This series is cross-posted with the permission of Book of Mormon Central
from their website at Pearl of Great Price Central
Download PDF
Download audio recording
Figure 1. James C. Christensen, 1942-: Pandora 2, 2005
The scriptures say that Eve was “beguiled” by Satan when she partook of the forbidden fruit. But Latter-day Saints believe she made the right choice. How can both statements be true? The purpose of this essay is to harmonize these seemingly contradictory statements and, along the way, to dispel some common misconceptions.
Eve Was Not a Pandora
Whether earnestly promoted as Christian theology or merely mentioned in tasteless jest, Eve is too often painted in the colors of Pandora,[1] a mythological figure whose unbridled curiosity unleashed a long train of potent ills against mankind. This is not the view of the Latter-day Saints.
In light of the Latter-day Saint understanding that the Fall was a necessary prerequisite for humankind’s further progression and our rejection of the generally negative portrayals of Eve in historical Christianity, Latter-day Saint authors typically emphasize her perceptiveness and interpret her role as ultimately constructive. A few have, however, taken this view to what seems to be an untenable extreme, not only rightfully exonerating her from full accountability for her transgression and honoring her lifelong faithfulness, but in addition arguing that, for various reasons, she was not actually “beguiled” by Satan in her decision to take of the forbidden fruit.[2]
Such a view goes well beyond the settled Latter-day Saint doctrines that the Fall was an essential part of the divine plan from the beginning and that Adam and Eve did not commit a sinful or otherwise blameworthy act. Though it is easy to see how such views might arise from honest misunderstanding, a careful analysis will show that they should be no more a part of the beliefs of well-informed Latter-day Saints than the opposite notion that Eve was a prototype of Pandora.
Differences in perspective with the well-intentioned Latter-day Saint authors who make such arguments are, of course, far outweighed by common beliefs and sympathies. In presenting what might be seen as necessary correctives to certain aspects of these views, no personal offense is intended. In hopes of eliminating any misrepresentation, drafts of an earlier version of this essay were sent to two of the authors referenced, Alonzo Gaskill and James T. Summerhays, who confirmed the interpretation of their views presented here. The authors graciously responded with some welcome suggestions.
After a review of the “standard” view of the Fall, this essay will examine two of the questions raised by the writings of Gaskill and Summerhays: “Was Satan entirely truthful?” and “Was Eve actually beguiled (deceived) by him?” We will then return to the story of the Fall, showing how Eve wisely took the initiative to counteract Satan’s efforts to rupture her unity with Adam. In conclusion, we will examine why the story of the Fall cannot be fully appreciated when presented as a laundry list of isolated symbols, but instead must be understood as a harmonious whole.
The Standard View of the Fall
Before examining the contention that Eve was not beguiled in her encounter with Satan, it seems important to outline a brief summary of the “standard” view of the Fall, meaning the one that is most frequently encountered in Church settings over the years:
- We do not believe that the Fall was a surprise to God, since it was foreseen and planned for from the beginning.[3]
- We do not believe that the Fall was something to be regretted, since it constituted the appointed means by which mortality, an essential step in mankind’s progression, would be afforded to Adam and Eve and their posterity.[4]
- We do not blame Adam and Eve, but rather are grateful for their roles in the Fall. Eve was deceived by Satan, and thus did not act with full understanding. Adam, in light of Eve’s honest and logical explanation, and knowing that it was essential that he and Eve not be separated, wisely chose to partake of the fruit.[5] The only blameworthy party in the story is the serpent.
- Because Adam and Eve did no wrong, we label their actions as “transgressions” rather than “sins.”[6] What is important, of course, is not the dictionary definitions of these two words—which are, after all, quite similar in meaning—but rather the effort in Latter-day Saint scripture and prophetic teachings to preserve a careful conceptual distinction between what happened in the Garden of Eden and the kind of trouble all of us get ourselves into when we yield to temptation.[7]
Elder James E. Talmage has written what might be taken as the closest thing we currently have to an “official” statement about the specifics of the Fall. As part of a manuscript that was “read… and approved by the First Presidency and the Council of the Twelve” and “published by the Church,”[8] his Jesus the Christ affirmed that Adam and Eve were “pure” and “noble.” Noting that, of course, “when we pass through the veil we shall perhaps learn something of their high estate, more than we know now,”[9] Elder Talmage wrote:
The woman was deceived, and in direct violation of the counsel and commandment partook of the food that had been forbidden. … Note in this matter the words of Paul the apostle: “Adam was not deceived but the woman being deceived was in the transgression, ”[10] … The arch-tempter through whose sophistries, half-truths and infamous falsehoods, Eve had been beguiled, was none other than Satan.[11]
Elder Talmage’s book The Articles of Faith—the lectures on which it was based having been “prepared in accordance with the request and appointment of the First Presidency” and subsequently “published by the Church”[12]—further elaborates. Following a description of how “Satan… sought to beguile the woman,” we read:
The woman was captivated by these representations; and, being eager to possess the advantages pictured by Satan, she disobeyed the command of the Lord, and partook of the fruit forbidden. She feared no evil, for she knew it not.[13]
Later, Elder Talmage summarized:
Eve was fulfilling the foreseen purposes of God by the part she took in the great drama of the Fall; yet she did not partake of the forbidden fruit with that object in view, but with intent to act contrary to the divine command, being deceived by the sophistries of Satan, who also, for that matter, furthered the purposes of the Creator by tempting Eve; yet his design was to thwart the Lord’s plan. … Adam’s part in the great event was essentially different from that of his wife; he was not deceived; on the contrary he deliberately decided to do as Eve desired, that he might carry out the purposes of his Maker.[14]
Elder Talmage states the situation persuasively. Although he recognized that Satan beguiled Eve, he in no way implies that Eve chose evil—because “she knew it not.” He rightfully portrays Adam and Eve as “pure” and “noble,” having played their parts perfectly in accordance with the Father’s original plan.
Was Satan Entirely Truthful?
According to the “standard” view described above, Satan mixed truth with falsehood in his assertions to Eve. On the one hand, Satan is seen to have told a part-truth in his assertion that Adam and Eve’s eyes would “be opened, and [they would] be as gods, knowing good and evil”[15]; on the other hand, his claim that they would “not surely die”[16] as the result of eating is taken to be deception pure and simple.
In a thoughtful book entitled The Savior and the Serpent, Alonzo Gaskill questions this picture of Satan’s deceptiveness,[17] arguing that he was “actually quite accurate”[18] in his statement about both matters. To fully appreciate Gaskill’s perspective, it must be understood that he takes the unusual position of interpreting the entire story of the Fall as being only about you and I, the “metaphorical” Adam and Eve, and not at all about our first parents, the “historical” Adam and Eve. Thus, according to Gaskill, any attempt to use the biblical text or modern temple teachings to prove that the “historical” Eve was deceived—or to assert anything else about our first parents—is futile, as he sees the account as applying only to ourselves and not to them.[19]
To make the position of the present essay on this question clear, it should be affirmed that we have much to learn about our own lives in studying the scriptural accounts of the Fall, especially given that each of us have, in a sense, “sinned after the similitude of Adam’s transgression.”[20] However, it is one thing to say that everything our first parents did in the story of the Fall applies in some way to us, and quite another to say that nothing in that admittedly highly figurative scriptural account applies exclusively to them. Neither in scripture, nor in the writings of Church authorities, can be found an advocate for the idea that the “historical” Adam and Eve are completely absent from the Genesis and Book of Moses accounts. Moreover, with respect to temple teachings, Elder Talmage confirmed in a summary of the endowment published by the Church[21] that “our first parents,”[22] the “historical” Adam and Eve, are the subjects of the figurative story told within the experience of that temple ordinance. Now, let us examine Gaskill’s arguments more closely.
In Moses 4:10-11, Satan makes two claims to Eve in order to convince her to eat the forbidden fruit: 1. “ye shall not surely die”; and 2. “ye shall be as gods, knowing good and evil.” Since, in Moses 4:28, God agrees with Satan’s second claim by saying that after taking of the fruit Adam and Eve have “become as one of us to know good and evil,” its truthfulness is not in question. However, some have erroneously argued that Satan’s first claim was also true.
There is no doubt that the literal word-by-word translation of the Hebrew given in a footnote of the Latter-day Saint edition of the Bible (“Dying, ye shall not die”) can be confusing. For example, in an otherwise insightful commentary on the story of Adam and Eve, Gaskill has argued mistakenly that Satan’s meaning was that in “physically dying you will not die (i.e., permanently die).”[23] In this erroneous interpretation of the Hebrew, Satan was entirely truthful in telling Eve that if she ate the consequence of death would only be temporary. However, in Hebrew the repetition of the verb in a phrase like “Dying, ye shall not die” is always used as a way of making the negation (“not”) stronger. In other words, it changes the meaning “you shall not die” to something like “you shall surely not die” or “you shall absolutely not die.”[24] For this reason, Satan’s statement is nothing more than deception pure and simple.
Satan mixed truth with falsehood, as he is often wont to do. This is consistent with Brigham Young’s conclusion that Satan told Eve “many truths and some lies”[25] or, as Hyrum Andrus expressed it: “a big lie and … a half-truth.”[26] The Book of Mormon more than once prefaces discussions of Adam and Eve’s transgression by the statement that the Devil is “the father of all lies”[27]—implying that the two concepts are closely linked. Perhaps the most telling of these passages is 2 Nephi 2:18. Here the word “wherefore” seems to function as an explicit logical connective between the first clause that describes who Satan is and the second clause that tells what he said: “the devil, who is the father of all lies, wherefore [for this reason] he said: Partake of the forbidden fruit, and ye shall not die, but shall be as God, knowing good and evil.”[28]
Was Eve Actually Beguiled (Deceived) By Satan?
James T. Summerhays[29] has summarized the thoughtful views of Vivian McConkie Adams — and, indirectly, those of Beverly Campbell.[30] While none of these authors disagree with the statement of scripture that Satan “sought… to beguile Eve,”[31] all three argue that the Adversary did not succeed in deceiving her.[32] More specifically, they conclude, mistakenly, that in Eve’s statement that she was beguiled she “is not saying she was tricked.” Unfortunately, none of the four mistaken reasons given for this conclusion stand up under closer scrutiny:
- Mistaken Reason 1: Unsophisticated Bible translators have missed the richness of the meaning of “beguile” in Hebrew. It is claimed that the Hebrew word translated “beguiled” suggests “a deep internal process; [Eve] weighed, pondered, and reflected upon the ramifications of partaking of the fruit before she did so.”[33] That much seems possible. Indeed, the multifaceted nature of Eve’s experience is witnessed by the text of Moses 4:12 itself.[34] However, the suggestion that Satan’s words led Eve to reflect carefully does not by itself do away with the fact that his deception ultimately influenced her choice. Not only the King James Version but also virtually all modern Bible translations accept “deceived” the primary meaning of the Hebrew word translated within the King James Version phrase as “The serpent beguiled me.” Whatever else might have gone through the mind of Eve while she made her decision, she herself realized and admitted with admirable honesty that the reason she had eaten the forbidden fruit was because she had been deceived by Satan’s falsehood.
- Mistaken Reason 2: According to the prophet Lehi, Eve was “enticed,” [35] which means, it is claimed, “she wanted [the forbidden fruit]; she chose it over the other.” However, this argument fails to make the point — it is just as easy to be enticed by evil as by good, which is exactly the point Lehi is making (“enticed by the one or the other”). We cannot take the fact that Eve chose to eat the fruit of the Tree of Knowledge as proof that she was not, at least in part, deceived by Satan in the reasons for her choice. Indeed, the word “entice” is sometimes used in the Book of Mormon to describe Satan’s general role as a tempter.[36]
- Mistaken Reason 3: Citing Moses 4:12, it is mistakenly argued that the Tree of Knowledge “was a good tree. … Eve saw, the record says, not merely wondered or believed or hoped that the tree was good.” In contrast to this view, Bible scholar Nahum Sarna recognizes that Eve’s evaluation of the tree is not a simple statement of truth. To the contrary, he sees “irony in the formulation that she ‘saw that it was good.”[37] Note also that nothing is said in scripture about Eve having weighed the valid considerations that might have come to bear on her choice (such as the importance of the experience of mortality and the joy of having children) had she completely understood the situation before she took of the forbidden fruit. Instead, we are told in the Book of Moses that, upon hearing Satan’s enticing and deceitful words, Eve looked and “the tree … became pleasant to the eyes.”[38] According to the eminent Bible scholars Robert Alter and Nahum Sarna, the corresponding Hebrew words in Genesis describe a strong intensity of desire fueled by appetite.[39] This ultimately resulted in the subordination of God’s law to the appeal of the senses. Elder James E. Talmage agreed, teaching that Eve “was captivated by” [40] the “sophistries, half-truths and infamous falsehoods”[41] of Satan and, “being eager to possess the advantages pictured by [him], she disobeyed the command of the Lord.”[42] Of course, although Elder Talmage recognized that Satan beguiled Eve, he in no way implied that Eve chose evil — because “she knew it not.”[43] He rightfully portrays Adam and Eve as having played their parts perfectly in accordance with the Father’s original plan.
- Mistaken Reason 4: The Hebrew word for “saw” has a direct relationship to the “Hebrew word ro’eh, which means seer or vision. Thus, it is suggested that Eve “may have received seeric revelation from God as part of her tutoring in the garden.” To make this argument is to suggest, by way of analogy, that because “see” and “seer” are related in English, any statements about “seeing” can be taken as evidence for divine vision. But this is clearly false — everyone that “sees” is not a “seer”! In addition, if Eve had actually seen a vision before she made her choice, it seems likely that a better Hebrew root than ro’eh — the one that is used exclusively in the Old Testament for “seer” and “seeing in vision” — would have been used. Of greatest importance is that one of the main points of the story is to contrast Adam and Eve’s limited view of things before the Fall to the greater discernment they manifested afterward — for example, recognizing Satan for who he is.[44] Of course, it is possible that Eve may have had some degree of prior insight into the positive consequences of her choice.[45] And it is evident that her understanding was relatively complete after she had eaten.[46] However, to argue that she received a complete understanding of the situation through “seeric revelation” on the basis of what is available in the Hebrew text of Genesis is not persuasive.
The explicit declaration of scripture is that “Satan … sought to beguile Eve.”[47] Ancient and modern Hebrew scholars agree that the primary meaning of “beguile” is to “deceive.” The actions of Adam and Eve in making the fig leaf aprons and hiding from God witness their doubtful state of mind following the transgression. Why not accept Eve’s own straightforward explanation of what happened? In the admirable candor and simplicity of her confession, she both admitted the deception and rightfully laid blame on Satan — the only one who actually deserved it: “The serpent beguiled me, and I did eat.”
Figure 2. Brian Kershisnik, 1962-: Holy Woman, 2001
Eve Restores the Broken Harmony
We return to the story of Adam and Eve. Hugh Nibley observes that the “perfect and beautiful union of Adam and Eve [had] excited the envy and jealousy of the Evil One, who made it his prime objective to break it up.”[48] Shon Hopkin notes “the serpent’s success in getting Eve to partake of the fruit while alone, separate from Adam.” Of course, he also observes that Eve “is not the only culpable party in her aloneness; this reading of the story also implies that Adam was alone elsewhere in the Garden, making him complicit in the situation.”[49]
Jolene Edmunds Rockwood’s summary makes clear the extent to which the Adversary initially succeeded in increasing the separation of Adam and Eve:[50]
Until the woman and the man actually partake of the fruit, … the language of the text indicates a union in their actions. … [However, after their transgression,] the unity of the man and woman becomes sudden separateness. They use the first-person singular for the first time in the narrative as the Lord confronts them: “I heard thy voice in the garden, and I was afraid, because I beheld that I was naked; and I hid myself”[51] explains Adam, speaking only for himself. The man’s comments are even more interesting when we realize that both the man and the woman heard God’s voice, both were afraid, and both of them hid. Though performing the same actions, their unity is ruptured. The woman also uses the first-person singular to answer the Lord’s question: “The serpent beguiled me, and I did eat.”[52]
In view of the ruptured unity with Adam, and having been empowered by newly acquired insight, Eve had already wisely, heroically, and compassionately taken the initiative to approach her companion. Though Eve had been the one deceived, Nibley observes that she also became the first to understand what must be done to prevent a separation from Adam and to secure the future of their family:[53]
After Eve had eaten the fruit and Satan had won his round, the two were now drastically separated, for they were of different natures. But Eve, who in ancient lore is the one who outwits the serpent and trips him up with his own smartness, defeated this trick by a clever argument. First, she asked Adam if he intended to keep all of God’s commandments. Of course he did! All of them? Naturally! And what, pray, was the first and foremost of those commandments? Was it not to multiply and replenish the earth, the universal commandment given to all God’s creatures? And how could they keep that commandment if they were separated? It had undeniable priority over the commandment not to eat the fruit. So Adam could only admit that she was right and go along: “I see that it must be so,” he said, but it was she who made him see it. This is much more than a smart way of winning her point, however. It is the clear declaration that man and woman were put on the earth to stay together and have a family—that is their first obligation and must supersede everything else.
The Symbolism of the Fall in Context
Rockwood gives a beautiful summary of the three episodes of the Fall. At the same time, she demonstrates why the story cannot be fully appreciated when presented as a laundry list of isolated symbols. Instead, the account must be understood as a harmonious whole:[54]
In the first episode, unity and perfection characterize all of the orders of creation. In the second episode, all orders of creation participate in their own fall,[55] which brings separateness and conflict in episode three. Yet the author introduces the story with a statement that celebrates the fall from immortality to mortality and ends it in the same way.
The symmetry of the story is, in fact, one of contrasts. In episode one there is unity and perfection but there is no joy, for they know neither good nor evil. They have no knowledge. Their very innocence leaves them defenseless. In episode two, they gain knowledge, realize they are naked, and attempt to conceal their guilt from God. Their very guilt, however, means they have gained knowledge, the knowledge of good and evil. With [correct] knowledge they can cover their “nakedness,” thus acquiring a defense against evil. The experience is compounded of both bitter and sweet. Episode three presents a final contrast. Because they are mortal, they will now experience pain and hardship. They will be separated from Deity. Yet, paradoxically, they will only now be able to know joy. They are sent away from the Garden, but it is for their own good, for they are imperfect and could no longer live in the presence of perfection. Nor could they gain experience in an environment where their needs are automatically supplied. The Lord provides them with clothing (shields of knowledge) to cover their nakedness (defenselessness). They can now defend themselves against evil. His final response is thus an act of compassion, not punishment.
Reading the entire account as a poetical unit thus resolves many of the individual elements; they are symbols, symmetrically paired to reveal the layers of contrast in the story as a whole.
Conclusions
Latter-day Saints should rightfully honor Eve while also recognizing Satan as the cunning Tempter that he is. Though she was once deceived, Eve’s innate perceptiveness, augmented by her experience, is recognized by a diversity of traditions that associate her with Wisdom itself (Sophia). While briefly successful, Satan’s strategy to destroy the couple’s happiness was no match for the greatness of God’s wisdom and love. Eve’s forthright and intelligent initiative was a decisive blow to the Adversary.
This essay is adapted from Jeffrey M. Bradshaw. Temple Themes in the Book of Moses. 2014 update ed. Salt Lake City, UT: Eborn Publishing, 2014. English: https://archive.org/details/150904TempleThemesInTheBookOfMoses2014UpdatedEditionSReading ; Spanish: http://www.templethemes.net/books/171219-SPA-TempleThemesInTheBookOfMoses.pdf, pp. 137–148.
Notes on Figures
Figure 1. © James C. Christensen, courtesy of The Greenwich Workshop, Inc. www.greenwichworkshop.com, with the assistance of Wendy Wentworth and Scott Usher.
Figure 2. © Brian Kershisnik, #01074.
References
Adams, Vivian McConkie. "’Our glorious mother Eve’." In The Man Adam, edited by Joseph Fielding McConkie and Robert L. Millet, 87-111. Salt Lake City, UT: Bookcraft, 1990.
———. 2010. Our glorious mother Eve. In Deseret Book Audio Talk. https://deseretbook.com/p/our-glorious-mother-eve-vivian-mcconkie-adams-72438. (accessed February 7, 2010).
Alter, Robert, ed. The Five Books of Moses: A Translation with Commentary. New York City, NY: W. W. Norton, 2004.
Andrus, Hyrum L. Doctrinal Commentary on the Pearl of Great Price. Revised ed. Salt Lake City, UT: Deseret Book, 2003.
Aschkenasy, Nehama. Woman at the Window: Biblical Tales of Oppression and Escape. Detroit, MI: Wayne State University Press, 1998.
Bandstra, Barry L. Genesis 1-11: A Handbook on the Hebrew Text. Baylor Handbook on the Hebrew Bible, ed. W. Dennis Tucker, Jr. Waco, TX: Baylor University Press, 2008.
Bradshaw, Jeffrey M. Creation, Fall, and the Story of Adam and Eve. 2014 Updated ed. In God’s Image and Likeness 1. Salt Lake City, UT: Eborn Books, 2014. https://archive.org/download/140123IGIL12014ReadingS.
Campbell, Beverly. "Eve." In Encyclopedia of Mormonism, edited by Daniel H. Ludlow. 4 vols. Vol. 2, 475-76. New York City, NY: Macmillan, 1992. http://www.lib.byu.edu/Macmillan/. (accessed November 26).
———. Eve and the Choice Made in Eden. Salt Lake City, UT: Bookcraft, 2003.
Cannon, George Q. Gospel Truth. 2 vols. Salt Lake City, UT: Deseret Book, 1957-1974.
Cassler, Valerie Hudson. 2010. The Two Trees. In FAIRMormon Conference Presentations 2010. http://www.fairmormon.org/perspectives/fair-conferences/2010-fair-conference/2010-the-two-trees.
Cassuto, Umberto. 1944. A Commentary on the Book of Genesis. Vol. 1: From Adam to Noah. Translated by Israel Abrahams. 1st English ed. Jerusalem: The Magnes Press, The Hebrew University, 1998.
Draper, Richard D., S. Kent Brown, and Michael D. Rhodes. The Pearl of Great Price: A Verse-by-Verse Commentary. Salt Lake City, UT: Deseret Book, 2005.
England, Eugene. "George Laub’s Nauvoo Journal." BYU Studies 18, no. 2 (Winter 1978): 151-78.
Gaskill, Alonzo L. The Savior and the Serpent: Unlocking the Doctrine of the Fall. Salt Lake City, UT: Deseret Book, 2005.
Hamilton, Victor P. The Book of Genesis: Chapters 1-17. Grand Rapids, MI: William B. Eerdmans Publishing, 1990.
Henry, Matthew. 1706-1714. Matthew Henry’s Commentary on the Whole Bible: Complete and Unabridged in One Volume. Peabody, MA: Hendrickson Publishers, 1991.
Holland, Jeffrey R. Christ and the New Covenant: The Messianic Message of the Book of Mormon. Salt Lake City, UT: Deseret Book, 1997.
Hopkin, Shon D. "Women, Eve, and the Mosaic covenant: A Latter-day Saint theological reading." In Seek Ye Words of Wisdom: Studies of the Book of Mormon, Bible, and Temple in Honor of Stephen D. Ricks, edited by Donald W. Parry, Gaye Strathearn and Shon D. Hopkin, 171–98. Orem and Provo, UT: The Interpreter Foundation and Brigham Young University Religious Education.
Irenaeus. ca. 150-200. "Against Heresies." In The Ante-Nicene Fathers (The Writings of the Fathers Down to AD 325), edited by Alexander Roberts and James Donaldson. 10 vols. Vol. 1, 315-567. Buffalo, NY: The Christian Literature Company, 1885. Reprint, Peabody, MA: Hendrickson Publishers, 2004.
Klijn, A. F. J. "2 (Syriac Apocalypse of) Baruch." In The Old Testament Pseudepigrapha, edited by James H. Charlesworth. 2 vols. Vol. 1, 615-52. Garden City, NY: Doubleday and Company, 1983.
Madsen, Truman G. "The Latter-day Saint view of human nature." In On Human Nature: The Jerusalem Center Symposium, edited by Truman G. Madsen, David Noel Freedman and Pam Fox Kuhlken, 95-107. Ann Arbor, MI: Pryor Pettengill Publishers, 2004.
McConkie, Bruce R. "Eve and the Fall." In Woman, 57-68. Salt Lake City, UT: Deseret Book, 1979.
———. A New Witness for the Articles of Faith. Salt Lake City, UT: Deseret Book, 1985.
McConkie, Joseph Fielding, and Craig J. Ostler, eds. Revelations of the Restoration: A Commentary on the Doctrine and Covenants and Other Modern Revelations. Salt Lake City, UT: Deseret Book, 2000.
Nibley, Hugh W. 1980. "Patriarchy and matriarchy." In Old Testament and Related Studies, edited by John W. Welch, Gary P. Gillum and Don E. Norton. The Collected Works of Hugh Nibley 1, 87-113. Salt Lake City, UT: Deseret Book, 1986.
Oaks, Dallin H. "The great plan of happiness." Ensign 23, November 1993, 72-75.
Olson, Camille Fronk. Women of the Old Testament. Salt Lake City, UT: Deseret Book, 2009.
Pagels, Elaine. 1988. Adam, Eve, and the Serpent. New York City, NY: Vintage Books, 1989.
Pratt, Orson. "The Seer." 1853-1854. Reprint, Orem, UT: Grandin Book Company, 1994.
———. 1880. "Discourse delivered in the Tabernacle, Salt Lake City, Sunday Afternoon, 18 July 1880." In Journal of Discourses. 26 vols. Vol. 21, 286-96. Liverpool and London, England: Latter-day Saints Book Depot, 1853-1886. Reprint, Salt Lake City, UT: Bookcraft, 1966.
Roberts, Brigham Henry. 1928. The Truth, the Way, the Life: An Elementary Treatise on Theology, ed. John W. Welch. Provo, UT: BYU Studies, 1994.
Robinson, Stephen E. "The Book of Adam in Judaism and early Christianity." In The Man Adam, edited by Joseph Fielding McConkie and Robert L. Millet, 131-50. Salt Lake City, UT: Bookcraft, 1990.
Rockwood, Jolene Edmunds. "Eve’s role in the creation and the fall from mortality." In Women and the Power Within, edited by Dawn Hall Anderson and Marie Cornwall, 49-62. Salt Lake City, UT: Deseret Book, 1991.
———. "The redemption of Eve." In Sisters in Spirit: Mormon Women in Historical and Cultural Perspective, edited by Maureen Ursenbach Beecher and Lavina Fielding Anderson, 3-36. Urbana, IL: University of Illinois Press, 1992.
Sailhamer, John H. "Genesis." In The Expositor’s Bible Commentary, edited by Frank E. Gaebelein, 1-284. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1990.
Sarna, Nahum M., ed. Genesis. The JPS Torah Commentary, ed. Nahum M. Sarna. Philadelphia, PA: The Jewish Publication Society, 1989.
Servi, Katerina. 1997. Greek Mythology. Translated by Cox and Solman. Athens, Greece: Ekdotike Athenon, 2001.
Skinner, Andrew C. Temple Worship: Twenty Truths That Will Bless Your Life. Salt Lake City, UT: Deseret Book, 2008.
Smith, Joseph, Jr., Andrew F. Ehat, and Lyndon W. Cook. The Words of Joseph Smith: The Contemporary Accounts of the Nauvoo Discourses of the Prophet Joseph, 1980. https://rsc.byu.edu/book/words-joseph-smith. (accessed August 21, 2020).
Sparks, Jack Norman, and Peter E. Gillquist, eds. The Orthodox Study Bible. Nashville, TN: Thomas Nelson, 2008.
Summerhays, James T. 2010. The wisdom and intelligence of Eve. In Meridian Magazine. https://latterdaysaintmag.com/article-1-414/. (accessed January 9, 2010).
Talmage, James E. The Essential James E. Talmage. Salt Lake City, UT: Signature Books, 1997.
———. 1899. The Articles of Faith. 1924 Revised ed. Classics in Mormon Literature. Salt Lake City, UT: Deseret Book, 1984.
———. 1912. The House of the Lord. Salt Lake City, UT: Signature Books, 1998.
———. 1915. Jesus the Christ. Classics in Mormon Literature. Salt Lake City, UT: Deseret Book, 1983.
Talmage, John R. The Talmage Story: Life of James E. Talmage—Educator, Scientist, Apostle. Salt Lake City, UT: Bookcraft, 1972.
Top, Brent L. The Life Before: How Our Premortal Existence Affects Our Mortal Life. Salt Lake City, UT: Deseret Book, 1988.
Tullidge, Edward W. 1877. The Women of Mormondom. New York City, NY: n.p., 1997.
Whitlock, Stephen T. E-mail message to Jeffrey M. Bradshaw, 8 February, 2010.
Whitney, Orson F. 1921. "Saturday Night Thoughts: A Series of Dissertations on Spiritual, Historical and Philosophic Themes (Whitney on Doctrine)." In Cowley and Whitney on Doctrine (Originally published as "Cowley’s Talks on Doctrine" (Ben E. Rich, comp.) and "Saturday Night Thoughts"), edited by Forace Green, 197-517. Salt Lake City, UT: Bookcraft, 1963.
Widtsoe, John A. 1943, 1947, 1951. Evidences and Reconciliations. 3 vols. Single Volume ed. Salt Lake City, UT: Bookcraft, 1960.
Wirthlin, Joseph B. "Without guile." Ensign 18, May 1988, 80-82.
Young, Brigham. 1855. "Consecration (Discourse delivered in the Tabernacle, Great Salt Lake City, 3 June 1855)." In Journal of Discourses. 26 vols. Vol. 2, 298-308. Liverpool and London, England: Latter-day Saints Book Depot, 1853-1886. Reprint, Salt Lake City, UT: Bookcraft, 1966.
———. 1862. "The love of truth and righteousness implanted in the natural man; kindness and firmness in governments (Remarks made by President Brigham Young, Tabernacle, Great Salt Lake City, June 15, 1862)." In Journal of Discourses. 26 vols. Vol. 9, 305-08. Liverpool and London, England: Latter-day Saints Book Depot, 1853-1886. Reprint, Salt Lake City, UT: Bookcraft, 1966.
Endnotes
To this day, Articles of Faith is one of the few books the church recognizes as reflecting Mormon theology. It is interesting to note that this book, at the behest of the First Presidency, was published under the church’s name and not by the author as an individual. The book has undergone numerous editions and remains one of the definitive words on Mormon principles and practices. (cited in the Foreword to J. E. Talmage, House of the Lord (1998), p. vi).
Gaskill’s arguments are sometimes very subtle. It was in my seeking to disentangle the “historical” and the “metaphorical” Eve in various passages he had written, that Gaskill wrote back to make it clear that none of his conclusions, apart from some of his statements made in the first chapter of the book, concerned the “historical” Eve. It should be understood that he has no issue with Adam and Eve existing as historical figures—he just doesn’t think the story in Genesis was designed to teach us about them.
One of the objections I made in my book of Moses commentary about Gaskill’s view of the Fall was based on a mistaken assumption that he was making a distinction between the two Eves in the passage about Satan’s efforts to beguile (J. M. Bradshaw, God’s Image 1, p. 595). This error was corrected in subsequent editions of the book.
To single out those who had “not sinned after the similitude of Adam’s transgression,” however, is to imply that others had done so. Spiritual death has continued to reign “because man overwhelmingly continued to sin in rebellion against God” (ibid., Romans 5:14n., p. 1530). In this sense, as 2 Baruch concludes, “Adam is… not the cause [of unrighteousness], except only for himself, but each of us has become our own Adam” (A. F. J. Klijn, 2 Baruch, 54:19, p. 640).
The degree to which the premortal, mortal, and postmortal phases of the story of Adam and Eve parallel the experience of every one of God’s children raises the question about whether, before taking upon themselves mortality, there would have been an opportunity for these spirits to have disobeyed God’s commandment “after the similitude of Adam’s transgression”—in effect experiencing a kind of personal “fall.” Though the rebellion of Satan and his hosts clearly demonstrates that sin was possible in the premortal life, it is a matter of conjecture whether sin and repentance were part of the general experience of all who lived in the spirit world.
The only scripture that seems to bear directly on this question is D&C 93:38, which reads: “Every spirit of man was innocent in the beginning; and God, having redeemed man from the fall, men become again, in their infant state, innocent before God.” Brent Top interprets the verse as follows: “The key word is ‘again.’ This seems to indicate that men had lost innocence in the premortal world through sin and disobedience, but were once again, through the great plan of Redemption, made innocent before God upon entering mortality ‘in their infant state’” (B. L. Top, Life Before, p. 95; cf. Moses 6:53). Another possibility is that the comma between “again” and “in” was inserted erroneously. Without this comma, the scripture would simply imply that the Redemption of Christ (accomplished through the ordinances) brings men again to an infant state, in other words, innocent before God.
Regarding the question of sin in premortal life, Elder Orson Pratt offered his opinion that:
… among the two-third [of God’s spirit children] who remained [after Satan’s rebellion], it is highly probably that, there were many who were not valiant…, but whose sins were of such a nature that they could be forgiven through faith in the future sufferings of the Only Begotten of the Father, and through their sincere repentance and reformation. We see no impropriety in Jesus offering Himself as an acceptable offering and sacrifice before the Father to atone for the sins of His brethren, committed not only in the second, but also in the first estate (O. Pratt, The Seer, 1:4, p. 54, punctuation standardized, cited in A. C. Skinner, Temple Worship, pp. 51-52).
God frequently gives conflicting commandments. Nephi had to break the commandment not to kill, in order to keep God’s commandment to kill Laban. Human sacrifice was abhorrent, yet Abraham was commanded to kill his own son. Having more than one wife is a sin, unless commanded otherwise (Jacob 2:27-30), etc.
Might we think of these as examples of one commandment superseding another in a particular circumstance, rather than as standing, conflicting commandments, such as is generally posited in the Garden of Eden?
Adam’s conscious choice was to break the commandment to not eat the forbidden fruit in order to keep the commandment to remain with his wife, and to multiply and fill the earth. “I will partake that man might be.” It was a clear choice of superseding one commandment to obey others. I don’t see Eve’s decision as being any different. In order to fulfill the commandment multiply and to be the “mother or all living” the commandment to abstain from the fruit had to be superseded. The conflicting commandments were given to them to provide them with a choice. It was a test, as probably all conflicting commandments are. Adam and Eve chose wisely. They both chose to sacrifice their own personal utopian comfort in the Garden for future generations. It was the best choice. The eternal principle of agency necessitates that God had to set up conditions that required them to make a choice; a choice with a sacrifice to themselves. Adam and Eve made a huge sacrifice to bring us all into mortality. Christ made a more infinite sacrifice to get us back to the Father. “For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive” (1 Corinthians 15:22)
Theodore Brandley, GOOD COMMENT. You hit it squarely on the head. It is similar to our set of choices in which there is a celestial law, a terrestrial law, a telestial law, and a perdition – every kingdom having it own law. Thus there are 4 roads (3 kingdoms of glory, and perdition), and ultimately we can only go down one of them. The only thing I would add is: God’s ingenious plan for Adam and Eve to have to make a choice, involved Adam and Eve learning about Satan. Learning about Satan is very important as the Temple endowment shows.
When a person knows nothing about Satan, that person is in a boxing ring (a fallen world) with an invisible foe (Satan) who keeps punching and punching.
Excellent and thought provoking.
I agree the scriptural record compels the conclusion that Eve was beguiled. If it had been Eve’s wise, informed, and brave intention to obey a higher law by partaking of the forbidden fruit — then, as Elder Tad Callister notes, the occasion of God’s return to require an account of her conduct “would have been an appropriate moment to respond, ‘We knowingly broke the lesser law in order to keep a higher one. We understand there will be some harsh consequences for the moment, but in the eternal scale of things, it will be a blessing, not a curse to us and our posterity.’” (Tad R. Callister, The Infinite Atonement, 37-38.) But as Elder Callister also observes, she said nothing like this. Instead, after pinning blame on the serpent (just as Adam had put blame on her), she admirably admitted her misconduct.
The discussion of the extent to which the serpent’s statements on the inevitability of death and becoming like God were true or false is well done, but I suggest there is a third statement that bears scrutiny: his assurance that there was no other way than for Adam and Eve to partake in disobedience of the diving command.
Elder Tad Callister wrote: “One might ask: ‘But what if Adam and Eve had not transgressed? What if they never had yielded and partaken of the forbidden fruit, regardless of the length of stay in the Garden? Would God’s plan be frustrated?'” Answering his own question, Elder Callister unhesitatingly responds as follows: ‘Of course, the answer is no. God’s work is never frustrated (see D&C 3:3).’ This can fairly be read as stating that there was another way. (Tad R. Callister, The Infinite Atonement, p. 38.)
Elder Callister finds compelling support for his answer in no less an authority than Elder Talmage, whom he quotes as follows: “Elder Talmage responds to the hypothetical questions posed above: ‘If it can be supposed that our first parents had not fallen surely some other means would have been employed to initiate the conditions of mortality on earth.’” Elder Talmage seems to be saying that the transgression of disobedience was not indispensable. “Other means” would have been employed.
Restoration scholar Hugh Nibley seems to have understood the matter in the same way, saying that when the time had come for partaking of the forbidden fruit, it would have been given to Adam and Eve legitimately. (Approaching Zion, edited by Don E. Norton, Deseret Book Co. 1989, p. 92.) What can this mean, except that eating the fruit illegitimately was not the correct way to proceed? And that if Adam had not transgressed, then in time, a legitimate way forward would have been introduced?
Steve Anderson, I enjoyed your comment. You provide the following quote that Elder Callister correctly says, was NOT said by Adam and Eve in the Garden of Eden:
‘We knowingly broke the lesser law in order to keep a higher one. We understand there will be some harsh consequences for the moment, but in the eternal scale of things, it will be a blessing, not a curse to us and our posterity.’”
But the equivalent of the above quote was said by both Adam and Eve in Moses 5: 10, 11 (the verses which I quoted in a previous comment).
I agree that Adam and Eve in the Garden of Eden did NOT have the full knowledge that they later obviously had in Moses 5: 10. 11 (the verses which I quoted in a previous comment). But Eve had a sense of it causing her to partake of the fruit in the same way that we often do when we do the right thing not fully understanding why it was the right thing to do until after we did it it. She was beguiled in that she thought that becoming as God would occur IMMEDIATELY after partaking of the fruit. Eve obviously gained great knowledge after partaking of the fruit because she is able to instruct Adam about the need for him to partake of the fruit. Even then her knowledge that she conveyed to Adam in the Garden of Eden was NOT as great as the knowledge that both Adam and Eve gained in the fallen world – WHICH FULFILLS PART OF THE REASON WHY WE ARE PUT IN A FALLEN WORLD: TO GAIN EXPERIENCE THAT WOULD MAKE US MORE CHRISTLIKE.
One element in your comment disturbed me: your belief that Adam and Eve should have waited until God told them to partake of the fruit. This element disturbs me because it denies that God had chosen Satan’s temptation as the best way to accomplish the Fall. Why was Satan’s temptation the best way to accomplish the Fall?
God could have bound Satan as God will later do after the Lord’s 2nd coming. Why didn’t God bound Satan, that is, why did God allow Satan to tempt Adam and Eve? After all, they didn’t know good and evil, didn’t know who Satan was, and thus couldn’t understand Satan’s evil design. But as Lehi says, there must be opposition in all things such that Satan is allowed to tempt mankind on earth. Why didn’t God warn Adam and Eve about Satan? If Satan’s temptation was not an essential part of the Fall, then it would appear that God was very negligent in NOT warning Adam and Eve about Satan. But God was NOT negligent because God wanted Adam and Eve to learn about Satan.
Part of the temple endowment is about Satan. Although the part about Satan is obviously NOT the most important part of the endowment, neither is that part insignificant. It is very important that we understand how Satan operates. One of the problems in the world today is that part of the world today does NOT know that there is a Satan. Thus, that ignorant part of the world is in a boxing ring (the fallen world) with an invisible foe (Satan), who keeps punching them and punching them and punching them without their knowing where the punches are coming from.
Part of the ingenious plan of the Lord was for Adam and Eve to learn about Satan in the process of choosing the higher law over the lesser law. There was no “better” way for Adam and Eve to fall. If Adam and Eve had waited for God to tell them about the higher law and the lower law, then Adam and Eve would NOT have learned about Satan. But because of God’s ingenious plan, Eve learned what it meant to be beguiled by Satan. This learning was essential for the person who was to be “the mother of all living.”
Thus, Elder Callister – if quoted correctly – is in disagreement with Church President Joseph Fielding Smith, who said that he will thank Mother Eve for her choice when he sees her. Church President Joseph Fielding Smith did NOT say that he wished Eve would have waited until God told her to partake of the fruit. Why? Because if Eve had waited until God told her to partake of the fruit, then she (and Adam) would not have learned invaluable knowledge about Satan.
My thanks to both Theodore and Lanny for engaging. A few additional thoughts.
I have no quarrel with the idea that partaking of the fruit was indispensable. The point I am probing is whether it was necessary to do so in stark disobedience to God’s command. If so, then we must credit Satan, the father of all lies, with telling Eve the truth: there was no other way. And we must charge God with giving conflicting commandments (1. Procreate, which you cannot do without eating the fruit; 2. Do NOT eat the fruit.) I don’t trust Satan that much, and I don’t think God would place Adam and Eve (or us) in such a predicament.
I do realize that my views do not accord with those of Joseph Field Smith. But they do accord with the teachings of Elder Talmage, Hugh Nibley, and Elder Callister. That there is something less than unanimity among leaders of different generations troubles me not at all. I hope my finding more resonance with the latter three than with Elder Smith does not reduce me to heretic in your eyes.
I would also offer a thought on the other of the two supposedly conflicting commandments: Why must we read the command to multiply as being immediately operative? This may not have been a stand-alone matter, required to be promptly fulfilled, but simply an integral part of the sealing ceremony performed for Adam and Eve in the Garden. “[S]ome ancient interpreters have understood Genesis 1:28 not as a commandment to multiply and replenish the earth but rather as a blessing to be able to do so.” (“Paradoxes in Paradise” in Fleeing the Garden: Reading Genesis 2-3, location 210, Kindle edition, Neal A. Maxwell Institute for Religious Scholarship, Brigham Young University (2017).)
Framing the directive to multiply as a blessing (perhaps also an authorization) as well as a commandment may be very significant and helpful to the analysis. When we seal octogenarian converts in the temple, do we consider them to be in disobedience, in violation of covenant, if they fail to multiply and replenish in the here and now? Are younger couples, struggling with infertility after having been placed under covenant in their sealing to multiply and replenish, considered to be in transgression? Maybe it was the same for Adam and Eve – obedience to the command to multiply and replenish was a matter of timing and circumstances. The commandment was perhaps no more time sensitive for them than for our octogenarians. If it was not possible to have children at the time, it would be soon enough. As Elder Bruce R. McConkie noted, multiplying and replenishing the earth was a commandment “they could not then keep, but they soon would be able to do so.” (McConkie, “Christ and the Creation,” 12.) President Eyring has observed that “[o]bedience may mean to move quickly…[o]r it may mean to wait in patience for further inspiration.” (Henry B. Eyring, “His Spirit to Be With You,” Ensign, 5/18)
Although God did not, in the view expressed here, give Adam and Eve inherently conflicting commandments, it is true that Adam eventually found himself in a position where the commandments were indeed brought into conflict. After Eve partook, Adam really was in a Catch-22 situation. If Eve were to be cast out of the Garden, while Adam remained, neither of them could ever multiply and replenish, and the first commandment could never be obeyed. One BYU publication suggests students be taught that “Adam, knowing that he would surely suffer death and the additional effects of mortality if he partook of the fruit, voluntarily accepted the adverse effects of the Fall so he could stay with Eve and thereby make the plan of salvation possible for mankind.” (https://rsc.byu.edu/archived/volume-5-number-1-2004/teaching-fall-adam-and-eve#_ednref12.) In this manner, it becomes possible to speak of the commandments as having become conflicting without making God the author of the conflict.
Perhaps the revelation given through Joseph at the request of Martin Harris is consistent with what the Lord expected of Adam and Eve in the Garden: “Stop, and stand still until I command thee, and I will provide means whereby thou mayest accomplish the thing which I have commanded thee” (Doctrine and Covenants 5:34). If, as suggested here, Adam and Eve were to “stop, and stand still,” obeying the command to avoid the forbidden fruit while awaiting further instructions from God, and if thus waiting in patience for both instructions and posterity was not itself the breaking of the commandment to multiply, then there were no conflicting commandments, and there WAS another way.
Steve,
I also agree that “the scriptural record compels the conclusion that Eve was beguiled.” The question is upon what point was she deceived? I don’t believe that Satan lied when he said, “There is no other way.” They had to eat of the fruit to “know by their own experience the good from the evil,” to become as the Gods. The suggestion that if they had not have eaten it that the Father could have said, “Now it’s OK to eat the fruit,” removes the reasoning for the commandment in the first place. God obviously knew that they would eat the fruit so the “what if” question is strictly hypothetical (D&C 130:7).
Where Satan obviously deceived Eve is when he told her, “Thou shall not surely die,” which was a direct contradiction of what the Father had told them. Eve had to have understood that the penalty for eating of the fruit was that she would be expelled from the Garden and the presence of God, which was spiritual death, for two reasons: First, if she hadn’t known, then the explained penalty would have been meaningless to her and of no deterrent; and second, she explained to Adam what her penalty would be shortly after eating the fruit, apparently not having received any further information about it. What she couldn’t have understood, and was therefore deceived about, was physical death.
When God gave 2 laws to Adam and Eve in the Garden of Eden (a celestial law and a terrestrial law), Adam and Eve had to transgress one of those 2 laws in order to obey the other of those 2 laws. Thus, if we say that Eve sinned by partaking of the fruit, then we are implying that God is terribly unjust for insisting that they obey the 2 laws when such obedience was IMPOSSIBLE. WHY IMPOSSIBLE?
The celestial law was to multiply and replenish the earth, WHICH ADAM AND EVE COULD NOT DO IN THE GARDEN OF EDEN.
The terrestrial law was to NOT eat of the forbidden fruit and thus remain in the terrestrial Garden of Eden. Thus the Lord was merely telling Adam and Eve how they could stay in the Garden of Eden: do NOT eat of the forbidden fruit.
Thus, Adam and Eve broke a terrestrial law in order to obey a celestial law. And that is very analogous to us, for we must – MUST – disobey the terrestrial law and the telestial law in order to obey the celestial law. Obeying the telestial law is essential to going to the telestrial kingdom. Obeying the terrestrial law is essential to going to the terrestrial kingdom. Thus, we must disobey those 2 laws in order to obey the celestial law and obtain the celestial kingdom.
When Satan told Eve, “ye shall be as gods, knowing good and evil.” Eve wanted to become like God (a celestial desire) and was deceived into thinking that godhood would result IMMEDIATELY upon taking the fruit. I agree with one comment that it may have been her motherly instinct which also prompted her to want to become as god.
All – ALL – mortals who go to the celestrial kingdom must disobey the terrestrial law and the telestial law. Thus, Eve’s disobeying a terrestrial law was NOT sin but was a transgression as all of us must do in order to obey the celestial law.
Lanny,
You lost me in several places.
1. Why was the commandment to multiply and replenish the earth a Celestial Law? It is in force today amongst us telestial creatures, and one does not have to keep that commandment to obtain the Celestial Kingdom.
2. The conflicting commandments do not imply that God is unjust. He had pre-ordained the atonement of Jesus Christ to cover it. Also, the fact that Christ did atone for the fall of Adam and Eve, is proof that it was a sin that required atoning for. It would have been unjust if God had just banished them into a telestial world without their making a deliberate and conscious choice to do so.
3. What terrestrial and telestial laws do we have to break in order to enter the Celestial Kingdom?
4. In what dictionary do you find that breaking or violating a commandment is not synonymous with transgressing a commandment? “To transgress a divine law, is sin.” (Webster 1828) it is a distinction without a difference. It sounds like an effort to absolve Adam and Eve from the sin for which Christ atoned.
Theodore,
Here are the answers to your 4 questions:
1. Why was the commandment to multiply and replenish the earth a Celestial Law? It is in force today amongst us telestial creatures, and one does not have to keep that commandment to obtain the Celestial Kingdom.
they are given unto him to multiply and replenish the earth, according to my commandment, and to fulfil the promise which was given by my Father before the foundation of the world, and for their exaltation in the eternal worlds, that they may bear the souls of men; for herein is the work of my Father continued, that he may be glorified. D & C 132: 63
2. The conflicting commandments do not imply that God is unjust. He had pre-ordained the atonement of Jesus Christ to cover it. Also, the fact that Christ did atone for the fall of Adam and Eve, is proof that it was a sin that required atoning for. It would have been unjust if God had just banished them into a telestial world without their making a deliberate and conscious choice to do so.
The atonement of Jesus Christ covered the Fall by providing resurrection for all, and by providing people under the influence of a fallen world to repent and be exalted. There is nothing in the scriptures that suggests the atonement of Jesus Christ was needed for Eve’s choice to partake of the fruit. To point out that Adam and Eve’s transgression was NOT a sin, Church President Joseph Fielding Smith pointed out that Adam and Eve are the only righteous people in the scriptures to be GLAD that they transgressed as shown in Moses 5: 10, 11:
Moses 5: 10, 11:
10 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.
11 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)
Only the wicked (like Laman and Lemuel) delight in sin. Adam and Eve were righteous and would never delight in sin. Thus, their transgression was NOT sin. Also, NOT knowing good and evil before their fall meant that they could NOT commit.
3. What terrestrial and telestial laws do we have to break in order to enter the Celestial Kingdom?
Doctrine and Covenants 88: 22 – 24, 36 – 38:
22 For he who is not able to abide the law of a celestial kingdom cannot abide a celestial glory.
23 And he who cannot abide the law of a terrestrial kingdom cannot abide a terrestrial glory.
24 And he who cannot abide the law of a telestial kingdom cannot abide a telestial glory; therefore he is not meet for a kingdom of glory. Therefore he must abide a kingdom which is not a kingdom of glory.
36 All kingdoms have a law given;
37 And there are many kingdoms; for there is no space in the which there is no kingdom; and there is no kingdom in which there is no space, either a greater or a lesser kingdom.
38 And unto every kingdom is given a law; and unto every law there are certain bounds also and conditions.
(Doctrine and Covenants 88: 22 – 24, 36 – 38)
4. In what dictionary do you find that breaking or violating a commandment is not synonymous with transgressing a commandment? “To transgress a divine law, is sin.” (Webster 1828) it is a distinction without a difference. It sounds like an effort to absolve Adam and Eve from the sin for which Christ atoned.
As the article pointed out, the world’s definition of transgression is the one that you just cited in Webster 1828 and is different from the Gospel definition of transgression. In the Gospel, transgression of a terrestrial law or a telestial law in order to keep a celestial law is NOT a sin – as Church President Joseph Fielding Smith pointed out. Doctrine and Covenants 76 shows the 3 degrees of glory and perdition – the 4 main roads we can take. Ultimately you can take only one of those roads. Refusing to take the terrestrial, the telestial, and the perdition roads is transgressing the laws that take you down those roads, for as Doctrine and Covenants 88: 22 – 24, 36 – 38 (quoted herein) (36 All kingdoms have a law given). every kingdom has its own laws. Adam and Eve had a choice between 2 roads: multiply and replenish the earth, or not eat of the forbidden fruit. They chose the road to obey the higher law of multiplying and replenishing the earth.
In no instance did or does God place people in a situation in which no matter what they choose, they MUST commit a sin, in which their choice cannot be good but must be bad. But you are saying that no matter what choice Adam and Eve made about the forbidden fruit and multiplying and replenishing the earth, they would sin – a situation that God simply does NOT put His children in.
Consider the words of John on the subjet: “Whosoever committeth sin transgresseth also the law: for sin is the transgression of the law.” (1 John 3:4)
Sin, is, “To violate the divine law in any particular; To transgress a divine law, is sin.” (Webster 1828). Eve certainly sinned when she transgressed the command of the Father. The command had been given and the attached penalty was explained to her. It was not a transgression that was evil (unjust or injurious), or had evil intent, so the fact that Eve did not yet know good from evil is irrelevant. The third of the hosts of Heaven had not eaten of the forbidden fruit when they rebelled against God, but it was still a sin for which they had to suffer the penalty of being expelled from the presence of God. Eve and Adam’s transgression was still a sin that required baptism, forgiveness, and the atonement of Jesus Christ. (Moses 6:53). Eve knew the consequence that she would be expelled from the presence of God, which is spiritual death, and from the Garden. It is probably true that she didn’t understand the full consequences of the sin until after she had done it. Probably none of us do. But she made a conscious choice to disobey a commandment of God. She wanted knowledge and realized there was no other way to get it. She probably knew something else that was a major factor in her decision, although I have never heard it mentioned. Adam had named her Chava (life) because she is (would be) the mother of all living. After an unknown period in the Garden, she would have been aware that this was not going to happen unless she ate of the forbidden fruit (2 Nephi 2:22-23). This motherly instinct for which she was named would have been a powerful force in her decision. We should all be eternally grateful for our wise, wonderful and glorious mother Eve.
I believe that Eve was deceived (beguiled) by Satan’s half truth:
“ye shall be as gods, knowing good and evil.”
As has been stated, it is essential to know “good and evil” in order to achieve godhood. There are 2 others who also confirm that this is true: First Presidency counselor George Q. Cannon (“Gospel Truth” 1: 16) and Alma the Younger in Alma 42: 3.
I believe that Eve was deceived by Satan into thinking that if she knew good and evil, she would obtain godhood IMMEDIATELY. As has been stated, she could commit NO sin because she knew NOT good and evil. When Satan told her the half truth, she had a righteous desire to know good and evil and thus become as God. The deceit was in Satan’s implying that she would achieve godhood IMMEDIATELY. Joseph Fielding Smith said that when he sees Eve, he will thank her for her choice. Her choice was based on the righteous desire to know good and evil and thus obtain godhood. After she partook of the fruit, then her understanding increased IMMENSELY, and she was able to instruct Adam.
There is a tendency to give more praise to Adam than to Eve in their choice to eat the forbidden fruit. This is WRONG. If Eve had followed Adam’s example, then they would still be in the Garden of Eden. Readers might assume that because Adam made a more informed choice in eating the forbidden fruit, he was the better one. BUT HE MADE THE MORE INFORMED CHOICE BECAUSE EVE TAUGHT HIM, BECAUSE EVE TAUGHT HIM, BECAUSE EVE TAUGHT HIM. I repeat, if Eve had followed Adam’s example, then they would still be in the Garden of Eden. Thus, Joseph F. Smith in D & C 138 is gloriously right when he refers to “our glorious Mother Eve.”
Also God the Father gave 2 laws to Adam and Eve in the Garden of Eden: a celestial law and a terrestrial law:
The celestial law was to multiply and replenish the earth.
The terrestrial law was to NOT eat of the forbidden fruit and thus remain in the terrestrial Garden of Eden. Thus the Lord was merely telling Adam and Eve how they could stay in the Garden of Eden: do NOT eat of the forbidden fruit.
Thus, Adam and Eve broke a terrestrial law in order to obey a celestial law. And that is very analogous to us, for we must – MUST – disobey the terrestrial law and the telestial law in order to obey the celestial law. Obeying the telestial law is essential to going to the telestial kingdom. Obeying the terrestrial law is essential to going to the terrestrial kingdom. Thus, we must disobey those 2 laws in order to obey the celestial law and obtain the celestial kingdom.
When Satan told Eve, “ye shall be as gods, knowing good and evil.” Eve wanted to become like God (a celestial desire) and was deceived into thinking that godhood would result IMMEDIATELY upon taking the fruit.
It’s a shame that the rest of the world does NOT understand the Fall and falsely blames Adam and Eve for the world we live in.
Thanks, nice comment!
I am confused. If beguiled means deceived, why didn’t Bible translators just use ‘deceived’.
Great question. Although the King James Bible translators used the word “beguiled,” many current translations do actually use the more modern and easily understandable term “deceived.” And that is exactly the point: “beguiled” and “deceived” are synonyms — they are practically equivalent in meaning. For this reason, any attempt to read more into the Hebrew term and its English equivalents eventually runs into a dead end.
Though we honor both Eve and Adam for their noble and ultimately blameless choices in Eden, the plain sense of scripture, understood in the wider context of the story of the Fall, makes it clear that, as Brigham Young and others have taught, Eve was misled by Satan’s lies and half-truths. It is thus impossible to conclude that Eve had a full understanding of the necessity and consequences of her actions before the Fall.