The coats of skin

[theplains]

On 5/6/2018 at 7:57 PM, CV75 said:

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?

Two things I would mention are people who believe they can work for or earn the gift of eternal life.
Another is people who wear things which depict what God removed. You can guess what I mean here.

Jim

[theplains]

On 5/7/2018 at 10:38 AM, 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:

snip ... 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.

Thanks,

-Smac

Gospel Principles refers to it as great blessings.  Where does the scripture say that God was in agreement
with the fig leaf covering or that he didn't want to see them naked anymore?

Jim

[theplains]

On 5/7/2018 at 11:30 AM, 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.   

Hi Pogi.  It's for personal study.

Jim

[pogi]

5 minutes ago, theplains said:

Two things I would mention are people who believe they can work for or earn the gift of eternal life.

How do you see that as a "covering"? 

Don't get caught up in the semantics of "earning" eternal life.  It is not something we earn, but something we are rewarded with for our work.  Earning something means that our work is equivalent to the reward - that is not even close to the case!  We don't earn salvation for our works any more than you earn it for your belief. 

A better word to use is "contingent".  Salvation is not earned, but it is contingent upon works. 

You cannot deny that salvation is contingent upon something we do.  You yourself insist that salvation is contingent upon belief.  We simply claim that true belief will manifest in righteous works, as the Bible states. 

11 minutes ago, theplains said:

Another is people who wear things which depict what God removed. You can guess what I mean here.

When did God remove them or reject them?  He took of their best efforts and simply improved upon them.  Just like he does with our works.  If you are referring to temple attire, that is not appropriate to discuss here - but keep in mind, it is all symbolic.  Go back and re-read how it might be meaningful when reconciled with ancient Biblical accounts of wearing aprons in temple rituals.

[mfbukowski]

2 hours ago, theplains said:

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

Jim

I think it was linked to the fall because they did not know what "naked" was before the fall. 

So the fall caused both the understanding of nakedness and the shame/fear.

Obviously they knew they had eaten the fruit, which was a necessary disobedience, but they did not yet know how God would react to it.

[CV75]

3 hours ago, theplains said:

Two things I would mention are people who believe they can work for or earn the gift of eternal life.
Another is people who wear things which depict what God removed. You can guess what I mean here.

Jim

How do these criticisms apply to LDS -- that is your MO, so articulate accordingly.

[CV75]

On 5/7/2018 at 4:03 AM, 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."

I've thought that, in the same way that the devil intercepted the Lord's timing and command to have Adam and Eve partake of the then-forbidden fruit, he also intercepted the timing of the wearing of fig leaves with his interjection while their guilty consciences were raw. There was a time and place for these steps in the Lord's plan for bringing His children into mortality, even fig leaf coverings. Eating the fruit and wearing the fig leaves are wrong only when forbidden, but perfectly fine when they are permitted.

[Robert F. Smith]

7 minutes ago, CV75 said:

I've thought that, in the same way that the devil intercepted the Lord's timing and command to have Adam and Eve partake of the then-forbidden fruit, he also intercepted the timing of the wearing of fig leaves with his interjection while their guilty consciences were raw. There was a time and place for these steps in the Lord's plan for bringing His children into mortality, even fig leaf coverings. Eating the fruit and wearing the fig leaves are wrong only when forbidden, but perfectly fine when they are permitted.

But that implies a narrative description of what took place, rather than a prescriptive rite of passage -- which is what each of us experiences as Adam & Eve when we go through that same rite of passage.  Lucifer must willy nilly take part according to the script of that rite.  You are making him the fly in the ointment, rather than an essential member of the cast.

[CV75]

52 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said:

But that implies a narrative description of what took place, rather than a prescriptive rite of passage -- which is what each of us experiences as Adam & Eve when we go through that same rite of passage.  Lucifer must willy nilly take part according to the script of that rite.  You are making him the fly in the ointment, rather than an essential member of the cast.

Not necessarily; this "narrative" can still be taken figuratively/symbolically. We see this everyday in how we are tempted and deceived to do things earlier than God has established for the moral standard (infant baptism, pre-marital sex, exploring online temple content, assuming before getting a confirmation, as some examples).

[snowflake]

On 5/6/2018 at 4:45 PM, 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."

This was the first blood sacrifice for sin.....and the first death of any animal......for there was no death before the fall.  Also a foreshadowing of the one who will be sacrificed for the world. 

[Robert F. Smith]

2 hours ago, CV75 said:

Not necessarily; this "narrative" can still be taken figuratively/symbolically. We see this everyday in how we are tempted and deceived to do things earlier than God has established for the moral standard (infant baptism, pre-marital sex, exploring online temple content, assuming before getting a confirmation, as some examples).

Yes, but you are talking about real life, which can be described with narrative, not a script which includes all our predictable faux pas.  There is all the difference in the world between a dramatic presentation of experience, and the real life experience of people -- not according to script.  What takes place in God's temple is a ritual, not unpredictable life experience.

[CV75]

2 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

Yes, but you are talking about real life, which can be described with narrative, not a script which includes all our predictable faux pas.  There is all the difference in the world between a dramatic presentation of experience, and the real life experience of people -- not according to script.  What takes place in God's temple is a ritual, not unpredictable life experience.

I use one means to express the other. We treat our guilt in a devil-instigated manner by using a good thing (whatever one might think the fig leaf aprons to represent) in a shame-based manner. The Lord showed them its proper use and how to use it properly. It was OK to admit they disobeyed, and it will always be OK to do so until the perfect day. It was OK for them to do all they could do (intent) until they learned (faith) a better way (receive grace). Repentance is power, and the apron can represent this.

[Robert F. Smith]

17 hours ago, CV75 said:

I use one means to express the other. We treat our guilt in a devil-instigated manner by using a good thing (whatever one might think the fig leaf aprons to represent) in a shame-based manner. The Lord showed them its proper use and how to use it properly. It was OK to admit they disobeyed, and it will always be OK to do so until the perfect day. It was OK for them to do all they could do (intent) until they learned (faith) a better way (receive grace). Repentance is power, and the apron can represent this.

Yes, but that is an entirely descriptive narrative, not a ritual.  Role-playing is not real life, even as it mimics real life.  The point of the role-playing is to model both types of behavior (good and bad), thus teaching the difference.  Ritual is often used to edify.  Shakespeare understood the difference:

Quote

The Globe Theatre was a magical theatre, a cosmic theatre, a religious theatre, an actors' theatre, designed to give fullest support to the voices and gestures of the players as they enacted the drama of the life of man within the Theatre of the World.  These meanings might not have been apparent to all, but they would have been known to the initiated.  His theatre would have been for Shakespeare the pattern of the universe, the idea of the Macrocosm, the world stage on which the Microcosm acted his parts.  All the world's a stage.  F. Yates, Theatre of the World, 189, going on to mention the "cosmic allusions, a liturgical element in this drama." 

 

Edited May 10, 2018 by Robert F. Smith

[Maidservant]

On 5/8/2018 at 2:28 PM, theplains said:

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

Jim

Yes.  The template of the story (as I understand) isn't about physical nakedness at all.  The physical nakedness is a representation of more or other.  Yes :).  So their fear was about something much deeper.

[MormonMason]

On ‎05‎/‎08‎/‎2018 at 3:30 PM, theplains said:

Two things I would mention are people who believe they can work for or earn the gift of eternal life.
Another is people who wear things which depict what God removed. You can guess what I mean here.

Jim

Yeah, I thought your frame of reference was a bit "Deckerian."  Guess what!  In the symbolism to which you allude the fig-leaf aprons cease to represent the fig-leaf aprons of Adam and Eve by being removed, and thereafter represent the aprons worn by ancient priests upon being put back on.  It is pretty sad that Decker does not seem to remember that.  You have gone wrong in the interpretation.  But it is not your fault, I suppose.  Blame Ed Decker for your first being deceived.  Blame yourself if you continue making such a connection as you do, now that you know better.

The ephod was a kind of apron.  The ones worn by the other priests were not as elaborate and were worn around the waist.  One translation of 2 Sam. 6:14 (NAB) says of David that he, "girt with a linen apron, came dancing before the LORD with abandon".  New Jerusalem Bible says "linen loincloth".  The Hebrew refers to it as an ephod, and later on David wears an ephod over his robe in 1 Chron. 15:27.

[CV75]

13 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

Yes, but that is an entirely descriptive narrative, not a ritual.  Role-playing is not real life, even as it mimics real life.  The point of the role-playing is to model both types of behavior (good and bad), thus teaching the difference.  Ritual if often used to edify.  Shakespeare understood the difference:

And the symbolism of either (and neither can be said to be "real life") transcends and ties them together. Whether one believes the fig leaf apron is a ritual object, part of a story or was used by an actual Adam and Eve in the past, the symbolism (as in likening the scriptures -- which can be taken as ritual, story or history -- unto ourselves) plays out and edifies in real life.

[Robert F. Smith]

On 5/8/2018 at 3:30 PM, theplains said:

.......... I would mention are people who believe they can work for or earn the gift of eternal life.
...........................................

You have it backward, Jim.  The notion of works-righteousness is false doctrine both in Judaism and Mormonism.  However, it is also false doctrine to criticize righteous acts (for Jews they are in three categories: temple work, acts of compassion, and study of Holy Scripture).  Why?  Because righteous acts always follow them that believe.  Martin Luther refused to understand that faith is always accompanied by righteous works -- a key failure and reason for the Great Apostasy.

[theplains]

15 hours ago, MormonMason said:

In the symbolism to which you allude the fig-leaf aprons cease to represent the fig-leaf aprons of Adam and Eve by being removed, and thereafter represent the aprons worn by ancient priests upon being put back on.

The ephod was a kind of apron.  The ones worn by the other priests were not as elaborate and were worn around the waist.  One translation of 2 Sam. 6:14 (NAB) says of David that he, "girt with a linen apron, came dancing before the LORD with abandon".  New Jerusalem Bible says "linen loincloth".  The Hebrew refers to it as an ephod, and later on David wears an ephod over his robe in 1 Chron. 15:27.

You are comparing apples to oranges.  Eve's fig leaf apron was not replaced with other aprons worn by a priest
because the LDS Church denies the priesthood to women.  Also, the LDS Church has expanded its priesthood to
all worthy males even if they are not descendants of Aaron.

Jim

[theplains]

On 5/8/2018 at 8:15 PM, mfbukowski said:

Obviously they knew they had eaten the fruit, which was a necessary disobedience, but they did not yet know how God would react to it.

If this was a necessary disobedience, then did God really want Adam and Eve to disobey?

Thanks,
Jim

[mfbukowski]

2 hours ago, theplains said:

If this was a necessary disobedience, then did God really want Adam and Eve to disobey?

Thanks,
Jim

I think that is kind of an oversimplification. It's more that God wanted them to choose between two alternatives which were necessary for their growth. It was not really disobedience. If they ate the fruit they would surely die and they did. If they did not eat the fruit they would live forever but they could not have children.

Eve understood that if she was to be the mother of all living she would have to eat the fruit, even though she knew that the penalty for that was death.

So she chose the path of advancement.

Got a firm that choice by then telling them that he would provide a savior to take them out of their sinful state if they obeyed the Savior and believed upon him.

So that's why we LDS call eating the fruit a transgression rather than a full-fledged sin.

They had to choose between two Alternatives that provided advantages and disadvantages for either choice.

It was a test.

They passed the test and made the choice which allows us to progress and have choice in this world to sin or to follow the Savior fully, so we all eventually have the same kind of choices.

Without Choice One cannot have just punishment nor can one justifiably do what's right. Without Choice there is no right or wrong. We are essentially robots. That was not the way of the Lord he wanted us to learn the difference between right and wrong and to choose the right

Edited May 10, 2018 by mfbukowski

[MormonMason]

6 hours ago, theplains said:

You are comparing apples to oranges.

Nope.  I am stating the meaning of the particular actions in the temple without being too specific and without quoting.  You still misunderstand and, like Decker, misuse the symbolism.

Quote

Eve's fig leaf apron was not replaced with other aprons worn by a priest
because the LDS Church denies the priesthood to women.

In the temple, women exercise priesthood in priesthood ordinances.  They are not officially ordained, but the symbolism still is the same.  But women's aprons and men's aprons do differ except in form when patrons wear the wrong ones.  But it also is to be remembered that men and women are portraying the journey of Adam and Eve through life as they return to the presence of God.

Quote

  Also, the LDS Church has expanded its priesthood to

all worthy males even if they are not descendants of Aaron.

Jim

In the Bible there was another priesthood besides that of Aaron, prior to that of Aaron being created.  The priesthood of Melchizedek predated that of Aaron but didn't get called that until after Melchizedek.  What you state about descendants of Aaron does not matter in any case.  Ancient priests wore aprons.  Mormons wear them over the robes of the priesthood as part of the clothing of the priesthood while performing priesthood ordinances in Temples of the Most High.

Edited May 10, 2018 by MormonMason

[Rajah Manchou]

8 hours ago, theplains said:

Also, the LDS Church has expanded its priesthood to all worthy males even if they are not descendants of Aaron.

D&C 7 - 17 And the sons of Moses, according to the Holy Priesthood which he received under the hand of his father-in-law, Jethro; And Jethro received it under the hand of Caleb; And Caleb received it under the hand of Elihu; And Elihu under the hand of Jeremy; And Jeremy under the hand of Gad; And Gad under the hand of Esaias; And Esaias received it under the hand of God. Esaias also lived in the days of Abraham, and was blessed of him— Which Abraham received the priesthood from Melchizedek, who received it through the lineage of his fathers, even till Noah; And from Noah till Enoch, through the lineage of their fathers; And from Enoch to Abel, who was slain by the conspiracy of his brother, who received the priesthood by the commandments of God, by the hand of his father Adam, who was the first man— Which priesthood continueth in the church of God in all generations, and is without beginning of days or end of years.

We don't know where the Sons of Moses ended up, but there are a number of Jewish and Islamic sources that have them departing Jerusalem around the 6th century BC and migrating to the farthest reaches of the Earth. There are Jewish and Islamic traditions of them residing in Africa, China and other places "beyond the sea". But it doesn't matter so much where they are, because:

"For whoso is faithful unto the obtaining these two priesthoods of which I have spoken, and the magnifying their calling, are sanctified by the Spirit unto the renewing of their bodies. They become the sons of Moses and of Aaron and the seed of Abraham, and the church and kingdom, and the elect of God. - D&C 33-34 

 

Edited May 11, 2018 by Rajah Manchou