a thought

[askandanswer]

Those who believe that women are somehow the lesser or the weaker sex because they first succumbed to temptation would do well to keep in mind that she was tempted by a male.

 

(Pearl of Great Price | Moses 4:4 - 6)

And he became Satan, yea, even the devil, the father of all lies, to deceive and to blind men, and to lead them captive at his will, even as many as would not hearken unto my voice.

5  And now the serpent was more subtle than any beast of the field which I, the Lord God, had made.

6  And Satan put it into the heart of the serpent, (for he had drawn away many after him,) and he sought also to beguile Eve, for he knew not the mind of God, wherefore he sought to destroy the world.

[Jane_Doe]

Also, Adam is right there with her:

6 And when the woman saw that the tree was good for ^afood, and that it was ^bpleasant to the eyes, and a tree ^cto be desired to make one wise, she took of the ^dfruit thereof, and did ^eeat, and gave also unto her husband with her; and he did ^feat.

[NeuroTypical]

"Those who believe that women are somehow the lesser or the weaker sex because they first succumbed to temptation"

Huh - I haven't heard that notion expressed by anyone in like a decade.  Not in LDS circles anyway.  Is there anyone here who believes otherwise?

[unixknight]

6 minutes ago, NeuroTypical said:

"Those who believe that women are somehow the lesser or the weaker sex because they first succumbed to temptation"

Huh - I haven't heard that notion expressed by anyone in like a decade.  Not in LDS circles anyway.  Is there anyone here who believes otherwise?

I've never heard that idea expressed by anyone whose opinion carried any weight with me.  Mostly that's something Christians in general get accused of believing by people hostile to us.

[Guest MormonGator]

8 minutes ago, NeuroTypical said:

"Those who believe that women are somehow the lesser or the weaker sex because they first succumbed to temptation"

 

 Tragically that was the belief in many religious circles-fourty years ago. While I don't think it can be "swept under the rug" and we as Christians do have to admit that that line of thinking was wrong, it's been changing for almost four decades now. 

[NeuroTypical]

Now, I was raised by someone who did believe women were inferior.  He was a WWII vet born during the great depression.  He was very much a dyed-in-the-wool male chauvinist pig.  I mean, he embraced the title.  He owned a "repeal the 26th amendment" button (that amendment granted women the right to vote).  He came home from WWII and saw women in the workplace, and stayed ticked off for the rest of his life.

He was also totally agnostic.  Never had any use for any sort of religion or belief in God.    

I think the notion askandanswer is addressing was a culturally-held belief (at least in the US).  The whole "and the bible proves it" stuff was just a way for Christian adherents of this belief to justify it.  

 

(In case it isn't obvious, his attitude here didn't get passed on to me very well.)

Edited September 12, 2016 by NeuroTypical

[Jane_Doe]

43 minutes ago, NeuroTypical said:

Huh - I haven't heard that notion expressed by anyone in like a decade.  Not in LDS circles anyway.  Is there anyone here who believes otherwise?

It's not an LDS notion.  It is a notion historically held by many non-LDS Christians, and taught across the pulpit for centuries.  

[Guest MormonGator]

17 minutes ago, Jane_Doe said:

It's not an LDS notion.  It is a notion historically held by many non-LDS Christians, and taught across the pulpit for centuries.  

And in fairness to @Jane_Doe  and women in general it's easy for a bunch of men (myself included) to say "It's thirty years ago, we've moved on." Women might (with justification) think otherwise. 

[prisonchaplain]

There are still some fundamentalist, and even Evangelical, Christians who believe God created males and females to take on differing prescribed roles.  One of their pet verses is 1 Timothy 2:14: And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression.  This is the same passage in which Paul says women are not to teach and are to be silent in the churches.  The discussions over whether women can have leadership over men, can be clergy, can teach in mix-gendered classes, etc. seem awfully similar to the discussions here about women and the priesthood.  The difference between today and 40 years ago is that past generations assumed women were indeed weaker in physical strength and in detached analysis.  Today, proponents of gender-assigned roles (in family and church) argue that these should be followed because the Bible says so, and it's God's revealed will. They don't try to justify this with arguments over who's stronger or weaker, anymore.  The vast majority of us have looked to these occasional verses and passages and compared them to the larger context of the Bible and Jesus' ministry, and figured that Paul was dealing with a specific difficulty in that congregation, and was not issuing a timeless prohibition.
 

[Just_A_Guy]

One thing that has occurred to me in the temple endowment, as I watch the dramatized version of the temptation and the Fall play out, is:  Where was Adam while Lucifer was tempting Eve?  In Genesis 2:24 they have been told to cleave to one another; but just a couple verses later there's Eve, all by her loneseome.  The LDS temple drama adds a component by which one is given to understand that Adam was fully aware that Lucifer/the serpent was there in the garden, trying to entice humankind to partake of the fruit--but instead of finding Eve, warning her, and remaining as a source of strength; he is nowhere to be found when Eve's moment of crisis arrives.

I tend to take Paul at face value when he says Eve was deceived.  But I don't think women are denied the priesthood as some sort of punishment for Eve's weakness.  Rather, I suspect that it is men--who by nature are prone to wander far from hearth and home--who are burdened with the priesthood as a specific reminder of their responsibilities to be a source of companionship and strength, at least partially in memory of and some kind of atonement for Adam's failure to be a proper "help meet" for Eve when her critical moment came.

Edited September 12, 2016 by Just_A_Guy

[zil]

18 minutes ago, Just_A_Guy said:

One thing that has occurred to me in the temple endowment, as I watch the dramatized version of the temptation and the Fall play out, is:  Where was Adam while Lucifer was tempting Eve?  In Genesis 2:24 they have been told to cleave to one another; but just a couple verses later there's Eve, all by her loneseome.  The LDS temple drama adds a component by which one is given to understand that Adam was fully aware that Lucifer/the serpent was there in the garden, trying to entice humankind to partake of the fruit--but instead of finding Eve, warning her, and remaining as a source of strength; he is nowhere to be found when Eve's moment of crisis arrives.

I tend to take Paul at face value when he says Eve was deceived.  But I don't think women are denied the priesthood as some sort of punishment for Eve's weakness.  Rather, I suspect that it is men--who by nature are prone to wander far from hearth and home--who are burdened with the priesthood as a specific reminder of their responsibilities to be a source of companionship and strength, at least partially in memory of and some kind of atonement for Adam's failure to be a proper "help meet" for Eve when her critical moment came.

Please note that Eve also did not go seeking for Adam before making her decision so that they could discuss the matter*.  IMO, this was a failing on both sides and one of the lessons to be learned - counsel together.

*Of course now, thanks to your post, I have a picture in my head of Eve standing there with fists on her hips muttering, "Now where did that boy get off to?!"

[Sunday21]

1 hour ago, NeuroTypical said:

Now, I was raised by someone who did believe women were inferior.  He was a WWII vet born during the great depression.  He was very much a dyed-in-the-wool male chauvinist pig.  I mean, he embraced the title.  He owned a "repeal the 26th amendment" button (that amendment granted women the right to vote).  He came home from WWII and saw women in the workplace, and stayed ticked off for the rest of his life.

He was also totally agnostic.  Never had any use for any sort of religion or belief in God.    

I think the notion askandanswer is addressing was a culturally-held belief (at least in the US).  The whole "and the bible proves it" stuff was just a way for Christian adherents of this belief to justify it.  

 

(In case it isn't obvious, his attitude here didn't get passed on to me very well.)

I think our fathers must have been related! Mine was just like this! I had his work done but I don't expect to see him in the Celestial Kingdom. The idea of being sealed to him does not appeal! As an obedient lds, I'll do it but I won't be smiling!

Edited September 12, 2016 by Sunday21

[Sunday21]

I was under the impression that Eve was a heroine. She weighted the pros and cons and decided that it was her duty to the human race and to G-d to leave the garden of Eden, procreate, and suffer a less comfortable life for the good of all living. Is it hat not what we believe?

[zil]

7 minutes ago, Sunday21 said:

I was under the impression that Eve was a heroine. She weighted the pros and cons and decided that it was her duty to the human race and to G-d to leave the garden of Eden, procreate, and suffer a less comfortable life for the good of all living. Is it hat not what we believe?

Indeed.  That doesn't alter the possibility that it would have been better for her and Adam to counsel together on this matter.

[Traveler]

 

It is my belief that it was necessary that man fall and that Adam and Eve symbolically represent the fall of all mankind.  But also that Satan knew the plan of G-d and very carefully created a problem by taking the decision away from the man and the woman baking the decision together but by driving a wedge between the two and forcing a decision separately and not together.  This division has caused this discussion that one is more responsible than the other and creates some distrust between some in realizing the importance of working together in marriage.

 

The Traveler

[Just_A_Guy]

33 minutes ago, zil said:

Please note that Eve also did not go seeking for Adam before making her decision so that they could discuss the matter*.  IMO, this was a failing on both sides and one of the lessons to be learned - counsel together.

*Of course now, thanks to your post, I have a picture in my head of Eve standing there with fists on her hips muttering, "Now where did that boy get off to?!"

Agreed; and it offers another interpretation of Adam's words in Genesis 3:12.  Rather than a weaselly attempt at blame-shifting, it might just be a straightforward explanation:  "You told me to stay with her, but she has to leave; so I decided to ensure that I'd have to go with her."

23 minutes ago, Sunday21 said:

I was under the impression that Eve was a heroine. She weighted the pros and cons and decided that it was her duty to the human race and to G-d to leave the garden of Eden, procreate, and suffer a less comfortable life for the good of all living. Is it hat not what we believe?

Some folks have taken Moses 5:11 as post hoc evidence suggesting that Eve knew all along the full ramifications of the decision she was making.  I think the suggestion has even been made by some GAs.  But to me Eve's own explanation of having been "beguiled" (Gen 3:13), and Paul's observation in 1 Tim 2:14--in conjunction with the temple drama--suggest otherwise.  Lucifer told her part of the truth, but not all of it; and thus Eve's choice was not fully informed.  I rather think Lucifer hoped to win Adam's and Eve's allegiance by presenting himself as the "light bringer", and turn them against the Father by suggesting that Elohim was furtively trying to hoard divine knowledge for Himself at Adam and Eve's expense and--to coin a modern praise--punishing them "just for asking questions".  Eve's acknowledgement in Moses 5:11 indicates that she understood the need not just for taking the fruit, but for her expulsion from the garden Thus, Satan's plan had backfired and left Adam and Eve more devoted to the Father than ever.

Edited September 12, 2016 by Just_A_Guy

[Sunday21]

4 minutes ago, Just_A_Guy said:

Agreed; and it offers another interpretation of Adam's words in Genesis 3:12.  Rather than a weaselly attempt at blame-shifting, it might just be a straightforward explanation:  "You told me to stay with her, but she has to leave; so I decided to ensure that I'd have to go with her."

Some folks have taken Moses 5:11 as post hoc evidence suggesting that Eve knew all along the full ramifications of the decision she was making.  I think the suggestion has even been made by some GAs.  But to me Eve's own explanation of having been "beguiled" (Gen 3:13), and Paul's observation in 1 Tim 2:14--in conjunction with the temple drama--suggest otherwise.  Lucifer told her part of the truth, but not all of it; and her choice was not fully informed.

Yes -beguiled. I get your point.

[Traveler]

Is it possible that the fall as recorded in scripture is symbolic not of a choice unique to Adam and Eve but a choice for all that exercised agency to be born and experience mortal probation made?  I have wondered my whole life how some could believe G-d is a just G-d that requires endless generations to be responsible (fallen creatures) based solely on choices that they had no part of.  I have ask this question many times of other Christian denominations and find their answers contrary to the claim that G-d is both good and just – leaving me thinking that they either do not understand the depth of the question or honestly do not consider the answer.  

It is the justice in the LDS doctrine of the fall as a pre-existence choice (among some other basic doctrines) that has convinced me that traditional Christianity is inwardly conflicted and fundamentally apostate.  Our mortal condition and inevitable death is not the fault of Adam and Eve for which we are punished for and pay for, without a choice.

 

The Traveler

 

[Just_A_Guy]

1 hour ago, Traveler said:

Is it possible that the fall as recorded in scripture is symbolic not of a choice unique to Adam and Eve but a choice for all that exercised agency to be born and experience mortal probation made?  I have wondered my whole life how some could believe G-d is a just G-d that requires endless generations to be responsible (fallen creatures) based solely on choices that they had no part of.  I have ask this question many times of other Christian denominations and find their answers contrary to the claim that G-d is both good and just – leaving me thinking that they either do not understand the depth of the question or honestly do not consider the answer.  

It is the justice in the LDS doctrine of the fall as a pre-existence choice (among some other basic doctrines) that has convinced me that traditional Christianity is inwardly conflicted and fundamentally apostate.  Our mortal condition and inevitable death is not the fault of Adam and Eve for which we are punished for and pay for, without a choice.

 

The Traveler

 

To your original question, I would say yes . . . partly.  LDS teaching seems pretty clear that each of us, in the pre-mortal life, chose to undergo a mortal experience in a "fallen" condition.

On the other hand, LDS teaching seems equally clear that Adam was a real person, and that he and Eve jointly made some sort of decision that was a proximate cause for the fallen state in which humanity currently finds itself.  The precise nature of that decision, and the degree to which our Fall narrative is literal or metaphorical, is an area where my own position continues to evolve.

[prisonchaplain]

16 hours ago, Sunday21 said:

I was under the impression that Eve was a heroine. She weighted the pros and cons and decided that it was her duty to the human race and to G-d to leave the garden of Eden, procreate, and suffer a less comfortable life for the good of all living. Is it hat not what we believe?

Outsider question time.  If I have understood explanations given to me here, then Eve WAS a heroine while in the pre-existence, for agreeing to enter mortality, and disobey God, by taking the fruit, so that humanity would have free agency.  Nevertheless, WHILE IN THE GARDEN, she did not remember her choice.  The decision to take the fruit (whether Adam was right with her silently agreeing or not--I believe the former), was sin.  She did disobey God.

Have I got this right?

[NightSG]

19 minutes ago, prisonchaplain said:

Nevertheless, WHILE IN THE GARDEN, she did not remember her choice.

Have you ever known a woman to remember that she freely made a choice when it turned out badly for her?

[Traveler]

46 minutes ago, Just_A_Guy said:

To your original question, I would say yes . . . partly.  LDS teaching seems pretty clear that each of us, in the pre-mortal life, chose to undergo a mortal experience in a "fallen" condition.

On the other hand, LDS teaching seems equally clear that Adam was a real person, and that he and Eve jointly made some sort of decision that was a proximate cause for the fallen state in which humanity currently finds itself.  The precise nature of that decision, and the degree to which our Fall narrative is literal or metaphorical, is an area where my own position continues to evolve.

I am inclined to think that the Eden epoch is symbolic of our pre-existence.  There are several problems with strict logic of classical doctrine.  For example, Eden is considered to be a non-fallen state and part of being in the presents of G-d.  But Satan, that was cast from heaven by Michel (who we LDS know to be Adam) is in Eden – how is that possible?

I do not doubt that the man Adam was the first man to fall from G-d and walk the earth.  But I am inclined to understand the Eden epoch as symbolic and that the characters of Adam and Eve represent the dilemma of man and the paradox of the fruits of knowledge of good and evil that everyone faced in the great plan of salvation.

 

The Traveler

Edited September 13, 2016 by Traveler

[Guest MormonGator]

13 minutes ago, NightSG said:

Have you ever known a woman to remember that she freely made a choice when it turned out badly for her?

 Yes, several. 

[Just_A_Guy]

51 minutes ago, prisonchaplain said:

Outsider question time.  If I have understood explanations given to me here, then Eve WAS a heroine while in the pre-existence, for agreeing to enter mortality, . . .

Yep.  Same as any of us.

Quote

and disobey God, by taking the fruit, so that humanity would have free agency. 

We're into the realm of speculation here.  I would venture to guess that Eve understood that she and Adam would be instrumental in the plan of salvation, by being the ancestors of the entire human race and by initiating the process that would give humankind their agency.  Whether an act of deliberate disobedience was essential to this role is, to me, more of an ambiguous question.  (I've seen LDS authors suggest that had Adam and Eve bided their time, at some point God would have returned to the garden and told them to go ahead and partake of the fruit.)

Quote

Nevertheless, WHILE IN THE GARDEN, she did not remember her choice.  The decision to take the fruit (whether Adam was right with her silently agreeing or not--I believe the former), was sin.  She did disobey God.

Have I got this right?

I agree with this.

[mordorbund]

19 hours ago, askandanswer said:

Those who believe that women are somehow the lesser or the weaker sex because they first succumbed to temptation would do well to keep in mind that she was tempted by a male.

 

 

 

(Pearl of Great Price | Moses 4:4 - 6)

 

And he became Satan, yea, even the devil, the father of all lies, to deceive and to blind men, and to lead them captive at his will, even as many as would not hearken unto my voice.

 

5  And now the serpent was more subtle than any beast of the field which I, the Lord God, had made.

 

6  And Satan put it into the heart of the serpent, (for he had drawn away many after him,) and he sought also to beguile Eve, for he knew not the mind of God, wherefore he sought to destroy the world.

 

Ah but modern revelation has corrected this old sectarian tradition that Satan is a male.

D&C 52:14 - "Satan is a broad in the land" - broads are female. What's more, we even know her name!

Moses 1:12-14:

"Satan came tempting him, saying: Moses, son of man, worship me. And it came to pass that Moses looked upon Satan and said: Who art thou? For behold, I am a son of God, in the similitude of his Only Begotten; and where is thy glory, that I should worship thee? For behold, I could not look upon God, except his gloryshould come upon me, and I were transfigured before him. But I can look upon thee in the natural man. Is it not so, Shirley?"

I've never known a man to be called Shirley that didn't bristle at it.