In ancient Jewish legends this was not a coat “of many colors” but rather the royal and priestly “coat of skins” made by God for Adam which had been passed down through the ages by the patriarchs. Hugh W. Nibley, An Approach to the Book of Mormon, 3rd ed. (Salt Lake City: Deseret Book and FARMS, 1988), 218–21; Louis Ginzberg, The Legends of the Jews (Philadelphia: Jewish Publication Society of America, 1937), 2:139; 5:326 n. 11; 5:329 n. 43. One writer even suggests that “coat of many colors” can be translated as “seamless coat,” which points to a christological parallel (see John 19:23) as well as to the high priest’s seamless temple robe mentioned in Exodus 28:31–32. Thomas K. Cheyne, Encyclopaedia Biblica (New York: Macmillan, 1899–1903), 5222 n. 1.

(from Matthew B. Brown, Journal Of Book Of Mormon Studies 6/2 (1997), Footnote 5, p, 125-26.)

I also like FAIR's treatment of this issue:

Quote

There was no condemnation of the aprons Adam and Eve wore while in the Garden of Eden, only a chastisement and grave consequences for eating of the forbidden fruit. In actuality, the Lord demonstrated his agreement with the covering of their nakedness. That agreement along with the result of now having to live in a different world, with harsh conditions as compared to life in the garden, the Lord gave them something BETTER to clothe themselves with. “Unto Adam also and to his wife did the LORD God make coats of skins, and clothed them.” (Genesis 3:21)

The objective of the aprons of fig leaves was to cover their nakedness, in modesty. It was the best Adam and Eve could come up with, given the circumstances. Had the Lord rejected this modesty, He would have taken the aprons and left Adam and Eve in their nakedness. The coat of skins was provided after the instruction of the Lord of what they would now have to endure. A coat of skins was much more practical and protective from the elements, thorns and thistles outside of the garden than were fig leaves. God did not reject, but gave them something better with which to live in their new conditions.

...

In addition to being a symbol of modesty, the girdle is also a symbol of righteousness to the Lord. “And righteousness shall be the girdle of his loins, and faithfulness the girdle of his reins.” (Isaiah 11:5) The Lord has even commanded some to wear an apron, or girdle.

THUS saith the LORD unto me, Go and get thee a linen girdle, and put it upon thy loins, and put it not in water. So I got a girdle according to the word of the LORD, and put it on my loins. (Jeremiah 13:1-2)

Evidently, even the Lord wears a girdle apron (or will in the future) as part of His holy garments.

Saying, I am Alpha and Omega, the first and the last: and, What thou seest, write in a book, and send it unto the seven churches which are in Asia; unto Ephesus, and unto Smyrna, and unto Pergamos, and unto Thyatira, and unto Sardis, and unto Philadelphia, and unto Laodicea. And I turned to see the voice that spake with me. And being turned, I saw seven golden candlesticks; And in the midst of the seven candlesticks one like unto the Son of man, clothed with a garment down to the foot, and girt about the paps with a golden girdle. (Revelation 1:11-13)

This doesn’t sound like a rejection to me.

Besides being a symbol for modesty and righteousness for the Lord, there is yet another symbol for the girdle (apron). It has to do with Priesthood authority. The book of Exodus is very detailed about the dress of “holy garments” for those in authority, and the girdle was part of that.

…and they shall make holy garments for Aaron thy brother, and his sons, that he may minister unto me in the priest’s office. And they shall take gold, and blue, and purple, and scarlet, and fine linen. And they shall make the ephod of gold, of blue, and of purple, of scarlet, and fine twined linen, with cunning work. It shall have the two shoulderpieces thereof joined at the two edges thereof; and so it shall be joined together. And the curious girdle of the ephod, which is upon it, shall be of the same, according to the work thereof; even of gold, of blue, and purple, and scarlet, and fine twined linen. (Exodus 28:4-8)

The apron, or girdle, is a symbol of righteousness to the Lord, and of Priesthood authority. The Lord never condemned the wearing of fig leaf aprons. Rather, it is a Biblical symbol of Priesthood Authority, righteousness to the Lord, and the creation of man by God, not to mention the clear representation of the symbolism referring to modesty. 

Thanks,

-Smac

[RevTestament]

14 hours ago, Calm said:

Personally I think .God rejected the fig leaves coverings because he didn't think having a perpetual rash would be all that helpful for Adam and Eve in terms of procreation.

http://www.tandurust.com/allergies/fig-tree-and-fruit-allergy.html

You think the fig leaves were actually poison ivy?

[RevTestament]

18 hours ago, theplains said:

Moses 4:12-13,27 says, "And when the woman saw that the tree was good for food, and that it became pleasant
to the eyes, and a tree to be desired to make her wise, she took of the fruit thereof, and did eat, and also gave unto
her husband with her, and he did eat. And the eyes of them both were opened, and they knew that they had been
naked. And they sewed fig-leaves together and made themselves aprons ... Unto Adam, and also unto his wife, did
I, the Lord God, make coats of skins, and clothed them."

After being clothed by God with animal skins, did they realize their own choice to cover themselves with fig
leaves was rejected by God because it represented their own attempt to hide their sin and shame?

Do you believe God ever approved of Adam and Eve's method of covering their nakedness?

What examples (of either symbolic or literal 'fig leaf' coverings) do people put on today that God needs to
remove?

Thanks,
Jim
 

 

16 hours ago, Maidservant said:

The record does not note God directly addressing the issue of what Adam and Eve had chosen to clothe themselves with.  So any guess as to God's feeling about that would have to come from personal pondering and would be just that--a guess.  I'm not of aware of any comment from a past prophet on it.  And currently, we are not told what to think of such things, but are encouraged to go through our own learning and revelation process.

Please also note that nowhere does it say 'animal' and I would submit to you that the phrase 'coat of skins' is an idiom and sacred phrase and has nothing to do whatsoever with animals.  (I say this to Mormons also, since they would make the same assumption.)

I noticed just now that they were clothed in the 'coat of skins' before God pronounces that they have 'become as one of us'; so I am now curious about the order here and will ponder on it further.

Does God agree with Adam and Eve that they are naked and need to not be (by whatever means--fig leaves or coats)?  Or is God trying to tell them that they are not naked, and why do they think that they are?  Who told you that you are naked?

In any case, the act that God did to clothe them does not necessarily mean he disapproved of their own previous act.  Possibly he was simply giving them better from what the best they had done so far. 

Also please note that nowhere in the record does it say that God was displeased with their state of nakedness at all.  It was Adam who was afraid of that state.  God initiated Adam and Eve in that state (or did he? again--maybe he is saying, you were never naked)--but if he did initiate the state of nakedness, then I would say that he has no problem with it.  It is Adam, Eve, and possibly the serpent that have the problem with it.

Nowhere in the record does it say that God removed the fig leaves.  It may be our assumption that if you put on a second outfit, you remove the first.  But it doesn't actually say that.

We also need to be careful what emotions or states we assign to the story.  The only emotion named is when Adam says that he was afraid.  Talking about sin or shame may also be an unwarranted assumption over the text.  He was afraid of being naked in the presence of God.  But it doesn't say God was afraid or disapproved of that or needed to fix that.  Also I don't think we can say that nakedness = sin, shame.  At least from this particular record.  There are, by the way, a lot of great and good things that could induce fear--like standing naked before your God.  Hmmmm.

I am actually pretty satisfied that realizing they were naked after eating of the tree is symbolic of our spiritual nakedness after committing sin. We cannot hide our sin from God, so we feel guilt or nakedness before Him.  So I have to agree with Jim here.

Revelation 16:15 Behold, I come as a thief. Blessed is he that watcheth, and keepeth his garments, lest he walk naked, and they see his shame.

The parables about the Lord clothing the naked have a double meaning. When people repent, He promises not to remember their sin anymore. Thus, their shame is done away, and they are clothed in garments of righteousness. I think Moses does accurately portray, that Adam and Eve's attempts to hide their sin themselves with fig leaves wasn't effectual. The garments of righteousness come from God - not from our own good works (sewing fig leaves), etc. Without the repentance process we will remain naked before God. I will refrain from further comments at this time.

[pogi]

18 hours ago, theplains said:

Moses 4:12-13,27 says, "And when the woman saw that the tree was good for food, and that it became pleasant
to the eyes, and a tree to be desired to make her wise, she took of the fruit thereof, and did eat, and also gave unto
her husband with her, and he did eat. And the eyes of them both were opened, and they knew that they had been
naked. And they sewed fig-leaves together and made themselves aprons ... Unto Adam, and also unto his wife, did
I, the Lord God, make coats of skins, and clothed them."

After being clothed by God with animal skins, did they realize their own choice to cover themselves with fig
leaves was rejected by God because it represented their own attempt to hide their sin and shame?

Do you believe God ever approved of Adam and Eve's method of covering their nakedness?

What examples (of either symbolic or literal 'fig leaf' coverings) do people put on today that God needs to
remove?

Thanks,
Jim
 

Hi Jim, you seem to be making your way through the pearl of great price with a special emphasis on the garden story.  Just curious about your posts since you don't seem to interact much after posting your question.  What are yo doing with all of these responses?  Is this purely for personal study of a book you don't believe in?  Or are you honestly investigating it?  I am curious, because your questions don't seem to be antagonistic in any way, but more investigative in nature.  

To answer your question from my own personal interpretation - I view the fig leaves as man's attempt to cover shame/sin.  Fig leaves are not enduring.  Without the sacrificial offering of the savior (coat of skins), man's shame would be exposed eventually at judgment day.  I don't think the leaves were "rejected" by the Lord as much as they were replaced by the Lord with something more enduring.  Something that will not wither in the heat of the day.  The fig leaves can represent man's desire to make things right, their recognition of guilt and desire to overcome sin/shame - but without the savior, that desire alone is not sufficient.   

The savior covers our shame permanently, wrapping us in the enduring skins of the sacrificial atonement - so that we can stand blameless and confident before God at the last day. 

[Robert F. Smith]

52 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Here's an interesting remark about the "coat of skins" and its potential re-emergence in the biblical narrative after Adam and Eve:

I also like FAIR's treatment of this issue:.....................

Thanks for those very interesting comments from 2012.  In that same spirit, note the following:

E. Speiser, Genesis, 289-290, Hebrew ketonet passim “ornamented tunic” (Gen 37:3, II Sam 13:18-19) = Akkadian kitu pishannu, kutinnu pishannu “ceremonial robe (draped on statues of gods & goddesses),” i.e., with various gold applique ornaments sewn on.  Perhaps like an astro chiton (with stars attached).

[RevTestament]

10 minutes ago, pogi said:

Hi Jim, you seem to be making your way through the pearl of great price with a special emphasis on the garden story.  Just curious about your posts since you don't seem to interact much after posting your question.  What are yo doing with all of these responses?  Is this purely for personal study of a book you don't believe in?  Or are you honestly investigating it?  I am curious, because your questions don't seem to be antagonistic in any way, but more investigative in nature.  

To answer your question from my own personal interpretation - I view the fig leaves as man's attempt to cover shame/sin.  Fig leaves are not enduring.  Without the sacrificial offering of the savior (coat of skins), man's shame would be exposed eventually at judgment day.  I don't think the leaves were "rejected" by the Lord as much as they were replaced by the Lord with something more enduring.  Something that will not wither in the heat of the day.  The fig leaves can represent man's desire to make things right, their recognition of guilt and desire to overcome sin/shame - but without the savior, that desire alone is not sufficient.   

The savior covers our shame permanently, wrapping us in the enduring skins of the sacrificial atonement - so that we can stand blameless and confident before God at the last day. 

That is really an interesting point pogi. I think this scripture reflects the importance of an offering of blood:

Genesis 4:3,5

3 And in process of time it came to pass, that Cain brought of the fruit of the ground an offering unto the Lord.

...

5 But unto ^aCain and to his ^boffering he had not ^crespect. And Cain was very wroth, and his countenance fell.

As Yeshua said, the life is in the blood.

[pogi]

16 hours ago, Maidservant said:

We also need to be careful what emotions or states we assign to the story.  The only emotion named is when Adam says that he was afraid.  Talking about sin or shame may also be an unwarranted assumption over the text.  He was afraid of being naked in the presence of God.  But it doesn't say God was afraid or disapproved of that or needed to fix that.  Also I don't think we can say that nakedness = sin, shame.  At least from this particular record.  There are, by the way, a lot of great and good things that could induce fear--like standing naked before your God.  Hmmmm.

Adam was afraid indeed.  The Lord promised death for their actions.  But what caused him to be afraid?  Innocence (represented by their nakedness) or shame (represented by their fig leaf coverings)?  Adam would not have been afraid in innocence.  It was his shame that caused him to hide in fear of death.

Toxic shame always causes fear of exposure and leads to hiding/isolation.  The fear of standing naked before your God is rooted in shame, rather than innocence. 

[pogi]

38 minutes ago, RevTestament said:

That is really an interesting point pogi. I think this scripture reflects the importance of an offering of blood:

Yes, I think it gives another layer of meaning to Christ's title as Alpha and Omega (first and last).  He being the first to make sacrifice in the garden of Eden, which represented and pointed to the last and great sacrifice of his own flesh and blood.  

[Calm]

6 hours ago, RevTestament said:

You think the fig leaves were actually poison ivy?

No, fig leaves can cause nasty issues all by themselves.

(it was a joke btw, I am not wedded towards literal, I see it as a temple drama where its beginnings are undefined)

Edited May 7, 2018 by Calm

[Hamba Tuhan]

FWIW, I agree with pogi. My personal understanding of fig-leaf aprons is that they are a symbol of our attempts to cover our guilt. I find it helpful to have a physical reminder of how ineffectual that is. Thankfully, through Christ, we can instead be clothed in righteousness. The contrast is stark and, to me, meaningful.

[mfbukowski]

15 hours ago, JayneAdelle said:

The entire "Garden of Eden" story is a metaphor. Taking it all as a literal, historically accurate account of events prevents us from mining the story for deeper meanings and truths. You're getting the hint of an idea with the metaphorical "coverings needing to be removed" question but I think you could benefit from going much deeper.

Let's try this for getting to the point.

The fig leaves could represent our earthly flesh since we have to give that up in order to come to God, and after the resurrection we will be clothed in "coats of (resurrected) skins" he has given us which will be another kind of flesh?  Telestial Terrestrial, Celestial?- and that reference is even Biblical....

That could move it forward without getting too.....  whatever. 

Quote

 

1Cor 15

35But some man will say, How are the dead raised up? and with what body do they come? 36Thou fool, that which thou sowest is not quickened, except it die: 37And that which thou sowest, thou sowest not that body that shall be, but bare grain, it may chance of wheat, or of some other grain: 38But God giveth it a body as it hath pleased him, and to every seed his own body. 39All flesh is not the same flesh: but there is one kind of flesh of men, another flesh of beasts, another of fishes, and another of birds. 40There are also celestial bodies, and bodies terrestrial: but the glory of the celestial is one, and the glory of the terrestrial is another. 41There is one glory of the sun, and another glory of the moon, and another glory of the stars: for one star differeth from anotherstar in glory.

42So also is the resurrection of the dead. It is sown in corruption; it is raised in incorruption: 43It is sown in dishonour; it is raised in glory: it is sown in weakness; it is raised in power: 44It is sown a natural body; it is raised a spiritual body. There is a natural body, and there is a spiritual body. 45And so it is written, The first man Adam was made a living soul; the last Adam was made a quickening spirit. 46Howbeit that was not first which is spiritual, but that which is natural; and afterward that which is spiritual. 47The first man is of the earth, earthy: the second man is the Lord from heaven. 48As is the earthy, such are they also that are earthy: and as is the heavenly, such are they also that are heavenly. 49And as we have borne the image of the earthy, we shall also bear the image of the heavenly.

 

Works for me. 

 

[Maidservant]

7 hours ago, RevTestament said:

 

I am actually pretty satisfied that realizing they were naked after eating of the tree is symbolic of our spiritual nakedness after committing sin. We cannot hide our sin from God, so we feel guilt or nakedness before Him.  So I have to agree with Jim here.

Revelation 16:15 Behold, I come as a thief. Blessed is he that watcheth, and keepeth his garments, lest he walk naked, and they see his shame.

The parables about the Lord clothing the naked have a double meaning. When people repent, He promises not to remember their sin anymore. Thus, their shame is done away, and they are clothed in garments of righteousness. I think Moses does accurately portray, that Adam and Eve's attempts to hide their sin themselves with fig leaves wasn't effectual. The garments of righteousness come from God - not from our own good works (sewing fig leaves), etc. Without the repentance process we will remain naked before God. I will refrain from further comments at this time.

 

6 hours ago, pogi said:

Adam was afraid indeed.  The Lord promised death for their actions.  But what caused him to be afraid?  Innocence (represented by their nakedness) or shame (represented by their fig leaf coverings)?  Adam would not have been afraid in innocence.  It was his shame that caused him to hide in fear of death.

Toxic shame always causes fear of exposure and leads to hiding/isolation.  The fear of standing naked before your God is rooted in shame, rather than innocence. 

I appreciate hearing everyone's perspective in order to help refine mine.  I can agree that the fear of standing naked is or is likely about shame, but I don't necessarily see that we should not be standing naked, but perhaps that we should, but without shame.  (Not that you said that, pogi, maybe you are agreeing with me? but just clarifying where I'm at so far.)

@ Rev: I do not consider that the Adam and Eve story is about sin; I do not consider that eating the fruit was a sin or even a representation of sin.  So that does color the rest of what I think about the template.  But, again, love hearing everyone's thoughts so that I can ponder further.  That Revelation scripture is super cool, never caught that before.

 

7 hours ago, smac97 said:

Here's an interesting remark about the "coat of skins" and its potential re-emergence in the biblical narrative after Adam and Eve:

I also like FAIR's treatment of this issue:

Thanks,

-Smac

I think the story of Noah being drunk and the situation where Ham took his garments may have also been about the sacred garment that was inherited.

[Calm]

7 minutes ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

FWIW, I agree with pogi. My personal understanding of fig-leaf aprons is that they are a symbol of our attempts to cover our guilt. I find it helpful to have a physical reminder of how ineffectual that is.

And ultimately painful (which is why I love that fig leaves are the symbol).

[strappinglad]

I'm curious as to why the plural of ' skins ' is used. Any coat made of skins will have several seams so the ' seamless ' idea seems ( oh brother) off .

We are told that it was Satan who pointed out the nakedness and suggested fig leaves.

Adam and Eve were supposedly immortal in the Garden , and upon partaking of the fruit became mortal . In some way they put on a mortal ' skin ' .

Then again if they put on skins , this hints at several mortal probations. I've got to stop. The rabbit hole is too deep !

[mfbukowski]

1 hour ago, Maidservant said:

 

I appreciate hearing everyone's perspective in order to help refine mine.  I can agree that the fear of standing naked is or is likely about shame, but I don't necessarily see that we should not be standing naked, but perhaps that we should, but without shame.  (Not that you said that, pogi, maybe you are agreeing with me? but just clarifying where I'm at so far.)

@ Rev: I do not consider that the Adam and Eve story is about sin; I do not consider that eating the fruit was a sin or even a representation of sin.  So that does color the rest of what I think about the template.  But, again, love hearing everyone's thoughts so that I can ponder further.  That Revelation scripture is super cool, never caught that before.

 

I think the story of Noah being drunk and the situation where Ham took his garments may have also been about the sacred garment that was inherited.

Whenever I see this topic of garments I think of this Gnostic Hymn- Hymn of the Robe of Glory

http://gnosis.org/library/grs-mead/grsm_robeofglory.htm

This is about as LDS as one can get and I see it as evidence of proto-Mormonism in very ancient times.

[RevTestament]

6 hours ago, Calm said:

No, fig leaves can cause nasty issues all by themselves.

(it was a joke btw, I am not wedded towards literal, I see it as a temple drama where its beginnings are undefined)

Yeah, I got where you were coming from so I thought I'd have a little fun with it. I didn't really realize all the problems some people have with figs though. I grew up with them, and am apparently not allergic.

[theplains]

On 5/6/2018 at 6:45 PM, Maidservant said:

There are, by the way, a lot of great and good things that could induce fear--like standing naked before your God.  Hmmmm.

Was Adam and Eve's fear of God caused only by their realisation they were physically naked or was there
more to it?

Jim