Modesty for Adam and Eve in the Garden of Eden

[Pyreaux]

13 hours ago, telnetd said:

The Liahona magazine makes these statements.

Of course, modesty is not new. It was taught to Adam and Eve in the Garden of Eden. “Unto 
Adam … and to his wife did the Lord God make coats of skins, and clothed them” (Genesis 3:21; 
see also Moses 4:27). 

I don't quite understand the connection.

Did Adam and Eve view their nakedness as a matter of modesty between them? Or was 
it God who considered their nakedness as a form of modesty? 

How would clothing them with the coats of skin instead of them already wearing the 
fig leaf aprons be reflective of teaching them modesty?

I share the ancient opinion that there were angelic robes of light/glory that vanished, thus naked was not their original created state... I digress. Anyways.

Seeing they were naked, it created shame, and the fig leaves were a flawed attempt at modesty, because fig leaves wilt fast, their shame would be uncovered again. God seemed to agree with modesty, by making better cloths, the original priestly temple garments, modeled after the robes of elohim. (A replacement for the robes they lost). Thus, where they were once bare (perhaps bare of good works) and their shame was covered (or atoned) by the skin of a lamb. So too, were Christians endowed with white robes sometimes called "Adam's coat". 

"Blessed is he that watcheth, and keepeth his garments, lest he walk naked, and they see his shame." (Revelation 16:15)

Edited July 6, 2023 by Pyreaux

[MiserereNobis]

5 hours ago, pogi said:

Heaven forbid that Eve tempt Adam by bearing her shoulders as they attempt to multiply and replenish the earth.

It was the ankles, dude, the ankles (I know you’ve been to jamband shows. Weren’t the ankles an unbelievable distraction from the heavenly music? 😁)

[blackstrap]

5 hours ago, pogi said:

multiply and replenish the earth.

Modesty is very minor compared to this elephant in the room. 

[Calm]

1 hour ago, Pyreaux said:

fig leaves were a flawed attempt at modesty, because fig leaves wilt fast

There is another downside to their use…

Quote

We report four children who were playing with fig tree leaves during a family picnic. They were referred to a burn center with second-degree burn in about 10% of total body surface area, due to phytophotodermatitis. 

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6340245/#:~:text=Furocoumarins in sap of fig,potent parts causing irritant reaction.

[blackstrap]

7 minutes ago, Calm said:

phytophotodermatitis.

That is hilarious . Karma strikes !

[Rain]

1 hour ago, Calm said:

There is another downside to their use…

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6340245/#:~:text=Furocoumarins in sap of fig,potent parts causing irritant reaction.

 

1 hour ago, blackstrap said:

That is hilarious . Karma strikes !

My husband had this problem.  Thought it was just a rash, but it made him very uncomfortable and in pain.  Went to the dermatologist twice and the dr couldn't figure it out.  Finally my husband figured it was something to do with the fig bushes he was trimming.  I looked it up and discovered the sap/sunlight connection.  Now when he trims them he does it with long sleeves in low light. 

[The Nehor]

4 hours ago, MiserereNobis said:

It was the ankles, dude, the ankles (I know you’ve been to jamband shows. Weren’t the ankles an unbelievable distraction from the heavenly music? 😁)

If you uncover your ankles you can easily end up like Achilles.

[Rain]

On 7/5/2023 at 7:53 PM, Pyreaux said:

I share the ancient opinion that there were angelic robes of light/glory that vanished, thus naked was not their original created state... I digress. Anyways.

Seeing they were naked, it created shame, and the fig leaves were a flawed attempt at modesty, because fig leaves wilt fast, their shame would be uncovered again. God seemed to agree with modesty, by making better cloths, the original priestly temple garments, modeled after the robes of elohim. (A replacement for the robes they lost). Thus, where they were once bare (perhaps bare of good works) and their shame was covered (or atoned) by the skin of a lamb. So too, were Christians endowed with white robes sometimes called "Adam's coat". 

"Blessed is he that watcheth, and keepeth his garments, lest he walk naked, and they see his shame." (Revelation 16:15)

I don't think he is saying his nakedness or lack of "modesty" is the shame that is being talked about here.  He is saying when Christ comes again the shame is not being ready.  

Living in a shame culture there also the idea that not being ready when others are then the not ready person is shaming is family/neighborhood/town as well.  

[Pyreaux]

1 hour ago, Rain said:

I don't think he is saying his nakedness or lack of "modesty" is the shame that is being talked about here.  He is saying when Christ comes again the shame is not being ready.  

Living in a shame culture there also the idea that not being ready when others are then the not ready person is shaming is family/neighborhood/town as well.  

In scripture, "garments" are often metaphorical for "works", like in Isaiah. White garments in Revelations are the righteous works of those who were (already) sanctified. Filthy garments are wicked works. Naked is to be void of works. One could, and have, interpret Genesis as the eyes of Adam and Eve obtained a spiritual sight, they saw they did not yet have righteous works. Parables, while having a transcendent message, can contain lesser morals to the story. Is it not still a shame to be caught suddenly either unclothed or unclean?

Edited July 7, 2023 by Pyreaux

[Rain]

1 hour ago, Pyreaux said:

In scripture, "garments" are often metaphorical for "works", like in Isaiah. White garments in Revelations are the righteous works of those who were (already) sanctified. Filthy garments are wicked works. Naked is to be void of works. One could, and have, interpret Genesis as the eyes of Adam and Eve obtained a spiritual sight, they saw they did not yet have righteous works. Parables, while having a transcendent message, can contain lesser morals to the story. Is it not still a shame to be caught suddenly either unclothed or unclean?

I'm not sure. If I'm in the shower when an earthquake happens should I feel guilty that I have no clothes to wear or does someone need to censure me? I would say no.  If I have a surgery I don't need to be ashamed that the doctors are seeing my naked body.  So it doesn't make sense that the nakedness is what is causing the shame. Embarrassment maybe, but shame is some different than embarrassment. Shame implies you have done something wrong. 

You could be right, but the more I think about it in context the more it seems that the scriptures talked about here are not actually about modesty or nakedness. Haven't made that conclusion yet because I'm very aware that I'm not aware of context of the times when those were written, but thinking about the context that I do see there it seems to fit. 

Edited July 7, 2023 by Rain

[telnetd]

On 7/5/2023 at 11:59 AM, bluebell said:

I agree with MS.  This article was published during a time where "modesty!" was huge in the church. It's not treated the same now as it was then, thank goodness. 

@MustardSeed

The same article mentions it is still relevant in our age.

"Some Latter-day Saints may feel that modesty is a tradition of the Church or that it has evolved
from conservative, puritanical behavior. Modesty is not just cultural. Modesty is a gospel principle
that applies to people of all cultures and ages. In fact, modesty is fundamental to being worthy of
the Spirit. To be modest is to be humble, and being humble invites the Spirit to be with us".

[telnetd]

On 7/5/2023 at 12:16 PM, mfbukowski said:

They did not know they were "naked" until after the fall, and did not want to speak to God being naked.

Note of course that as the church itself teaches, this is "all figurative insofar as the man and woman are concerned".

The story says that Satan tempted them with the fruit, they partook and "fell", Satan told them to hide from God because they were naked, God then asked THEM, rhetorically, who told them that were naked.

Again, the story was figurative, as was clearly announced in the presentation pre- 1990

Why use a garden, trees, and fruit if the story is figurative?

Edited July 8, 2023 by telnetd

[telnetd]

On 7/5/2023 at 10:53 PM, Pyreaux said:

Seeing they were naked, it created shame, and the fig leaves were a flawed attempt at modesty, because fig leaves wilt fast, their shame would be uncovered again. God seemed to agree with modesty, by making better cloths, the original priestly temple garments, modeled after the robes of elohim. (A replacement for the robes they lost)

A replacement for the priestly robes they lost?

[MustardSeed]

35 minutes ago, telnetd said:

@MustardSeed

The same article mentions it is still relevant in our age.

"Some Latter-day Saints may feel that modesty is a tradition of the Church or that it has evolved
from conservative, puritanical behavior. Modesty is not just cultural. Modesty is a gospel principle
that applies to people of all cultures and ages. In fact, modesty is fundamental to being worthy of
the Spirit. To be modest is to be humble, and being humble invites the Spirit to be with us".

If you grew up in the 70s 80s and 90s as a girl you’d know that to be modest has meant no bare midriff no knees no shoulders no chest to protect the boys.  
 

That has changed. Modesty has never meant humility, but thanks to grass roots efforts it is starting to mean what it should mean. 

[bluebell]

47 minutes ago, telnetd said:

@MustardSeed

The same article mentions it is still relevant in our age.

"Some Latter-day Saints may feel that modesty is a tradition of the Church or that it has evolved
from conservative, puritanical behavior. Modesty is not just cultural. Modesty is a gospel principle
that applies to people of all cultures and ages. In fact, modesty is fundamental to being worthy of
the Spirit. To be modest is to be humble, and being humble invites the Spirit to be with us".

I like how the definition he provides says nothing about sleeves. 

[MustardSeed]

8 minutes ago, bluebell said:

I like how the definition he provides says nothing about sleeves. 

And the definition she provides (hey it’s just humility) is not mentioned anywhere in the OP.  

Edited July 8, 2023 by MustardSeed

[mfbukowski]

3 hours ago, telnetd said:

Why use a garden, trees, and fruit if the story is figurative?

Honestly, why not?

God was communicating a lesson to the barely literate IF literate at all.  Even scribes in many cases could write words, but were not "educated" in today's sense.

A philosophical treatise on good and evil and how we all fall into sin, and can repent after sin by being provided a savior would not have worked for people then.

But this does not mean the story CANNOT be taken literally.

There are many ways to "correctly" understand the scriptures, depending on how the Spirit speaks to individuals in their own personal understanding 

 

[Pyreaux]

4 hours ago, telnetd said:

A replacement for the priestly robes they lost?

The language in Genesis portrays Adam as a king-priest. He was made in the "image of God" outside the Garden, then "put" in that arboreal temple on top a holy mountain, an "image" is a statute, implying not merely a resemblance of a bodily shape, but even down to the clothes. Ancient Jewish rabbis knew this phrase was common among all Near Eastern kingdoms referring to the practice of dressing their kings up in the garb of their god and to place him in a temple to serve as a living image of their god. The language means Adam was a king who was dressed up in the likeness of God, then Adam was "put", the same verb used for temple furniture (a temple is a "rest" or "putting (place)"). Adam was the predecessor of future priest-kings (Israel worshipped the king as an image of the God; 1 Chr 29:20), and his garment the predecessor of all priestly and kingly initiatory white robes with an apron and sash, as is the fashion of Angels and God (Ezek 9:2; Dan 10:5; 1 Enoch 87:2; 90:21-22; 2 Enoch 22:8, 10; Ascension of Isaiah 8:14-15; 9:8-9; Rev 4:4; 7:9) On Day One of creation the Lord dawned a royal robe of light, the light of the first day, "He wraps Himself in light as if it were a robe" (Psalm 104:2).

Some Jews say before Adam and Eve sinned, they were clothed with light, and that as a result of their sin, they lost their clothing of light. Issues in oral transmission arise as Light and Skin are homonyms. The Hebrew word for "Light" is "OR" (variant:   'or), spelled "aleph  vav  resh" - rut. The Hebrew word for "Skin" is also "OR" (variant:  'or), but is spelled "ayin  vav  resh" - rug.

So, in the Jewish Great Commentaries - Midrash Rabbah - Genesis XX:12

12 AND THE LORD GOD MADE FOR ADAM AND HIS WIFE GARMENTS OF SKIN (‘OR), AND CLOTHED THEM (III, 21). In R. Meir's Torah it was found written, ‘Garments of light (or) (*rut light, instead of rug skin) : this refers to Adam's garments, which were like a torch [shedding radiance], broad at the bottom and narrow at the top. Isaac the Elder said: They were as smooth as a finger-nail and as beautiful as a jewel. R.Johanan said: They were like the fine linen garments which come from Bethshean (V. supra, XIX, 1).

In the Ethiopic Book of Adam and Eve VIII:2

You had a bright nature in within you, and for that reason you could see things far away. But after your transgression your bright nature was withdrawn from you.

The Ethiopic Book of Adam and Eve LI:5-10

This is he [Satan] who was hidden in the serpent, who deceived you, and stripped you of the garment of light and glory in which you were

The Book of the Rolls, in Gibson, Apocrypha Arabica, f.94a, in 7; f.95b, in 9

When Adam was created, “God clothed them with glory and splendour. They outvied one another in the glory with which they were clothed.” At the time of the fall, “they were bereft of their glory, and their splendour was taken from them, and they were stripped of the light with which they had been clothed . . . They were naked of the grace which they had worn . . . they made to themselves aprons of fig-leaves, and covered themselves therewith.”

The Quran 7:27

Children of Adam, We have created for you raiment which covers your nakedness and is a source of elegance; but the raiment of righteousness is the best.... Let not Satan seduce you, even as he turned your parents out of the garden, stripping them of their raiment that he might show them their nakedness.

Christian baptismal white robe represented "Adam's lost coat" (Vellian, ed. Studies on Syria Baptismal Rites, p3, 14). 

The Kabalistic Jewish Book of Zohar, Soncino Zohar, Bereshith, Section 1, Page 36b

AND THE EYES OF BOTH OF THEM WERE OPENED. R. Hiya says, their eyes were opened to the evil of the world, which they had not known hitherto. Then they knew that they were naked, since they had lost the celestial lustre which had formerly enveloped them, and of which they were now divested... Afterwards God clothed Adam and Eve in garments soothing to the skin, as it is written, HE MADE THEM COATS OF SKIN (rug 'or). At first they had had coats of light (rut 'or), which procured them the service of the highest of the high, for the celestial angels used to come to enjoy that light; so it is written, “For thou hast made him but little lower than the angels, and crownest him with glory and honour” (Ps. VIII, 6). Now after their sins they had only coats of skin (rug 'or), good for the body but not for the soul.

Book of Zohar, Soncino Zohar, Shemoth, Section 2, Page 229b

‘Observe that man's soul does not ascend to appear before the Holy King unless she is first worthy to be attired in the supernal raiment. Likewise, the soul does not descend into this world until clad in the garments of this world. Similarly, the holy heavenly angels, of whom it is written, “Who makest thy angels into winds and thy ministers into flaming fire” (Ps. CIV, 4), when they have to execute a message in this world do not come down to it before they clothe themselves in the garments of this world. The attire thus has always to be in harmony with the place visited; and the soul, as we have said, can only ascend when clad in ethereal raiment. Adam in the Garden of Eden was attired in supernal raiment, of celestial radiancy. As soon as he was driven from the Garden of Eden and had need of forms suited to this world, “the Lord God”, Scripture says, “made for Adam and for his wife garments of skin (rug 'or), and clothed them” (Gen. III, 21). Formerly they were garments of light (rut 'or), to wit, of the celestial light in which Adam ministered in the Garden of Eden. For, inasmuch as it is the resplendency of the celestial light that ministers in the Garden of Eden, when first man entered into the Garden, the Holy One, blessed be He, clothed him first in the raiment of that light. Otherwise he could not have entered there. When driven out, however, he had need of other garments; hence “garments of skin”. So here also “they made residual garments to minister in the holy place”, so as to enable the wearer to enter the Sanctuary. Now, it has been already taught that a man's good deeds done in this world draw from the celestial resplendency of light a garment with which he may be invested when in the next world he comes to appear before the Holy One, blessed be He. Apparelled in that raiment, he is in a state of bliss and feasts his eyes on the radiant effulgence. So Scripture says: “To behold the graciousness of the Lord, and to visit early in his temple” (Ps. XXVII, 4). Man's soul is thus attired in the raiments of both worlds, the lower and the upper, thereby achieving perfection. Of this Scripture says: “Surely the righteous shall give thanks unto thy name”; to wit, in this world-”The upright shall dwell in thy presence” (Ibid. CXL, 14); namely, in the other world.’

Still trying to find missing Early Christian Father quotes about Adam's lost garments and replaced with garments of humility.

Edited July 8, 2023 by Pyreaux

[InCognitus]

3 hours ago, telnetd said:

Why use a garden, trees, and fruit if the story is figurative?

You could ask Isaiah the same question (Isaiah chapter 5) about the Lord's vineyard, or of Jeremiah (Jeremiah 11:16-17) and Paul (Romans 11) of the olive trees.  Literal trees with fruit and a garden?  Or something else?

[Calm]

6 hours ago, telnetd said:

Why use a garden, trees, and fruit if the story is figurative?

I suggest going back and rereading all of Ben MacGuire’s posts to you on figurative vs literal in your previous thread every time you are wondering this.  Hopefully at sometime something will click and you will understand his point.

https://www.mormondialogue.org/topic/75128-the-universal-depravity-of-the-human-family/?do=findComment&comment=1210138838

 

[Grug the Neanderthal]

11 hours ago, MustardSeed said:

If you grew up in the 70s 80s and 90s as a girl you’d know that to be modest has meant no bare midriff no knees no shoulders no chest to protect the boys.  
 

That has changed. Modesty has never meant humility, but thanks to grass roots efforts it is starting to mean what it should mean. 

So modesty for women is supposed to mean wearing revealing clothing that shows the chest and midriff, as well as the shoulders and knees which should be covered by the temple garment?

Asking for a friend. 

[Calm]

13 minutes ago, Grug the Neanderthal said:

So modesty for women is supposed to mean wearing revealing clothing that shows the chest and midriff, as well as the shoulders and knees which should be covered by the temple garment?

Asking for a friend. 

Why would you go there?  What led you to that conclusion?  Couldn’t have been what was said, at least not logically.
 

 

[Grug the Neanderthal]

35 minutes ago, Calm said:

Why would you go there?  What led you to that conclusion?  Couldn’t have been what was said, at least not logically.
 

 

Actually, I think that’s the only logical conclusion when taking what she posted at face value. She said that in the church today, modesty no longer means for women to cover these parts of their bodies, instead now thanks to a grass roots movement that rejects these old outdated standards of modesty, modesty "is starting to mean what it should mean." 

But if she didn’t mean that it’s perfectly modest for women to reveal their chests, midriffs, shoulders, and knees, she is welcome to clarify what she meant. 

[Calm]

9 minutes ago, Grug the Neanderthal said:

Actually, I think that’s the only logical conclusion when taking what she posted at face value. She said that in the church today, modesty no longer means for women to cover these parts of their bodies, instead now thanks to a grass roots movement that rejects these old outdated standards of modesty, modesty "is starting to mean what it should mean." 

But if she didn’t mean that it’s perfectly modest for women to reveal their chests, midriffs, shoulders, and knees, she is welcome to clarify what she meant. 

That is like insisting that someone who says happiness has been measured wrongly by some as having lots of toys or homes and cars or whatever, but now happiness is being taught to be what it means, which is contentment in one’s life and then someone coming along and saying that happiness now means not having any toys or homes, etc. 

You have to stretch to interpret what she said that way. She is saying stop using clothing to measure modesty, not to measure clothing in a different way.

Those who say modesty is a certain way of wearing clothing are looking at the wrong things; clothing is an object, not a feeling or state of being. Modesty is spoken of as a quality of a person, not a quality of clothing. Humility is a characteristic of a person, not what they wear. 

Edited July 9, 2023 by Calm

[Grug the Neanderthal]

11 minutes ago, Calm said:

Those who say modesty is a certain way of wearing clothing are looking at the wrong things; clothing is an object, not a feeling or state of being. Modesty is spoken of as a quality of a person, not a quality of clothing. Humility is a characteristic of a person, not what they wear. 

I think we should let her speak for herself. If she wants to clarify what she meant, she’s welcome to do it. 

But since you’ve now stated what you believe in regards to modesty and clothing, it sure sounds like you are saying that a woman can be completely modest while simultaneously wearing clothing that reveals the chest, midriff, shoulders, and knees. If this is not what you believe, feel free to clarify.