What is 'naked'?

[Seminarysnoozer]

Genesis 1:7 "And the eyes of them both were opened, and they knew that they were naked; and they sewed fig leaves together, and made themselves aprons."

Why did Adam and Eve cover their bodies after the fall? The pat answer you would get in Sunday School is 'because they suddenly realized right from wrong.' But even then, they are husband and wife, is it wrong to be naked in front of your husband?

Then people say, 'it was because they were ashamed of the choice they made to eat the fruit.' Well, if they were shamed by that, wouldn't they cover their face? That is the typical thing people cover when they feel shame, if they are going to cover anything at all.

And people say, 'well, before they were naked but didn't really realize what naked was.' But again, if they really ate of the fruit then they would know that it is not wrong to be naked in front of your spouse, therefore nothing needs to be covered. Or was it their futile attempt to avoid making babies, by covering themselves up, until they discussed their act with God? Maybe Adam couldn't concentrate so insisted on covering? Or maybe this whole "naked" thing is just a metaphor and they weren't actually naked.

My thought is that their bodies appearance changed. Maybe they didn't have the parts necessary to make babies and so their physical appearance suddenly was shameful. I don't know, just has always seemed odd to me that they would suddenly feel naked in front of their spouse, which is not wrong (hope its not).

The other associated part of this is that it's hard to understand how they were naked before and that didn't bother them. Does that mean in the spirit pre-earthly life we were all naked? Since they were around God who has a body, I would think they would already know what naked and clothed is. They walked with God, talked with God in the garden, didn't they? They probably had to avoid tripping on his flowing robes a few times. So maybe the naked thing really is a metaphor?

[cleanvisit]

I think it is the literal interpretation here, they did not know "naked" and therefore they had no clothes.

[Gwen]

most toddlers like to have some naked time... there is no embarrassment or shame with it. they don't "know" they are naked (though they do tend to prefer life that way lol). i tend to think of it like that (a naked toddler could care less if everyone else in the room is naked or not).... as for covering themselves... as i understand it they covered themselves so that others would not see their nakedness not each other.... they did walk and talk with god, they didn't want him to see them .... kids go through a phase of not wanting to be seen naked as well, usually a few yrs after they start school 6-8 yrs. my kids go from running around naked to hiding in the closet to change to ensure no one sees them. i think as literal as it may be it's also a sign of growth, maturity, and self awareness. which is what the "tree of knowledge" was. a change that allowed them to grow from a child like innocence to become self aware and mature within their physical bodies.

my 2 cents anyway.

[Misshalfway]

Well, wasn't it Satan who told them they were naked and to cover up? It was Satan who taught them to hide and be ashamed after their disobedience.

Feeling "naked" and wanting to cover ones body is NOT about right vs. wrong. It's about innocence vs. knowledge and awareness. As children grow they become aware of their nakedness and desire coverings. It's a natural inclination towards self protection and modesty.

[cleanvisit]

Or, are we supposed to return to our days of innocence and become like little children again?

[Just_A_Guy]

Based on (my recollection of) the sources we have, it would appear that Adam and Eve were ashamed to be seen by God, not necessarily by each other.

[Seminarysnoozer]

Based on (my recollection of) the sources we have, it would appear that Adam and Eve were ashamed to be seen by God, not necessarily by each other.

Yes, that is another interesting thing about the story that makes it hard to follow because the Lord asked Adam why he hid himself and he said that he hid himself because he was naked. Well, I thought he just made an apron, so he wasn't 'naked' anymore and yet he still hid himself. This, to me, suggests that there is something more to 'naked' than just not having clothes.

[Just_A_Guy]

Well (to speculate on vaguely-recounted events that occurred at least six millennia ago), making an apron may have seemed like a good idea until Adam realized that he would have to explain to God why he'd bothered making an apron in the first place.

[Misshalfway]

Or, are we supposed to return to our days of innocence and become like little children again?

No. They Lord did not tell us to become like little children because of innocence. We can't become innocent again, nor should we feel like the state of innocence is better than a state of knowing. No one can be saved in ignorance as the saying goes. The fall was a necessary step in the plan of Heavenly Father. Becoming as a little child, as I understand it, is more about trusting our heavenly parents and their will for our lives.

[Seminarysnoozer]

Well (to speculate on vaguely-recounted events that occurred at least six millennia ago), making an apron may have seemed like a good idea until Adam realized that he would have to explain to God why he'd bothered making an apron in the first place.

Well, you have a good memory then, That's why I'm saying I think 'naked' is a metaphor for being fully aware of the magnitude of the sin, there is no way to rationalize around it. When God asked why were you hiding to Adam, his answer was, in other words, was because "I became fully aware of what I did." = "I was naked"

I don't think Adam would lie directly to God. He wasn't naked in the sense of not having any clothes on, he had the apron on before he hid, if you take the story as one event followed by another. At that point, I think the apron wasn't just an idea, I think he already made one and put it on, and then hid. They heard His voice and then hid. But, I guess, the stories events could have transpired in a different order than that listed in Genesis.

[Just_A_Guy]

That's why I'm saying I think 'naked' is a metaphor for being fully aware of the magnitude of the sin, there is no way to rationalize around it. When God asked why were you hiding to Adam, his answer was, in other words, was because "I became fully aware of what I did." = "I was naked"

But what "sin" did Adam become aware of? He knew, from the get-go, that taking the fruit meant being cast out. Paul is very clear on this--Adam was not deceived. The temple portrayal would seem to support Paul here.

I don't think Adam would lie directly to God. He wasn't naked in the sense of not having any clothes on, he had the apron on before he hid, if you take the story as one event followed by another. At that point, I think the apron wasn't just an idea, I think he already made one and put it on, and then hid. They heard His voice and then hid. But, I guess, the stories events could have transpired in a different order than that listed in Genesis.

Well, the temple portrayal doesn't quite match up with the scriptural account on that score. It's hard to have a really in-depth discussion about this, both because we're all so leery about saying things we shouldn't and because it's hard to be sure how much of the temple ceremony is symbolic versus literal (and, if it's symbolic, exactly what it is symbolic of).

It seems to me, though, that we have too many teachings of LDS leaders to write the references to nakedness off as being wholly symbolic.

Edited October 27, 2009 by Just_A_Guy

[Seminarysnoozer]

But what "sin" did Adam become aware of? He knew, from the get-go, that taking the fruit meant being cast out. Paul is very clear on this--Adam was not deceived. The temple portrayal would seem to support Paul here.

Well, the temple portrayal doesn't quite match up with the scriptural account on that score. It's hard to have a really in-depth discussion about this, both because we're all so leery about saying things we shouldn't and because it's hard to be sure how much of the temple ceremony is symbolic versus literal (and, if it's symbolic, exactly what it is symbolic of).

It seems to me, though, that we have too many teachings of LDS leaders to write the references to nakedness off as being wholly symbolic.

I don't really want this to turn into a discussion of whether Adam sinned or not, I misspoke, I shouldn't have used the word "sin" ... even though I said "the sin" I should have said "the fall".... anyways, the point is that Adam and Eve had shame, not just sorrow. I agree that Adam was aware of the consequences of the fall, which makes me wonder even more about feeling shameful over nakedness. So, the shame was a false sense? I guess I have a hard time with them eating the fruit to be opened to the meaning of right and wrong and yet they ended up with a sense of false shame. It makes it seem they were more enlightened before they ate the fruit .... well, I guess that is it, by eating the fruit they suddenly lost awareness. Maybe eating the fruit was a dumbing down process not an enlightening process, like pulling the veil over. Sure, it gives the potential for more enlightenment, down the road, but at that moment, immediately after eating the fruit they were probably more confused.

So, I think I am arriving at the conclusion that being naked in front of your spouse was not shameful, that was a false sense of shame caused by the fall making them suddenly unaware of what was right versus wrong. Right versus wrong is something they would have to learn over time. I guess I had the impression that as soon as they ate the fruit is was suddenly enlightening when in reality it was an event that made them more unsure about right and wrong.