I mentioned in my Sexism in the Garden post,
When telling the garden story, one person is always dumb. In the historical Christian telling, Eve was dumb because she was deceived by Satan. God punishes Eve by causing painful childbirth, and tells her she needs to submit to smart Adam who listened the first time.
A more modern telling of the story has Eve being much smarter than dumb Adam. Eve is heroic in seeing that mankind would not come without a fall, and Adam was just too dumb to see it. Mormons seem to have latched on to this more modern interpretation of the story. But in either interpretation of the story, one gender is always seen as the dumber sex. Isn’t there a way to tell the story without the expense of the other gender?
As I was in the temple this week, I wonder if we can really claim this modern telling. When asked why she partook of the forbidden fruit, Eve replies “The serpent beguiled me, and I did eat.” If this is true, can we really claim that Eve knowingly partook because she foresaw the plan in action?
Wikipedia records
Positive interpretation of the fall
Unlike some Christians, Latter-day Saints generally do not see the fall of Adam and Eve as a serious sin or as an overwhelmingly negative event.[2][21][22] Rather, the fall is viewed as “a necessary step in the plan of life and a great blessing to all of us. Because of the Fall, we are blessed with physical bodies, the right to choose between good and evil, and the opportunity to gain eternal life. None of these privileges would have been ours had Adam and Eve remained in the garden.”[1] Latter-day Saint scripture reports that Adam and Eve later rejoiced that they had chosen to partake of the fruit,[23] and the Book of Mormon teaches that the fall was necessary for humankind to exist and for them to develop and eventually experience joy, which is the ultimate purpose of existence: “Adam fell that men might be; and men are, that they might have joy.”[24] Furthermore, the LDS version of the fall of Adam and Eve emphasizes the fall was a part of God’s plan: “But behold, all things have been done in the wisdom of him who knoweth all things,”[24] as God had “foreordained”[25] and prepared Jesus Christ to be slain “from the foundation of the world”[26] in order to redeem mankind from the fall. In the early church, the idea that Eve’s promised hardships[27] were passed on to all women was commonly accepted.[20]:8
I’m not sure this interpretation is entirely consistent with what Eve said in the Garden, although we can all learn from sin and benefit from our mistakes. I’m sure that Eve can say play Monday Morning Quarterback and say “Gee, I guess it was all good that I sinned.” However, her original statement that she was beguiled doesn’t indicate that she knew at the time that this was “a necessary step in the plan of life and a great blessing to all of us.” She was fooled, not acting intelligently or rationally in line with the plan.
I had a mission president that said that perhaps if Eve had not succumbed to temptation, God would not have allowed painful childbirth as a consequence for sin. Perhaps Jesus wouldn’t have been needed to redeem mankind, and we would have all lived in the Garden forever in bliss. It was in consequence of Eve’s transgression that sin came into the world, and perhaps after God came to visit, he would have said, “Thanks for not partaking of the fruit. Now you can partake of it with my blessing.”
Is this modern interpretation in conflict with Eve’s response that she was “beguiled?” Do you view these ideas as conflicting? If not, how do you harmonize this?
Wheat & Tares 
Both Adam and Eve were as little children, not knowing good from evil. Neither deserve any blame from us. Eve was beguiled. Adam was forced to make a decision. Thanks be to God for the plan, and thanks be to Adam and to Eve for their role as our first parents and their steadfast loyalty to God afterwards.
I’m personally drawn to Milton’s basic set-up in Paradise Lost: Adam continually deems Eve’s intelligence and position before God and so when the serpent shows up and tells her she can climb the intelligence ladder by taking of the fruit, she jumps at the chance. Because Adam (and Gabriel) tended to ignore, undervalue, and oppress Eve, the simple desire for equality was enough of a enticement.
I think Moses 5 supports the view that Eve was “beguiled” and wasn’t all that more intelligent than Adam. They both seem to have been surprised and relieved to find out the Fall was a part of the bigger plan, and not them ruining everything.
If the temple wording was based on an understanding of the Fall per the Pearl of Great Price, nothing there lends support to the more modern interpretation of Eve having superior foresight. That seems to be a later understanding.
I don’t view the theory “Eve was smart” to be supported by the scriptures. If the Fall was necessary as the Book of Mormon says, Eve did that unintentionally. As tempting as it is to make Eve an object of admiration for her part in the Fall, it seems that the scriptures indicate she was duped into taking the fruit. She didn’t act heroically, but was more of a pawn in the Fall.
I also think the idea that pain in childbirth could have been avoided if Eve had simply obeyed to be perhaps theologically nice, but practically impossible. It is interesting to say “what if Eve had obeyed like Adam?” However, the Book of Mormon seems to indicate that disobedience was required for the plan to work, and if Eve hadn’t partaken of the fruit, the plan would have been frustrated.
Seems like a no-win situation for Adam and Eve. Disobey for the plan to work, Obey for the plan to fail. They’re the source of blame either way you slice it.
God would not be God if He created a commandment that *had* to be broken for His plan to work. Genesis said Satan lured Eve into thinking she could become like God if she partook of the fruit, and in her naivete– and perhaps pride, she succumbed to Satan’s lie. God surely would have devised another plan where we could have gained an earthly experience without the punishments that Adam and Eve and their posterity endure. Since the Savior does not condemn His penitent children, we cannot blame or shame Adam and Eve for their choices. They made mistakes–as all of us do–and experienced painful consequence for their choices. Yet, they experienced blessings as well: the opportunity to bear children, know sorrow and joy, and experience faith in a God who was no longer in their visual presence.
As I take the Adam and Eve story to be mythology and not derived from two actual individuals in some time in history, I think the interesting question here is what does Mormon theology have to say about Eve? The scriptures and temple endowment seem to have mixed messages here. On the one hand, Eve is beguiled. On the other hand, she makes a choice to partake of the fruit so that she and Adam can have children. There is support for both views, or some hybrid of it. What I have seen is that the Mormon theology lands more on the “smart Eve” camp. God set things up so that there were two conflicting commandments, and Adam and Eve transgressed one in order to obey the other, which brought about the Fall. It was all part of the plan. Eve had the courage to take the important first step.
“As I take the Adam and Eve story to be mythology”
That is precisely correct. These are very old creation myths that predate the Abrahamic tradition. In fact, the two biblical accounts are garbled versions from earlier Mesopotamian myths. The two versions, Priestly Gen 1:1–2:3 and Jahwistic Gen 2:4–2:24 contradict each other in many details: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genesis_creation_narrative
To really understand the motivations in the Adam and Eve portion of the creation story, it’s necessary to understand the origins from earlier mythologies, as here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adam_and_Eve
One example is the Tree of Atman and Jiva from the Vedic scriptures. These scriptures predate the Abrahamic version by roughly 1,000 years. A comparative account is found here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tree_of_Jiva_and_Atman
To gain a full understanding of this story, study the true origins. Traditions such as Judaism, Islam, Gnostic, Baha’i, as well as Mormonism all have their own interpretation of the underlying myth. The Mormon interpretation differs quite a bit from mainstream Christianity: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adam_and_Eve_(LDS_Church)
I agree with Joel, Adam and Eve is a “just so story” describing puberty and sexual knowledge and the peopling of the earth. I think there was an original couple, but give the PGP and temple ceremony latitude to be more than a small diary entry from a bad day in the garden. Sorry, the evidence for Eve’s brilliant chess move just isn’t there.
“opportunity to have children”
This aspect of Mormon cosmology–that the fall resulted in the opportunity for Adam and Eve to bear children–makes no sense to me. Why did God create male and female personages in the first place, if not for procreation? In the traditional Christian interpretation, Eve is doomed to experience the pain of childbirth as punishment. The Fall didn’t enable Eve to bear children–just made it painful.
The main aspect of the story I heard in Sunday school was that Adam and Eve became aware of sin and–as a sort of titillating undercurrent–aware of their sexuality. This was emphasized by God asking why they suddenly started covering their nakedness. Because Adam and Eve disobeyed God, He cast us out of paradise and caused us to experience all the guilt, pains and trials that we now experience as humans. If not for the Fall, we’d all still be child-like pseudo-angels living sin-free, pain-free and innocent in an earthly Paradise.
Do we have any evidence that church leaders taught the positive “foresight” of Eve (as opposed to being beguiled) prior to the 1960s? Whenever I hear of Eve being celebrated, it’s almost always within the context of women’s superior spirituality in the church (especially in regards to the women’s sphere of children and family). In the 19th century, though, Eve was definitely viewed as beguiled which justified second-class status for women.
The version of Eve as sinner and temptress was the excuse men used to justify their poor treatment of women. Women are inherently sinful and tempting so they need to be reigned in by men. The positive Eve story feels like the benevolent sexism way to continue to keep women as second class citizens. By this argument, women chose this over the equality they may have had before. The reason for keeping women down changed from, “you’re just not righteous or smart enough” to “you were so righteous that you knew being a second class citizen was going to be the right choice, now deal with it.” Either way, Eve, and by extension all women, exist to bare children and serve men. It makes no difference to me whether we view Eve positively or negatively if it has the same effect in the end.
I’m late to the game and maybe the discussion has dried up, but I have a different interpretation, based mainly on the temple’s way of telling the story.
It caught my attention early on that after Adam and Eve ate the fruit, Satan is asked, “what did you do?” He replies, “the same thing which has been done in other worlds”. To me, that means that the system requires the tree of knowledge fruit to be eaten and in this world, Satan inserted himself into the mix, presumably to gain power. He gets so angry at being punished for it – “if thou cursest me for doing the same thing…??!!!” He’s in utter disbelief and anger – what should it matter ‘how’ it happened, it just has to happen, right? (although I’m sure he knew he was doing something he shouldn’t) Perhaps an above commenter is correct, someone would have come down and educated Eve and/or Adam enough as to what the choices meant that they would know they needed to eat the fruit. Or, one or both of them would come to the realization on their own over time, Satan just sped the timeline up.
As for Satan “beguiling” Eve, what if better words were – persuaded, informed, convinced? I appreciate the newer temple movies that really make it look like Eve is thinking about what Satan is telling her and coming to the knowledge that in order for the plan to happen she _has_ to eat the fruit. She’s sorrowful for the consequences, she knows it’s going to be tough, but deliberately makes the choice to do it. Adam didn’t take the time to listen to Satan, just rejected him outright (as we should most of the time). Neither is dumb, they’re just two sides of a coin. We’re taught dichotomies like that all the time – fellowship with those not of our faith but don’t associate with people who don’t hold the same standards as we do, give up your life in service but make sure you take time for yourself, be honest with your fellow men but sometimes keep your thoughts to yourself b/c it might hurt someone, etc. You have to balance it and think about it and choose what seems the better path in each situation.
As far as being punished for eating the fruit, perhaps painful childbirth is just part of the “knowing good and/with evil”. I don’t think the fruit automatically embued Adam and eve with knowledge. I think it put them in a mortal state wherein they could experience good and evil just b/c that’s what happens in this world. Sometimes life just sucks, sometimes b/c of deliberate actions on the part of yourself or others, but often just b/c life happens. Sometimes life is beautiful, often b/c of deliberate actions and attitudes on the part of yourself and others, but sometimes just because we know what the alternative could be.
I wish Sunday school had more discussions like this!
The apple was from the Knowledge of Good & Evil. Eve sought knowledge, and like most students seeking higher education, she wanted knowledge but was beguiled into student loan debt. The apple, or knowledge, may be delicious, but the price of tuition is higher than expected in the long run.
I think both Adam and Eve were guilty of thinking their reasoning was greater than God’s. Eve, because she wanted knowledge, and Adam, because he thought he had to make a decision about whether to stay with Eve. I think Eve’s post-transgression reasoning is rationalization. Not because she was necessarily wrong, though. I just think they both would have been better off waiting for the Lord’s instructions. They weren’t in a hurry. Satan clearly thought he was frustrating God’s plan by tempting Eve and Adam and having them partake of the fruit the way they did. I think God simply accommodated their actions by simply including them in the plan. Part of the (adjusted?) plan necessitated a fallen world, which involves painful childbirth and a host of other difficulties.
I look at it this way. Lucifer told Adam to eat. Adam said “No, because I was told not to.” Lucifer finds Eve and reasons with/convinces/ beguiles her. Two totally different approaches. She then goes back and does the same with Adam. Neither is “dumb”. But in general, or in the battle of the sexes, or like any competition, someone always has to be better. To me, they are just different and different approaches work with different people.
If biting the apple of knowledge is a metaphor for sexual awakening or sex, then the only thing the serpent did was trip up the timing. Adam and Eve were teen lovers who bit the apple before it was time. The result was birth. This is a just-so-story, a children’s euphemism as sweet as a cabbage patch or stork.
How many of the commenters here are men? I can’t imagine any way in which something the size of a watermelon comes out of something the size of a lemon that doesn’t involve pain. No way no how., even in Eden.
I agree with Mormon Heretic on this one. Eve did not eat the fruit because she was “smart”. No, Eve was “dumb”, and for that matter so was Adam. Yes, they were both “dumb”, or rather they were naïve, like little children. They started off life in the garden with no knowledge or understanding of anything else. They didn’t know good from evil or right from wrong. They were immature, unsophisticated, inexperienced, in a nutshell “dumb”. They only knew two things – procreate and don’t eat the fruit. That’s it.
Eve did not eat the fruit because she was thinking about her eternal progression. All she knew was her life in the garden. She had no concept of anything before, after, or outside of the garden. Neither did Adam. They were both too “dumb” to know anything else. She ate the fruit because Satan introduced new ideas to her. Things she never would have thought of on her own. He convinced her that eating the fruit was the right thing to do. (And it was the right thing to do but it was still disobedience) She was following his reasoning, not her own. After eating the fruit, she gained understanding, she was not as naïve as before and she reasoned with Adam to convince him to eat the fruit. When Adam ate the fruit he was following Eve’s reasoning, not his own.
To all of you who believe otherwise, I’m sorry but yes, the plan of salvation, and its introduction in the garden of Eden, was designed with disobedience as a necessary element. I’m not going to try to explain that here, it’s all in the scriptures. And painful childbirth is not so much a punishment as a natural consequence of how our bodies are designed.
To recap – Adam and Eve were both “dumb”, they both chose to eat the fruit based on somebody else’s reasoning, disobedience was necessary, painful childbirth is a consequence of being able to walk upright.
@db
“To all of you who believe otherwise, I’m sorry but yes, the plan of salvation, and its introduction in the garden of Eden, was designed with disobedience as a necessary element. I’m not going to try to explain that here, it’s all in the scriptures.”
Nobody owns the “correct” interpretation of this story. In the first place, as I pointed out earlier, what’s found in the scriptures is a mish-mash of much older creation myths. Those transcribing the myths didn’t fully understand them, and so what’s been transmitted is in garbled form. Therefore, your understanding of the “plan of salvation” is based on a limited interpretation of an old myth as seen through the lens of whatever religion you happen practice.
“And painful childbirth is not so much a punishment as a natural consequence of how our bodies are designed.”
Wrong. God specifically made childbirth severely painful as a punishment.
15And I will put enmity Between you and the woman, And between your seed and her seed; He shall bruise you on the head, And you shall bruise him on the heel.” 16To the woman He said, “I will greatly multiply Your pain in childbirth, In pain you will bring forth children; Yet your desire will be for your husband, And he will rule over you.” 17Then to Adam He said, “Because you have listened to the voice of your wife, and have eaten from the tree about which I commanded you, saying, ‘You shall not eat from it’; Cursed is the ground because of you; In toil you will eat of it All the days of your life.…
@anon at 8:45, I’ve read that the Hebrew word for “toil” describing” Adam’s work and the word for “pain” describing childbirth for Eve are the same word, but were translated differently (you can google it, and are a variety of sources that support it, unfortunately I don’t speak Hebrew, so I can’t tell you it’s the same from the original source). Assuming that’s the case, it’s not necessarily the case that childbirth was made painful deliberately, but rather that it was intended to be work, like Adam’s work in the fields, and pain came separately (some women, sadly I’m not one of them, say childbirth isn’t painful for them).
Oops, sorry, the comment was responding to Anon at 8:54.
For a totally different take on the story of Adam and Eve check out my blog. In it I argue that there is good evidence to suggest complicity for both Adam and Eve for Eve’s transgression. I also argue that which side of the coin a person picks as making the most sense depends more on the personality of the reader than the facts presented in the Scriptures.
Here is a link to my blog for those that are interested. http://cooperandassociates.blogspot.ca/2015/05/the-story-of-adam-and-eve-i-thought.html
@sarachbrown
The only reason I brought up the painful childbirth business was to counter the LDS idea that the Fall brought about the ability of Adam and Eve to have children, for example:
“And they would have had no children; wherefore they would have remained in a state of innocence, having no joy, for they knew no misery; doing no good, for they knew no sin.” 2 Nephi 2:22–23
“And Eve, his wife, heard all these things and was glad, saying: Were it not for our transgression we never should have had seed, and never should have known good and evil, and the joy of our redemption, and the eternal life which God giveth unto all the obedient.” Moses 5:10–11
The Bible says that Eve could *already* experience childbirth, but that God multiplied the pain of childbirth as punishment for disobeying Him.
Procreation was, therefore, *not* part of this big plan of salvation brought to fruition by Adam and Eve. That was my only point.
P.S. Your comment about the translation as “toil” is very interesting and makes a lot of sense. I looked into it, and it seems that “etsev” is a Hebrew homonym that can be translated as either toil, pain, or sorrow (e.g. the homonym “crane” in English can be either a bird or a machine). Apparently, there are contextual reasons to render the word as “pain” in Genesis, and that’s why all extant translations say “pain”. Either way, my main point is the same.
I’ve always thought that the whole garden story, aside from not originating with Genesis as some folks have already pointed out, was really about the importance of following one’s own conscience than God’s word. Surely if the story teaches anything, it’s that disobeying God’s laws can lead to positive results. And further, that sometimes God WANTS us to disobey his laws, thus demonstrating, at least IMHO, that one’s own conscience/moral compass should be the guiding principle when it comes to making important moral decisions.
To me, a key point is missed in all the interpretations, including those in the Book of Mormon. No matter what the choices of Adam & Eve, they could not have frustrated God’s plan. There isn’t anything any of us could do, not even anything Satan could do, that could frustrate God’s plan.
To add to what jes (nov 6, 9:21) described, Satan believed he was usurping the position of “God of this world” by giving the fruit to Adam & Eve. He even believed he’d won, and probably still believes he’s being cheated out of his rightful place.
Setting aside Satan’s attempt at medding, Adam and Eve each made decisions based on the information they had. It’s wholly possible they could have decided differently, having untold effects on the world we have today (up to and including none at all).
For the temple depiction, I believe the onus placed on Eve to be under Adam would have been temporary (as all things can be forgiven) and should never have been applied to all women.
“I’ve always thought that the whole garden story, aside from not originating with Genesis as some folks have already pointed out, was really about the importance of following one’s own conscience than God’s word.”
I’ve felt this as well in my most recent studies of the story. Agency is such an important part of our birthright. Your comments make me think of when a child disobeys a parent, or doesn’t follow the life plan the parent had anticipated, but ends up in a place that was better for them all along. I love the idea of Eve intentionally making that choice.
As I get older and begin to understand and know myself better, I feel more ownership over my agency, and I feel God’s approval of that, even when my choices may deviate from the usual church teachings. Part of my agency is deciding which of those teachings don’t sit well with me, and I’m ok with taking a different route.
On a related note, I remember a post once on BCC discussing Abrahamic Covenants. It discussed the idea of Abraham agreeing to slay Isaac as perhaps being the wrong choice. Maybe he was meant to use his own agency to say no to something so horrendous. Is obedience better, or following one’s own righteous convictions? I like to think of Eve following her own convictions, even if that isn’t really what the scriptures teach.
@frank pellet
“No matter what the choices of Adam & Eve, they could not have frustrated God’s plan.”
I hear this idea tossed around a lot, but I fundamentally disagree. For all we know, God could be inventing the universe moment by moment. I’ve never seen convincing evidence there’s any plan, and plenty of evidence for absence of a plan.
It seems to me that this “plan” concept is often used to justify the ideas of those who are in control. For example, the current argument is that God created men and women, the “plan” is that only men and women can get married, ergo men cannot marry men nor women marry women–presumably because this logical plan says only men and women can have children together. That, however, presupposes that God never “planned” on adoption, surrogate pregnancy and artificial insemination.
At one time, it was God’s plan that black men couldn’t hold the priesthood in the LDS church, but at some point God changed the plan and said they could. This change of plan just happened to align with what LDS church leadership wanted to happen.
There are websites with lists of imperfections in the design of human beings such as this one: http://www.iampleasant.com/2013/12/the-imperfect-design-evidence-for-evolution/ These kinds of things indicate that God doesn’t have any sort of plan when designing human beings, because an a priori plan would have anticipated and avoided these design errors.
I find the idea that God has some sort of infallible “plan” to be artificial.
“No matter what the choices of Adam & Eve, they could not have frustrated God’s plan. There isn’t anything any of us could do, not even anything Satan could do, that could frustrate God’s plan.”
You’re probably right Frank, but that is clearly contradicted in Alma 42:5
My you sound like a good heretic though!
“It seems to me that this “plan” concept is often used to justify the ideas of those who are in control.”
I agree anon!
“For example, the current argument is that God created men and women, the “plan” is that only men and women can get married, ergo men cannot marry men nor women marry women–presumably because this logical plan says only men and women can have children together.”
I think this is an excellent point, and brings up something very interesting. I’m not sure how familiar you are with the temple anon, so forgive me if you already know this. The temple movie depicts Elohim (God the Father) and Jehovah (Jesus) creating both Adam and Eve. There is no mother in heaven anywhere around. As such, it’s an interesting thought experiment, because it seems to imply that both Adam and Eve were created not only without a mother being involved, but asexually “out of the dust of the earth” in Adam’s case, and from Adam’s rib in Eve’s case.
Joseph Smith once said that this life is a preparation for the next life, and the same sociality that exists here will exist there. While many Mormons believe that women will be eternally pregnant, Brian Hales noted there is no spirit birth (as I mentioned in my post on this topic) and chalked this eternally pregnant idea to a folk doctrine.
So if there is no spirit birth, and Adam and Eve were created with no Mother in Heaven to be found anywhere, (1) is there really sex in heaven, (2) can two men create beings the same way Jehovah and Elohim did, and (3) is this an example of same sex reproduction in heaven? I know that’s startling to most Mormons, but really, if Mother in Heaven wasn’t involved in the creation story, I think we’re going to have to re-think some assumptions in the Family Proclamation. Because as anon said, ‘this “plan” concept is often used to justify the ideas of those who are in control.’
And if anyone objects to asexual reproduction, then how do you explain dust and rib creation in the Genesis story where there was no woman involved in creation?
@MormonHeretic
I think She was there. She’s just conveniently left out of the story, as usual.
But I see your other points and I really enjoyed your post about Spirit Birth.
“So if there is no spirit birth, and Adam and Eve were created with no Mother in Heaven to be found anywhere, (1) is there really sex in heaven, (2) can two men create beings the same way Jehovah and Elohim did, and (3) is this an example of same sex reproduction in heaven? ”
I can understand these thoughts, especially if we are to take the temple video as reflective of what really went down.
The problem for me is that it feels like a slippery slope. She wasn’t needed, wasn’t even there. Guys can do this all by themselves. Therefore I won’t be needed, I won’t be there. 😦
anon: “God doesn’t have any sort of plan when designing human beings, because an a priori plan would have anticipated and avoided these design errors.”
I’m a science geek, especially evolution. I see God as a great scientist, bound by the laws of science and physics, working within those constraints to do great things. Evolution requires errors. I believe God used evolution in a really magnificent way in the Creation and was certainly part of a “plan.” The book by two LDS scientists “Evolution and Mormonism” explains their theory on how this may have come to pass.
From the book description:
According to the LDS church, “Whether the mortal bodies of man evolved in natural processes to present perfection” or were formed by some other means is “not fully answered in the revealed word of God.” That God may have created the mechanism by which all life was formed—rather than each organism separately—is a concept that the authors find to be a satisfying and awe-inspiring possibility.
“So if there is no spirit birth, and Adam and Eve were created with no Mother in Heaven to be found anywhere, (1) is there really sex in heaven, (2) can two men create beings the same way Jehovah and Elohim did, and (3) is this an example of same sex reproduction in heaven? ” Like Maybee, I view this idea as plausible, yet concerning. Full creation sans female participation eliminates traditional reasoning for the existence of Heavenly Mother(s) – procreation (and without revelation, this reasoning is all we have). As much as I hate our emphasis on motherhood as the fundamental role of a woman, we don’t currently have anything to put in it’s place.
But if two men can create life and a world without the aid of women, then perhaps what we would see on other worlds would be different combinations of men and women creating? Maybe this is what is meant by the ‘same sociality that exists here’ existing in the afterlife. Perhaps there are worlds created by two women? Perhaps there are worlds created by a woman and a man? Perhaps some polygamist whack job world with his 9 wives or whatever? Perhaps a whole pantheon (or Divine Council) as is hinted at in places of the Old Testament? I think we can accept that this world was created by two men and still find place for the Divine Feminine, even if it means letting go of a literal Heavenly Mother for our world.
@Moss maybe it’s because I woke up to an orange nightmare of a new president, but I’m exhausted trying to make concessions and consider and reconsider possibilities of the Divine Feminine. I just want Her to exist and be acknowledged. Enough with faith and hope. It’s so much effort. These things are just a given for half the population of the Church.
Why is the burden of faith so often given to the marginalized? I’m Atlas, shrugging with the weight of it all.
Maybee:
Worship of the divine feminine almost invariably leads to the pagan such as goddess worship and witchcraft. If you want this, join a church that advocates it. The LDS Church is not on course to promote this.
@ronkonkma
“Worship of the divine feminine almost invariably leads to the pagan such as goddess worship and witchcraft.”
Really? How about a reference for this? Show me some evidence that LDS members who pray to heavenly mother or pray to the heavenly parents go on to practice pagan religions or witchcraft as a result. Catholics pray to the Virgin Mary. Show me some evidence that praying to the Virgin Mary causes catholics to take up paganism or witchcraft. If you say this is “almost invariably” the case, you should be able to find plenty of good examples.
Worship of Diana, the druids. The list goes on and on and on. In the scriptures saints are commanded to pray to the Father in the name of the Son. Not heavenly parents, heavenly mother or anything else.
Prayer to anyone other than the Father is idolatry.
If you want to pray to anyone other than the Father, go to some other religion. You will not find this type of idolatry in the LDS church
@ronkonkma
“Worship of Diana, the druids.”
All you did was give one example of a religion with female deity. That doesn’t show that worshipping a female deity leads to paganism or witchcraft. It proves nothing at all. As I said, Catholics pray to the Virgin Mary, and Catholicism isn’t a pagan religion nor do Catholics practice witchcraft. For that matter, a pagan is “a person holding religious beliefs other than those of the main world religions.” By that definition, Mormons are pagans, since their religious beliefs differ markedly from those of Catholics, Muslims, Hindus, and Buddhists. Mormons are less than 1% of the world’s religious population.
As for idolatry, Mormons tend to idolize both Joseph Smith and church leaders. The hymn “Praise to the Man” idolizes Joseph Smith. As for Mormon leaders, they are literally placed on a pedestal in General Conference with the members asked to “sustain” them. Idolatry isn’t just praying to an entity, it’s extreme adulation, and that pretty much describes how Mormons treat Joseph Smith and church leaders.
Anon
There is no goddess worship or worship of the feminine divine in the LDS church. Move on.
@ronkonkma
“no goddess worship or worship of the feminine divine in the LDS church”
If you aren’t willing to accept that LDS theology begins with heavenly parents and that Heavenly Mother is a core component of LDS theology, then perhaps you should find another church that doesn’t have the concept of Heavenly Mother.
https://www.lds.org/topics/mother-in-heaven?lang=eng
And where does it say that LDS worship the divine feminine? It doesn’t. It’s idolatry. Go away.
@ronkonkma
The official church stance, as clearly stated in the essay I referenced, is that the Goddess Heavenly Mother stands side by side with God the Heavenly Father: “the divine Mother, [is] side by side with the divine Father”. The 1995 Proclamation on Family refers to “our Heavenly Parents.” The goddess Heavenly Mother is worshipped in hymns, religious artwork, general conference talks, and LDS church books and other publications. You might not like that Heavenly Mother rules as a goddess in Heaven, but that’s the official LDS church teaching. You are free to disagree with this teaching and remain the in the LDS church, or you can find another church that doesn’t have a Heavenly Mother. For example, mainstream Protestant denominations don’t have a Heavenly Mother. It’s up to you as to how you want to deal with it.
D&C 10:43
43 I will not suffer that [Satan and his angels] shall destroy my work; yea, I will show unto them that my wisdom is greater than the cunning of the devil.
Lucifer assumed the role of God, in mockery of the process of agency, which he opposes as evidenced by his expulsion from the presence of God for rebellion. The common enemy of man and God attempted to usurp authority from God and more specifically the Savior by offering the forbidden fruit.
Remember the fruit is delicious and desirable. It was made by God after all. The fruit was only forbidden by commandment, not the nature of its creation.
Lucifer mingled truth with lies. His first attempt against Adam showed him how to better approach Eve. “Would the fruit make her wise?’ Yes.
“Was the fruit desirable and delicious?” Yes.
Eve was not dumb. She comprehended she would die if she ate the fruit. However Satan took advantage of her in his experience with Adam previously. He lied or offered a half truth that she would not die if she ate. He explained what wisdom is to her.
Here he offered the truth. “You will comprehend the next part of agency, that everything has its opposite. You will understand as God understands and increase in wisdom. The fruit will make you wise.”
She was tempted and with no comprehension of betrayal, disloyalty, hatred and evil she did eat.
“Now go get Adam to eat.”
Satan thought at this point he had won. Eve had fallen and supposed no matter which thing Adam did he would win.
If Adam sticks to his conviction of obeying God’s commandments he wins. If Adam eats they are both subject to him by temptation he still wins usurping God’s authority over Adam and Eve. No matter which way they turned after getting one of them to eat he assumed he won.
What Satan did not count on were a few things. First the reason for the Fall. Adam could have waited on the Lord, but Eve was already becoming wise from eating the fruit. She saw the cunning plan of their enemy. If Adam refused Satan wins. He intended to follow God’s commandments and the first was to her. Before he took the fruit Adam comprehended in his innocent state he had to join her because he loved her.
Now after eating they both were beginning to see and be wise. They also know they were now subject to the devil as he made them aware of their nakedness since modesty before God was a sign of respect and reverence.
God knowing the cunning of Satan appeared immediately after their fall calling out specifically for Adam. Why?
To see if he would approach God in his fallen state. Adam could have stated hidden, run or any number of ways to avoid God. Instead he was brave and honest.
“I hid myself because I was naked.”
God asked who told him he was naked and if he ate from the tree. Instead of immediately answering Adam went instead to the truth. He explained he was keeping God’s command to remain with Eve and did eat.
God then called Eve. She also could have run or stay hidden. Instead she was also brave. He called her name once and she appeared. He asked what happened in her words. She gave an accurate account of what happened. She was beguiled and did eat.
Her specific phrase was good. She wisely understood exactly what Satan had done. He didn’t jusy lie, he usurped God’s authority and in her ignorance tricked her into eating the fruit.
Were either Adam or Eve dumb? No.
The devil had a cunning plan. It totally worked. He usurped a role of God done in other worlds. He tricked Eve with half truths but lack of experience in betrayal both her own capacity and Satan as an enemy to God caused her to fall.
Satan was severely punished and showed his displeasure by causing the exact opposite of Lucifer’s ambition to raise himself above God. Instead by usurping a role of God to being elevated he was made low to the dust. God revealed because of his ambition all his aspersions would be crushed. Even his attempts to take control of God’s plan would fail. A bruise on the heel compared to a crushed head.
The bruise happened in Jesus mortal ministry. He hurt the Savior and by extension the Father, but it was for a small moment.
Eve and Adam later in life are now wiser because of mortality. They now see, especially Eve, the wisdom of the Lord indeed was greater than the cunning of the devil. How God turned a no-win situation for Adam and Eve into Salvation. How the plan of God was now greater because God turned their disobedience into a gain for their children.
Eve did not glory in her and Adam’s fall. She recognised how even their falling into Satan’s trap allowed them to be redeemed. Eve indeed gained exactly what she desired by eating the fruit. Her punishment reflected how to gain wisdom. The price is pain and discomfort.
Adam too gained his desire. He wanted to obey God. God would give him challenges to overcome. The cares of the world were upon Adam and could choke his faith. Instead he was obedient and overcame the world by faith in Christ.
Thus the wisdom of the Lord was revealed to Eve and she comprehended how by their transgression and cunning of the devil was turned into joy by the Savior of the world.