Women and Secret Combinations
If anyone has ever doubted that women can be as evil, power-hungry, conniving, and abusive as men, they ought to read the account of Daughter of Jared, wife of Akish (Ether 8 ). Not only did she use her beauty and seductive prowess murderously, she further encouraged her father [and then likely her husband] to re-institute secret combinations like those of old (i.e. Cain and company) specifically for power and glory asking “Is there not an account concerning them of old, that they by their secret plans did obtain kingdoms and great glory?” (Ether 8:9)
But women are not all bad, either. Elder Oaks and others have done much to clarify the righteous and courageous role of Mother Eve contrary to traditional notions. And we have a wonderful example of Adah and Zillah in the book of Moses.
We don’t know how Adah and Zillah married into Cain’s lineage, but inspite of this heritage, they worked against the secret combinations of their husband Lamech. Moses 5:53-54 reads: “They rebelled against him, and declared these things abroad, and had not compassion [on him]; wherefore Lamech was despised, and cast out, and came not among the sons of men, lest he should die.”
Don’t think for a moment that I assume women are the only solution to secret combinations. Men can also follow the examples of Adah and Zillah. Imagine if all righteous individuals could similarly stand without compassion for evil! Indeed, this is how Satan will be bound in the Millenium.
But we don’t have to wait until Christ comes to combat works of darkness. Individuals can also take a stand in their communities. Throughout the United States, communities band together to form Neighborhood Watch brigades to keep an eye on things, and report suspicious situations and events to police. And within the Kingdom of God (the church), baptized members have a covenant responsibility to report works of darkness significant enough to impact church membership, callings, or temple attendance (child abuse or fraud, as examples).
Even without formal organizations, individual citizens can make a difference. Some time ago, I heard a radio program about a courageous Italian woman who had successfully fought the mob in her area. Her brave willingness to stand up to mob members and publicize their doings in spite of death and other threats made continued mob activity in her community impossible.
Perhaps most important is the individual, internal struggle to turn to Christ so that he can bring our own power-trips, ego-gratification, lusts, anger, hatred–our own “works of darkness” to light. Then we will not fear the day that all will be revealed. “For there is nothing covered, that shall not be revealed; neither hid, that shall not be known. Therefore whatsoever ye have spoken in darkness shall be heard in the light; and that which ye have spoken in the ear in closets shall be proclaimed upon the housetops.” (Luke 12:2-3)
Christ’s reassurance following these verses is key “I say unto you my friends, Be not afraid of them that kill the body, and after that have no more that they can do. But I will forewarn you whom ye shall fear: Fear him, which after he hath killed hath power to cast into hell.”
Great thoughts, Lisa. All that I can really add is to say that individual conscience is essential in all of these cases. It’s up to us to make two decisions: 1) Is the action in question evil/immoral/bad? and 2) Can our action be effective in dealing with it?
We’ve just got to be careful that we don’t stop at one.
Comment by D-Train — January 1, 2006 @ 5:03 pm
First in knowledge (to know good & evil), first in love and first to witness the resurrected Lord, women are also first in my life next to my Lord. I first knew my mother as we all have known our mothers first in birth. I then knew my wife and together we brought forth life in our children. This great oneness between men and women, mothers and children is at the heart of the great work and glory of Our God. If it wasn’t for Eve I would still be a distance twinkle in Adam’s innocent eye. “And now, behold, if Adam had not transgressed he would not have fallen, but he would have remained in the garden of Eden. And all things which were created must have remained in the same state in which they were after they were created; and they must have remained forever, and had no end. 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. But behold, all things have been done in the wisdom of him who knoweth all things. Adam fell that men might be; and men are, that they might have joy.”(2Ne.2:22-25) I can honestly say my greatest joy and sorrow has come at the hand of a women. Some men srink from the pain women can both bear and share. However, it is in the pain of knowing great love and sorrow that we begin to see with the eyes Christ: “He is despised and rejected of men; a man of sorrows, and acquainted with grief: and we hid as it were our faces from him; he was despised, and we esteemed him not.” The world for far to long have spoken evil of Mother Eve and despised her daughters and abused them. We should honor our mothers, wives and daughters and always remember the great lesson Eve first learned and taught the family of men: “And in that day the Ghost fell upon Adam, which beareth record of the Father and the Son, saying: I am the Only Begotten of the Father from the beginning, henceforth and forever, that as thou hast fallen thou mayest be redeemed, and all mankind, even as many as will. And in that day Adam blessed God and was filled, and began to prophesy concerning all the families of the earth, saying: Blessed be the name of God, for because of my transgression my eyes are opened, and in this life I shall have joy, and again in the flesh I shall see God. 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. And Adam and Eve blessed the name of God, and they made all things known unto their sons and their daughters.” (Moses 5:9-12) We are the very heirs of their knowledge and blessing and with faith in Christ we can overcome this world by casting out all doubt and fear. I salute LisaB for your courage to speakout in the light of day for all is not well in Zion! However, this day I shall not forget for I have blessed my own daughter Emily with a father’s blessing as she leaves on a journey to be a junior at UVSC. She is 22 and world wise as most native New Yorkers have to be, but she is my only daughter of 6 children and my heart goes with her as she flies into the heartland of Zion today. I pray she will gain knowledge like Eve and find a man like Adam to continue the circle of life in a never ending way!
Comment by Old Charley — January 1, 2006 @ 6:41 pm
Can you say more, D-Train? What do you mean by the action in question? Hasn’t the way I’ve laid it out made clear that we’re only talking about clearly wrong behavior? Also, would you sometimes decide against taking a moral action based on the possibility that it your action alone might not be effective or a complete solution? Else why this qualifier?
Something else I’ve been thinking of since I posted is the natural impulse to hide when we’ve done something forbidden–from Adam and Eve to my kids hiding under the table when they’ve snuck spoonfuls of sugar from the sugar bowl.
Comment by LisaB — January 1, 2006 @ 6:42 pm
I once thought that the title “From Adah to Zillah” would be a good title for a book about women in the scriptures.
Comment by danithew — January 1, 2006 @ 7:52 pm
Old Charley–Good luck to your daughter! You sound just like my papa used to when he sent us off to college :).
Danithew–LOL. Excellent.
Comment by Janet — January 1, 2006 @ 8:19 pm
beautiful, beautiful, beautiful post, lisa….
Comment by ala — January 1, 2006 @ 8:40 pm
(Sigh)
Otherwise, an excellent post.
Comment by Tim Jacob — January 1, 2006 @ 9:04 pm
I’m reading “The Second Sun” and in the description of the Adversary and his minions was the comment that the female spirits who followed him were particularly adept at tormenting the women living on the earth. For some reason, I had never before considered the gender of those who ‘kept not their first estate’ and I had to put the book down and ponder on that for a while. It is logical to me that both male and female spirits were cast out, yet I had never thought about it in that way.
We are equal opportunity offenders and examples, both male and female =)
Comment by Téa — January 1, 2006 @ 11:32 pm
Let’s just be careful that we don’t pull the typical Mormon Sunday School trick:
Whenever the teacher brings up secret combinations, someone immediately mentions gangs, drugs, organized crime, and maybe Al Quaeda. Satisfied that we’ve got those ‘combinationers’ pegged and safely distanced from our lives, we then shut off our brains and continue with our regularly scheduled programming.
But “secret combinations” means more than the “usual suspects.”
Comment by Seth R. — January 2, 2006 @ 9:11 am
So Danithew, when you writin’ it?
Thanks, ala.
What’s wrong with my tribute to Eve and appreciation to those (particularly LDS) individuals who have lauded rather than condemning her, Tim? I didn’t want my example of one bad woman in the scriptures to fuel the woman as temptress traditional view of women in the scriptures, nor to launch a counter argument of women as more righteous/ put on a pedastal. Women are as mixed as men, good and bad, trying and failing, weak and strong.
Te’a, good insight!
Seth–ITA, which is why I think we have to look within first.
Comment by LisaB — January 2, 2006 @ 10:32 am
PS Seth–Oh, but perhaps you meant big business or something else? Do tell…
Comment by LisaB — January 2, 2006 @ 10:36 am
Wonderful post, Lisa.
I wonder if D Train meant that we too often stop at the point of agreeing what’s wicked in the word, and fail to do anything about it? Or that we fail analyze the potential good of our opposition to that evil? I’d love a clarification there.
And how about adding to the list of secret combinations in the world the following: pornography, tobacco, child trafficking, modern slavery, institutional abuse coverups, and corporate dishonesty a la Enron/WorldCom? Environmental destruction? Movies, advertising and other media that glamorously present deceptive messages? There is so much secret combining going on, sometimes I don’t know where to start.
Comment by Ana — January 2, 2006 @ 10:57 am
As far as secret combinations go, I think that we can look to the Book of Mormon for examples of what to look for.
Alma 37: 30 For behold, they amurdered all the prophets of the Lord who came among them to declare unto them concerning their iniquities…
The secret combinations have tradtionally killed the prophets, and fought against the church.
Hel. 2: 8 it was the object of all those who belonged to his band to murder, and to rob, and to gain power,
Aside from murdering and robbing, they also were bent on gaining power.
3 Ne. 7: 6 And the regulations of the government were destroyed, because of the asecret• combination of the friends and kindreds of those who murdered the prophets.
They tear down the government so they can do the things that they want to do.
4 Ne. 1: 42 wicked part of the people began again to build up the secret oaths and acombinations of Gadianton.
They had secret oaths and meetings.
I think that the secret combinations in The Book of Mormon were not after money like many of the “gangs, drugs, organized crime, and maybe Al Quaeda” and other things like this. These are organizations that are looking for money, and yes they are looking for power. But the power that the secret combinations in the Book of Mormon were looking for was not so small. They wanted the judgement seat. They wanted control over all the people. Participating in organized crime will only get you a litte power over a few people. Satan wants total control over many people. Satan wants control over governments.
Comment by Ian M. Cook — January 2, 2006 @ 11:57 am
Oh, but perhaps you meant big business or something else? Do tell…
Well, of course Enron is an easy one. I’m none too happy with the recent bankruptcy reform practically written, word-for-word, by credit card companies. I’m also creeped out by the use of private contractors in Iraq (I think we call those “mercenaries” in less polite conversation). Mr. Abramoff springs to mind and Tom Delay of course …
Of course, maybe “big business” and the Republican Party are just another example of the “usual suspects for Seth.” I imagine I probably need to do a bit more soul searching myself rather than simply contracting out my moral compass to the “liberal agenda.”
Comment by Seth R. — January 2, 2006 @ 1:19 pm
I do neither–though I appreciate what she did for humanity and all, it wasn’t due to any courageous act–it was through succumbing to temptation, pure and simple.
Comment by Tim Jacob — January 2, 2006 @ 1:21 pm
Tim, might I suggest you read “Eve and the Choice Made in Eden” by Beverley Campbell. Contrary to popular belief, Eve made a courageous choice with a knowledge of the consequences that would follow. She was not tempted or beguiled.
Comment by Quimby — January 2, 2006 @ 4:04 pm
Quimby,
Been there, done that. It simply flies in the face of the scriptural account as we know it to be found in Moses and Abraham. Beverly Campbell asserts that somehow Eve was able to figure out God’s plan BEFORE partaking the fruit. I believe her reaction to the serpent would have been a little bit different had she had such foreknowledge.
There’s a thread over at M* that is going on right now about this very subject.
Comment by Tim Jacob — January 2, 2006 @ 4:46 pm
Eve’s exceptional wisdom and courage (in what is clearly nothing more than an instructive, symbolic myth) is brilliantly outlined in the book “How good do we have to be?” by Rabbi Kushner (which I believe Ms. Campbell quotes actually).
Comment by Rich — January 2, 2006 @ 4:56 pm
Sorry, guys. I just prefer the scriptures. Call me a heretic.
Comment by Tim Jacob — January 2, 2006 @ 5:06 pm
Lisa,
Sorry that I wasn’t clear. I agree that you specifically set up that the behavior in question is bad. Initially, however, one must note that good/bad or moral/immoral distinctions are made by individuals and are certainly not always inviting a consensus. We talk about a lot of these kinds of things all around the bloggernacle. An easy example: is it ok to watch an R-rated movie? Some people that I respect a lot see these as evil; others (such as myself) think it depends and that the worst R-rated movie probably isn’t that bad. But let’s suppose that we’ve decided that an action is bad.
There are then two dangers that we must avoid. First, we have to avoid inaction when we should do something. This is Ana’s point and it is a good one. We should certainly be aware of the potential good of opposing something that we see as evil. You cite numerous excellent examples of this. One that I might add is the nuclear freeze movement in Germany (for the politically inclined). While the problem of the bomb might seem way too big for any one person, a lot of “one persons” dramatically affected political decisions taken by the German leadership. In short, you’re not an innocent bystander if you should have done something and did not.
The other thing is acting to oppose evil when letting it alone would be much better. For example, rushing a gun wielding terrorist in the hope of stopping his action in the town square might not be prudent, for you or anyone else, especially if you’re not trained to handle it. A much more real-world example might be the following: suppose a group of individuals in your ward are holding “study groups” that are very critical of local and general Church leadership. You worry that these folks are moving beyond faithful discussion or intellectual inquiry and hopping on the low road to apostasy. What should you do?
It is possible that confronting them might be a good idea. Maybe the bishop should know about it. It strikes me, however, that trying to confront these “study groups” or crack down on them might just make them madder and more convinced that the Church is an oppressive, regressive organization that represents not Jesus Christ, but power-hungry leaders and their ambitions. Telling the bishop might well lead to an attempted intervention by leadership that could have the same effect. On the other hand, doing nothing might simply cause these groups to die on the vine; after all, you can’t get too mad about oppression if nobody bothers to crack down.
The point isn’t that you shouldn’t be concerned with evil, but that your ability to deal with it effectively AND the potential effects of your action are essential to the decision. In my opinion, being a crusader against evil regardless of one’s ability to deal with it can be much more damaging to oneself and others than doing nothing.
P.S. I’m not suggesting that critical study groups should always be let alone, but that this is an example where action might be completely ineffective and would have the potential to make a bad situation much worse.
Comment by D-Train — January 2, 2006 @ 5:08 pm
Tim, I believe it is a mistake to rely solely on the King James Bible version of the story of Eve, if that is indeed what you prefer to do. For instance: the interpretation of the Hebrew “eber kgnedo” to the 16th century “help meet” and the consequent change in the meaning of “help meet” in 21st century English. Language evolves. The men who compiled the King James version were products of their era, and hence prone to language which would cast Eve in a negative light. If, on the other hand, you are relying on the original Hebrew, you would gain a more positive knowledge of Eve; however, I do not know how one could justify a reliance on the original Hebrew without at least considering the countless Rabbinical texts that have been written in exploration of the story of Eve. And if you broaden your definition of scripture further to include prophetic and apostolic statements, you would then have to include those teachings quoted by Sister Campbell.
Comment by Quimby — January 2, 2006 @ 5:17 pm
I don’t. I prefer the books of Moses and Abraham which are a lot more clearly written, and translated by Joseph Smith. Have you read these accounts?
Eve gives her OWN REASONS for eating the fruit:
Moses 4:12
She saw that the tree was GOOD FOR FOOD and it became PLEASANT TO THE EYES and a tree to be desired to (here’s the kicker) MAKE HER WISE.
She saw that the fruit would make her wise, not the other way around. Again, this is EVE HERSELF saying this. Though I suppose it could be read differently in Hebrew :).
Her foreknowledge was unnecessary and it is absolutely in contrast with scriptural text (in any language).
Check out Elder Talmage’s quote on the subject in Articles of Faith which is also used in the OT Institute Manual. Prophetic quotes are contradictory in this instance, so I prefer to stick with the scriptures–call me crazy.
I’ve now managed two threadjacks on two different blogs on the exact same subject. I believe I deseerve a Niblet.
Comment by Tim Jacob — January 2, 2006 @ 5:29 pm
One more point, and then I’ll end this threadjack–for which I apologize.
One of the disputed Hebrew words is the one that has been translated into beguiled. If I remeber right, Beverly asserted that the word used wasn’t the one that we understand to be tricked or fooled. Instead it meant something along the lines of having an intellectual/emotional/SPIRITUAL experience.
I find this hard to believe considering WHO it was that she was conversing with at the time. Satan bring forth a spiritual experience.
Comment by Tim Jacob — January 2, 2006 @ 6:18 pm
Sorry, last line should be:
Satan cannot bring forth a spiritual experience.
Comment by Tim Jacob — January 2, 2006 @ 8:02 pm
Tim, a few comments: You quote, “She saw that the tree was GOOD FOR FOOD and it became PLEASANT TO THE EYES and a tree to be desired to (here’s the kicker) MAKE HER WISE.” (Emphasis yours.)
If anything, I think this lends credence to the idea that she made a choice knowing, at least to some extent, what the consequences of that choice would be. She knew the tree would make her wise. She made her choice based on the factors you indicate–it was good for food, it was attractive, it would make her wise. None of that, to my reading, strengthens your argument.
I don’t have my copy of Campbell’s book with me and so I cannot look up her alternative translation of “beguile” but if memory serves (and I admit it may not) she based her arguments on the original Hebrew–a far more accurate source, IMHO, than King James English. Considering the words that could have been used, beguiled is actually quite mild. Its definitions also include: to pass time pleasantly, to divert, to amuse, to fill with wonder and delight. None of those definitions have negative connotations.
Regarding your last argument, that Satan cannot bring forth a spiritual experience: My thoughts on this are very muddled and I need a few moments to collect them. Basically, they are running along the lines of: spiritual experiences often go hand in hand with experiences with great evil (eg the First Vision, Moses seeing the Lord). Also, Satan will often unwittingly push along a good work by trying to undermine it. But I really need more time to prepare this argument.
Comment by Quimby — January 2, 2006 @ 8:49 pm
She knew the consequences solely based upon what SATAN told her they would be: It’s delicious! It will make you wise like the gods!
There is nothing scriptural that indicates she had any foreknowledge whatsoever.
Comment by Tim Jacob — January 2, 2006 @ 8:55 pm
He didn’t bring forth these spiritual experiences–he was trying to impede them. He was also trying to impede God’s plan by tempting (beguiling) Eve. And God was counting on it.
Comment by Tim Jacob — January 2, 2006 @ 9:03 pm
My opinion of what Eve understood changed when I noticed something in the footnotes. In Moses 4:12 it says that Eve ..”saw that the tree was… to be desired to make her wise…” The footnote on ‘desired’ sends the reader to 1 Ne 15:36 where Lehi is describing the fruit of the Tree of Life as “desirable.”
I think that means the fruits were the same sort of desirable (a good sort of desirable, not the lustful bad sort), and since it says that Eve saw this desirability, I think it means she understood the plan well enough.
Perhaps it really comes down to whether or not you believe that Satan can be stupid enough to unwittingly lead someone to righteousness and wisdom. He’ll never do it on purpose, but I think he can do it by mistake.
Comment by Andermom — January 2, 2006 @ 11:18 pm
I think you misunderstand what Satan was trying to accomplish. What is Satan’s purpose? To make all miserable like unto himself. Well, he wasn’t going to accomplish that if Adam and Eve remained in the garden. There was joy, but there was no sorrow. Satan wanted Adam and Eve to feel sorrow, he just may not have realized the joy that would come.
Again, let’s read the scriptures. 2 Nephi 2, D&C 29, and the Moses/Abraham give great insights into this.
Andermom,
I’ll make the assertion again that Eve saw that the tree desired to make her wise–BECAUSE THAT’S WHAT SATAN TOLD HER IT WOULD DO!
Also look how Adam and Eve respond to the Lord after he asks why they partook of the fruit. They said nothing of fulfilling the first (supposed) commandment nor wanting to multiply–and this is even AFTER their “eyes had been opened.”
Comment by Tim Jacob — January 3, 2006 @ 12:33 am
The Campbell book equates “beguile” with an extremely emotional experience–meaning an experience that was emotionally traumatizing. I don’t have the book with me here in UT for the holidays, but I just finished reading it a few weeks ago and I’m pretty sure my memory is sound.
Oh, and for what it’s worth, the book was given to me by the wife of one of the counselors of the NYC temple presidency…
However, I hope that last sentence doesn’t sound too much like an endorsement…I actually didn’t care for the book very much. I just kept thinking that I liked the premise of what she was saying, but since she has no authority to be saying any of it, it’s basically just wishful thinking.
Comment by maria — January 3, 2006 @ 12:53 am
I don’t think anyone will disagree that the Creation/Fall story isn’t valued for it’s technical accuracy, nor does anyone think that it is filled with cold hard facts. (Do you really think Eve was made out of a rib? Did God really just speak and then *poof* there was light? Was Satan really a serpent?) It’s pretty clear that the Creation/Fall story is highly symbollic. So what is is good for, and why do we read it? It’s good for what we can understand about ourselves as men and women, our relationship to eachother, to God, to Jesus Christ, and to Satan. I think the temple makes it clear that what is said about Adam is said about all men, and what is said about Eve is said about all Women.
Unfortunately we don’t get to hear about the years upon years where Eve was a righteous mother who nurtured and taught her children. (nor do we hear about the years where Adam was a righteous father, but we aren’t talking about him right now.) Instead Eve is defined by the acts of talking to Satan, taking the fruit, and sharing it with Adam. Our entire understanding of her, (and therefore all women) and her relationship to Adam, and God, is based on how we understand that act.
If we treat her actions as courageous, noble, and evidence of wisdom and foresight then women gain a righteous role model. They are seen as worthy companions, deserving of respect, responsibility, and find themselves with equitable worth before God and mankind.
If we see Eve’s act as succumbing to temptation and as a foolish, selfish, and ignorant act then we are left with a tendancy to abuse and degrade women. Women are seen as inferior, and flawed. Men throughout the entire history of the Earth have been using this understanding of Eve to treat women poorly.
Remember, what is said of Eve is said of all women.
It may be more technically accurate to believe that Eve really was just succumbing to temptation, but again, the story isn’t prized for being accurate. Promoting the understanding of Eve’s actions as wise, better illustrates her worth (and the worth of all women) in the plan, and in Heavenly Fathers Kingdom.
Comment by Starfoxy/Andermom — January 3, 2006 @ 1:00 am
Tim,
If you regard the elements of this story as nothing more than a literal event — nothing symbolic going on, nothing allegorical, but simply a step-by-step narrative of how men were molded from the dust and women were formed from a rib and all rational decision-making, sensual thought came suddenly to humans after one bite of fruit from a particular tree, then heretic isn’t the best word to describe you — try fundamentalist. Right there with the 6000-year-old earth / no death before the Fall / dinosaurs buried in Noah’s flood / the flood baptized the entire planet for a year killing everything but what’s on the boat - crowd.
Bless your heart, there’s plenty of you out there. I just can’t bring myself to identify with y’all — my brain simply refuses to go there. Call me the heretic if you must, but I’ll take that label (and rational thought) any day over fundie literalism.
Dude, I don’t see insisting on a literal interpretation as a matter of obedience and faith vs. humanistic godlessness — it’s just a story. One meant to teach a principle. What is the principle being taught? That women are easily begiled by talking snakes, and men like to blame others? Well, there’s something to that last part, but there’s a whole lot more to this story than what’s on the surface. Try going deeper and think about it a while…
Comment by Rich — January 3, 2006 @ 1:01 am
BTW, you sound like a freaking Protestant with that comment.
“And the LORD God said, Behold, the [wo]man is become as one of us, to know good and evil”…
Give the girl some credit already!
Comment by Rich — January 3, 2006 @ 1:13 am
I meant to end that last post with:
Truth is truth, regardless of the source. Eve was wise enough to recognize the truth. Satan works best when 99% of what he says is true. She wasn’t just some dumb blonde following any old suggestion, or lusting for God’s powers (the Protestant claim). He spoke the truth, and she recognized it and its obvious value as something to be desired. Penalty schmenalty, it was worth it, and she was wise enough and courageous enough to see that.
‘Nuff said.
Comment by Rich — January 3, 2006 @ 1:24 am
I
I’ve got a few problems with the book as well, but for whatever it is worth, Beverly Campbell is the only church *woman* whose talks had to be approved of previous to publication. Hers went through the same correlation channels the GAs went through. I don’t know that this was true for her post-calling books, but clearly the church thought she had some authority to speak. I’m just not sure exactly what.
I did have a friend who is a specialist in ancient languages whose take on Eve is similar to Campbell’s. I am not fluent in ancient Greek or Latin or Hebrew, but playing around with Strong’s biblical concordinace at least convinced me that the traditional Christian schtick about Eve is suspect.
I agree that the story is largely symbolic rather than literal, but that makes its ramifications more, not less, impactual. Symbols are not petty things.
Comment by janet — January 3, 2006 @ 1:51 am
Tim, I think I need you to define and expound on a couple of things for me. You keep talking about “fore-knowledge”. I’d like to know what you mean by this. I could be misreading what you are saying but I think you are arguing that the fact that Satan gave Eve the knowledge, somehow invalidates it? If that is indeed what you are saying, why? Why do you feel that knowledge gained from Satan is somehow less valid than knowledge gained from other sources? I think the larger issue here is that she understood that, in taking the fruit, she would gain knowledge. Does it matter that Satan is the one that brought that to her attention? I don’t think so. We gain knowledge from a number of different sources. We even gain knowledge from sin. That doesn’t mean that the knowledge we gain from sin is somehow invalid. (FYI I’m not advocating we all go out and sin as a way of educating ourselves. But if we all sin, isn’t the best-case scenario to learn from our sins, repent, and take that knowledge with us into our larger lives?)
Comment by Quimby — January 3, 2006 @ 4:56 am
This is not what Campbell asserts. Campbell suggests that Eve figured it out all on her own and therefore would not even have needed Satan’s “help.”
Rich,
Yes the Fall is highly symbolic. I’m trying to reason out the happenings as they are given to us in scripture, both modern and ancient. I believe something can be both literal and symbolic…right?
I don’t see why me thinking that Eve succumbed to temptaition (like the scriptures say she did) has any bearing whatsoever on how I personally view and treat women. This is a huge feminist leap to make.
Comment by Tim J. — January 3, 2006 @ 8:49 am
Great discussion, everyone! Can I agree with all of you? My take: Eve clearly transgressed the law. It was a temptation in that the choice was presented by Satan. Eve could not be held accountable for the choice if she had not made it with some sort of understanding that she was chosing to disobey a law given by God, or it would not be just for God to hold her accountable for the choice. But not a bad punishment, eh? Mortality? We all chose that, didn’t we (not just the women)? Initially it appears to “set them back” so to speak–they lose face to face contact with God. But without leaving paradise, they cannot grow and become more like God–Male and Female. I think it was a pretty courageous, and self-secrificial, transgression that both Eve and Adam made.
Comment by LisaB — January 3, 2006 @ 9:17 am
Oh, and welcome, Tim J. I hereby bestow upon you an honorary Niblet.
So back to secret combinations… I agree that discernment is complex. The whole point of secret combinations is to keep them secret for the sake of pulling the wool over people’s eyes/ getting away with murder/ theft/ power-grabbing/ control over others. During some of the above comments I thought immediately of the WOW’s warning against the designs of conspiring individuals or groups. I think the fact of our interdependence as a culture makes the possibility of having our garments washed clean of the blood and sins of the world by the atonement of Christ essential and wonderful.
Comment by LisaB — January 3, 2006 @ 9:22 am
Thanks LisaB., and well-put. Though I guess we’ll agree to disagree on the notion of Eve’s courage.
One more thought though. While God wins in the end, didn’t Satan as well. While nobody would be going to heaven without the Fall–they wouldn’t be going to hell either–which is what Satan wants.
There–I’m done. If you want to continue this discussion, let’s do it at M*, which was the first threadjack I started.
Comment by Tim J. — January 3, 2006 @ 9:31 am
Sorry–school time.
Comment by LisaB — January 3, 2006 @ 9:45 am
I wasn’t talk to you specifically, LisaB, it was a general you. But your definitely invited, when schools over :).
Comment by Tim J. — January 3, 2006 @ 9:51 am
Nope–gotta say just one more thing.
If Adam and Eve did not have foreknowledge that their choice was in line with the Plan for our Salvation, I think it was all the more corageous. Notice that in the immediate aftermath of the choice, we are told that at least God has the foreknowledge to have prepared a plan and a Savior for us–to immediately protect us and help us if we are willing to walk in the way.
Yes about Satan’s desire for us to be miserable, but God also can turn all things to our good–including the experiences that give us pain.
Comment by LisaB — January 3, 2006 @ 9:51 am
I just want to clarify this, then I’ll be done. When I said that how you view Eve becomes how you view women it is a generalization, which becomes more true as more people are considered, and less true as less people are considered. So when a whole nation believes she messed it up, most women in that nation will be treated poorly, and when an individual believes she messed it up it’s anybody’s guess how he/she will treat women.
I just wanted to point out that even though it may not be accurate to say that Eve was wise, there is a good reason to do so, one which is true to the nature of the Creation/Fall story.
Comment by Starfoxy/Andermom — January 3, 2006 @ 9:55 am
Tim J.
I really am not one to make a habit of quoting general authorities, but I find in this instance Dallin Oaks’ and Russel Nelson’s interpretation of Eve’s action useful. This is in reference to your disagreeing that Eve was courageous. However, just because a GA said it, that doesn’t necessarily mean you have to believe it (I know I don’t believe everything GAs say)
“Some Christians condemn Eve for her act, concluding that she and her daughters are somehow flawed by it. Not the Latter-day Saints! Informed by revelation, we celebrate Eve’s act and honor her wisdom and courage in the great episode called the Fall.” Dallin Oaks, Ensign, Nov 1993
“We and all mankind are forever blessed because of Eve’s great courage and wisdom. By partaking of the fruit first, she did what needed to be done. Adam was wise enough to do likewise.” Russel Nelson, Ensign, Nov 1993
Anyway, by repeatedly using the word wisdom in reference to Eve, that does suggest to me that these GAs do indeed believe that Eve had some sort of special understanding/foreknowledge that the eating of the fruit had to be done.
Comment by Caroline — January 3, 2006 @ 11:49 am
Ahhh, the first hand in Prophetic poker is dealt.
I’ll see your two current Apostle quotes and raise you a Talmage quote found in Articles of Faith and used in the OT Institute Manual (making it offical Church doctrine?).
Now, what cards do you have left.
Using prophetic quotes which will no doubt contradict each other is useless. This is why I’ve chosen to use the Scriptures and the Scriptures alone. These quotes, I believe, are merely being used to rationalize or reconcile the two conflicting commandments, which is useless, since there weren’t even two commandments given them…period.
Comment by Tim J. — January 3, 2006 @ 11:59 am
Wow,
I agree with Caroline.
It seems to me that Eve did have some type of foreknowledge about this choice.
Comment by Leonard — January 3, 2006 @ 12:38 pm
HOW!!!!!!! FROM WHOM!!!!!!!!!!!
AAAAHHHHHHHHHHHHHH!
(that was me gouging my eyes out with a spoon)
Comment by Tim J. — January 3, 2006 @ 1:14 pm
I get this general sense that she knew what she was doing. From the temple, from GA quotes, from seminary/sunday school,/institute/YM manuals. From the Ensign
Caroline is not crazy to think this. It seems to be the dominant view in 2006 in my corner of the LDS world.
Comment by Leonard — January 3, 2006 @ 2:04 pm
Tim,
I suspect this is one of those issues wherein folk-doctrine/scripture/GA’s/etc get tangled up in a paradoxical web that tries to satisfy everyone at once (while satisfying pretty much no one). Not to threadjack the threadjack, but a similar example can be found in the whole “we’re patriarchal but equal but the man still presides but everything’s equal except when it’s not but it still is” rhetoric. Just as the bizarre attempt to re-define patriarchy (without actually spelling out a new definition) attempts to remove much of the potential for damage to women in a patriarchal society, I see the emphasis on Eve’s “wisdom” as a move toward in some way undoing the millennia of damage done to women in the name of Eve’s transgression. It seems to be a noble motive, whether or not it actually works for everyone.
Perhaps she did have foreknowledge in some way that is unfathomable to us (in the same way that equal patriarchy is unfathomable). Or perhaps she merely sinned and her sin turned out to be for the best (and perhaps preside does mean exactly what the dictionary says it does). I suspect the answer lies somewhere in between. So let’s not dirty the spoons with eyeball jelly quite yet!
By the way, religion generally seems to be chock full of paradoxes. The trinity, the virgin birth, parables that conceal as much as (if not more than) they reveal. Isn’t this a certain kind of secret combination? (How’s that for a stretch to get us back on topic?)
Comment by EmilyS — January 3, 2006 @ 2:16 pm
Tim–How about from God–who walked, talked, and communed with Adam and Eve in the garden before their expulsion?
Comment by LisaB — January 3, 2006 @ 2:31 pm
Yes, I know and brought this up at M*. I imagine their conversation went something like this:
God: You know guys, you need to multiply and replenish this Earth.
Adam (with puzzled look on face): Okay….um….how?
God: Uhhhhhhh…..umm…..you’ll see.
It is perfectly illogical for God to give Adam and Eve this commandment in the Garden of Eden if there was no way physically that it could be done. God would cease to be God.
THERE IS NO LOGICAL REASON WHY GOD WOULD NEED TELL THEM THIS!
I make no suppositions about what God taught Adam and Eve in the Garden and it is wrong for any to do so.
Additionally, if you believe Eve had foreknowledge about this plan than you would argue that she chose to disobey God’s command to eat the fruit in order to obey the greater commandment to multiply (which God never did).
So after taking the fruit, her eyes having been opened, she now wanted Adam to partake of it as well. Why? Well, she was ovulating and needed to reproduce, right? Isn’t that why you say she ate the fruit? So, upon seeing Adam, fruit in hand, she now notices something different, he’s naked. And not only is he naked, but he looks GOOD! She is aroused and wants to reproduce to obey God’s command as soon as possible, right? So she gave Adam the fruit, who told her, “I can’t, the Lord forbids it.” So Eve replies, “Honey, I’m ovulating here, and I need to fulfill God’s greater commandment and have children.”
Though thoroughly confused, Adam obliges, and the two run off together into the bushes to fulfill God’s command. This is what happened right? This is why Eve partook of the fruit, right. This was their reaction to eating the fruit, right?
Right?
Comment by Tim J. — January 3, 2006 @ 2:49 pm
I completely disagree with your portrayal. My understanding of their and our shame/ recognition of their and our “nakedness” (from studying other scriptures about nakedness) is that they hid from the Lord because they realized their unworthiness, their lack of godly glory, their inability to perfect themselves–hence God’s reminder about the Savior being sent for them.
Comment by LisaB — January 3, 2006 @ 3:07 pm
Then why sew fig leaves and make aprons? Stick to the scriptures LisaB…the scriptures
Comment by Tim J. — January 3, 2006 @ 3:15 pm
Tim,
Wrong….. LDS doctrine does not support the idea that Adam and Eve committed sexual sin. That is a Protestant idea not LDS.
Plus they were married anyway. If they did by chance have sex which is not mentioned anywhere they were good to go cause they were married.
Comment by Leonard — January 3, 2006 @ 3:19 pm
Leonard,
Sexual sin? What? Never said it. Never thought it. Don’t believe it. That was not my point in any way. Not sure where you got that one.
Comment by Tim J. — January 3, 2006 @ 3:20 pm
It’s a SYMBOL, Tim.
Comment by LisaB — January 3, 2006 @ 3:23 pm
You didn’t even look up the scripture did you?
Look at it. They saw they were naked thus they made clothing. It became symbolic AFTER THE FACT. What’s it a symbol of? And what reason does the Temple give for Adam & Eve making aprons.
Comment by Tim J. — January 3, 2006 @ 3:29 pm
See Rich’s comment #32
Comment by LisaB — January 3, 2006 @ 3:43 pm
I don’t argue that she chose to eat the fruit so she could obey the command to have children. I argue that she chose to eat the fruit and fall because she understood that we had to become mortal.
Re; the fig leaf aprons, I agree with LisaB that they made aprons to hide their unworthiness and lack of glory. This is the reason the temple gives as to why they made aprons. Remember what Satan said his apron was? and Satan says this just before he tells Adam and Eve to hide because they are naked. If we’re sticking to the scriptures then you may note that the scriptures don’t mention sex in reference to their nakedness, but they do mention guilt and uncleanness
Comment by Starfoxy/Andermom — January 3, 2006 @ 3:59 pm
Andermom,
Couldn’t agree more. However, I doubt that Adam and Eve noticed their nakedness and then IMMEDIATELY proceeded to make clothes from fig to make a symbol (”Quick,Eve, let’s make symbols!”) then I have an issue. Like I said, it became a symbol after the fact.
BTW, the temple narration (which has changed over the years) is PURELY symbolical. While we learn several things about the Creation and the Fall, it is not the reason to attend the temple.
Then what the @#$% was Satan doing? Simply reinforcing Eve’s preconceived notions? Satan played a HUGE role. Read the first few verses of Moses 4. If Eve had this all figured out, it would render Satan’s role moot.
What Eve understood about the fruit was what God told her (you’ll die) and what Satan told her (no you won’t). That’s it. That’s all. Her reaction to Satan as I stated above confirms this fact. She ate the fruit to become wise (because Satan told her it would), not she was wise so she took the fruit.
(That sucking sound you hear is me lying on my floor in the fetal position, sucking my thumb, while asking, “Why, why, why won’t they listen?”
Comment by Tim Jacob — January 3, 2006 @ 4:52 pm
Tim, I doubt you’ll ever get a room-full of Mormons to agree on much of anything, but please don’t let it get to you to the point where we need to call in the men in white coats!
I think I understand your position. Different people will look at the story in different ways. I believe our prophets have told us it is a literal story; but it’s pretty impossible to look at it without seeing the symbolism, and it’s pretty impossible for any group of people to agree on exactly what the symbolism means. It’s also difficult for me, as a feminist, to look at the story and not see the way it has impacted on the role of women in the generations that follow. Hand-in-hand with that is a knowledge of the status of women at the time the King James version was compiled, and a belief that the men who compiled the Bible would have been influenced by their own culture in choosing their language. Thus, it makes sense to me, on one level, that the story has been recorded in such a way as to make Eve look like your stereotypical airhead. And I do believe there is evidence to support that.
However, I feel for you, being the lone dissenting voice in this argument. (Been there, done that, it’s frustrating.) Realistically, neither camp will change the other’s opinion. I think sometimes we get so caught up in wanting to be right, wanting to change the other person’s opinion, we let things go too far. I’m not saying we’re there yet . . . but if you’re at the eye-gouging thumb-sucking stage, we must be getting close! So maybe we should just call the whole thing off?
Comment by Quimby — January 3, 2006 @ 5:40 pm
Like I said before, this is why the Books of Moses and Abraham are far superior and why they were given to us (why else?) They were translated by Joseph Smith, and he LOVED women.
Comment by Tim Jacob — January 3, 2006 @ 5:49 pm
Tim, you see those buttons above the comment boxes?
One of them allows you to italicize your statements.
It looks a lot more classy than ALL CAPS.
By the way, I agree with you about Eve.
Now, secret combinations ….
I read a fun book on international organized crime once (forget the title). The author made an interesting point. He said that the “underworld” requires the existence of the “overworld” to exist. For example, offshore money-laundering bank accounts couldn’t exist without the massive legitimate aspects of world banking.
One lives off the other. Often, as it turns out, the legitimate businesses are complicit in the crime or turn a blind eye to it.
This seems to have been the case in Nephi’s time (3 Nephi). Not only were the vested commercial interests of the day infiltrated by Gadianton robbers, but the prominent political leaders were Gadiantons as well.
To invoke Nibley (sorry, I feel I must) … He said this all plays out like one of those old Westerns.
Think “The Man Who Shot Liberty Valance.” Here you’ve got the loathsome bully Liberty Valance swaggering about, threatening people and committing acts of theft and violence. Most of the movie is about our hero standing up to this ruffian and eventually killing him in the street.
But if you pay attention to the subtext here, who’s paying Liberty? As it turns out he’s just an “enforcer” hired by the cattlemen to drive off the farmers or at least cow them into submission. The movie ends with a political campaign were our hero, representing the farmers runs for office against the candidate for cattle interests. And there’s the cattleman: huge smile, nice clothes, real success story, and he even brought a performing pony!
That’s the way it is. The obviously evil people are not the ones we really need to worry about. It’s the ones that everyone is currently praising that you have to watch out for.
Comment by Seth R. — January 3, 2006 @ 7:31 pm
Point well-made, and well-taken, Seth.
Comment by Tim Jacob — January 3, 2006 @ 8:16 pm