I was hoping to use this same approach here. I wonder if you could help me understand how you see just what the Book of Mormon says about Eve. Both of you have good points, but bring in outside accounts to support your interpretations. My initial point — admittedly not stated clearly enough — is that when just the Book of Mormon account is analyzed, there are some interesting conclusions.

For example, Manuel, I realize that this precludes your esoteric teachings, and you might argue that without the esoteric teachings the story cannot be understood the way you want. But this is why I would argue that your interpretation forces a contradiction: the Book of Mormon account clearly does not attribute foreknowledge or wisdom. It sounds like you agree with this, as you indicate that some of your conclusions may never have scriptural support. You are certainly entitled to your interpretation, but hopefully you can see why it is hard for me to find such unsupportable interpretations, well, unsupportable. Lehi, Alma, and other writers seem to be completely comfortable with their versions without needing esoteric information. (And the Book of Mormon has no problem hinting or even explicitly stating that esoteric information exists when it wants to.)

I also think you have not clearly sorted out how Eve & Adam acting according to prophetically described plans differs from Judas acting according to prophetically described plans (other than perhaps Judas not being specifically named in the Book of Mormon). While I concur that non-BoM scriptural accounts bring additional information in, it is interesting that Lehi, Alma, and other writers did not see the need to defend Eve the way modern writers seem to need to do.

Blake, I’m intrigued by your comments about the symmetry of obedience/disobedience, your comment got cut off and I’d welcome an expansion. I’d also like to invite you to restrict your analysis to just the Book of Mormon account if you’d care to.

Kent, the cursing certainly suggests that wrong was done, and to me at least suggests that perhaps other outcomes could have been possible. God never comes out and says, “Eve, Adam — strong work. You saw through the awkward charade we all had to go through, and made the right choice to bring My plans about. Good job.” As much as Mormons might speculate that this is actually what was happening, the fact that no such statement is made seems to support exploring other possibilities.

I’m glad you weighed in on this one. What do you make of God cursing Lucifer?

What they did was a transgression — not a sin. That is, they violated God’s request not to eat of the tree of knowledge of good and evil and it is only after they do so that they become free in a morally significant sense, knowing good from evil. 2 Ne. 2:26.

I don’t see Eve being singled out for anything in 2 Ne. 2. D&C 29:36-40 focuses on the temptation of Adam and his having “transgressed the commandment.” Moses 5:11-12 portrays the fall as something that is actually beneficial for the growth of the human family. Adam blesses his transgression: “Blessed be the name of God, for because of my transgression my eyes are opened, and in this life I shall have joy . . .” Moses 5:10 Eve then joins Adam in blessing their act: “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 eternal life which God giveth unto all the obedient.” Moses 5:11

What interests me is that Eve states that the blessings of their transgression are knowledge, seed and eternal life for those who obey; but their transgression is precisely disobedience. I guess that’s opposition in all things – the very thing that damns us (being tempted) is the very thing that saves us (being tempted).

None of these sources treat the transgression as a serious sin but as a necessary choice to be like God by knowing good and evil.

The chapter doesn’t seem to me to

Yes, we have esoteric teachings in the Church. I am sorry you don’t like this term, but this is an undisputable fact. While the teachings of the Temple do support exoteric teachings, there are things received in there that are simply not available outside, not even in the scriptures.

No,no,no. I didn’t ever even slightly implied that our esoteric teachings “contradict” our exoteric teachings. NO! I clearly said they “deepen” them. I have no clue where you get the word “contradict,” but that is not what I tried to communicate. (I think you know)

I was specifically talking about Eve’s portrayal as being “courageous,” as being an “extension” or an interpretation of members from what they have seen in the temple. Therefore, what I was trying to say is that you may never find scriptures to back up these specific types of extensions.

I respect if you don’t want to analyze teachings as being esoteric or exoteric, but I think if you did, it would help you a lot in your studies and research. I believe there is a level of research (especially doctrinal and historical) that demand this contextual distinction in order to trully understand the meanings of

I also don’t want to bring up the temple endowment in detail, but I can think of at least 9 main substantial elements of it that cannot possibly be supported by scriptures in as close detail as you are trying to do with Eve’s character. So, in this same light, I also never said the Book of Mormon or any other account contradicts the temple account. (I think you also know this)

“Any suggestion that “there is no other way” does not come from God.” Well, that is not how I read 2 Ne 2 nor numerous other church teachings, but I respect your opinion. I think I have written enough to make my case on how I base my interpretation.

I read the Gospel of Judas as soon as it was available a few years ago, and I really enjoyed it. Nevertheless, I would hardly be comparing this Gnostic writing about the justification of the acts of Judas that led to the arrest of Jesus as being analogous to the plan of God regarding the fall of Adam and Eve. I really hope you don’t think I can see is them the same way. I don’t even consider the arrest and crucifixion of Jesus the climax of the Atonement anyway (therefore, a divine call for Judas to turn in Jesus is highly dubious to me).

As to esoteric/exoteric knowledge or gnosis: I’m not well-versed in this area, but in general, I reject arguments of secret knowledge. The temple ceremony reinforces what the Church teaches in public, it does not contradict it.

Specifically, while I do not wish to discuss specifics of the endowment ceremony, I do not see anything in it that contradicts the Book of Mormon account interpretation. Rather, it quite forcefully supports the same four conclusions (joint action, beguiled/tricked, same consequences as sin, part of God’s plan) that the Book of Mormon clearly explains. Any suggestion that “there is no other way” does not come from God.

Perhaps a useful analogy is the Gnostic teaching that Judas was secretly but righteously acting out God’s plan by betraying Jesus (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gospel_of_Judas). As I understand it, Mormonism rejects this. The atonement / crucifixion was as essential and as pre-planned as the Fall (or more so), but LDS doctrine does not ascribe wisdom or courage or foreknowledge to Pilate or Judas, though their roles were essential and foretold in detail.

KMC, you raise a useful point: God’s actions deserve closer scrutiny, I will think more about this. I agree with you that unless we think God is somehow play-acting, the cursing of Satan / the serpent must mean something. Last Lemming #8, Satan is not yet as bound as he will eventually be, so cursing still has some meaning it seems to me.

Anonymous, thanks for weighing in. It does seem like Adam & Eve had a number of choices — 2 Ne 2 supports this thinking as well.

Sister B–my apologies for use of “blame.” You can blame me for that . I don’t read the Book of Mormon as ascribing blame and I didn’t intend to either, I was referring the to too-frequent colloquial usage of that term in our common culture. And I agree that the Book of Mormon celebrates the Fall as an overall good thing, as part of God’s plan for us. I find a lot of merit in your argument that “fall of Adam” is misogynist language. It’s actually quite remarkable to me that the Book of Mormon, a book where women get so little mention, is so positive about Eve.

Thank you all again for the comments.

I don’t think that Adam bearing more of the blame is the only possible reading of references to “fall of Adam.”

Could it be that this is an example of old-school misogynist language and assumption that women are either inherently evil or don’t matter? In other words, Adam was previously great then subsequently fell, whereas Eve was either exhibiting the expected evil or we just don’t care that she fell. Adam had more potential energy, to use a physics analogy.

Or maybe Adam is misogynist shorthand for Adam and Eve, kind of like “Mr. & Mrs. John Smith.”

I don’t necessarily think that’s what is going on here with these instances of “fall of Adam” (I defer in all things to the vastly greater wisdom of the FPR folks), but I think it is one possible reading. FWIW, I don’t really think in terms of “blame” because I have a hard time seeing the fall as a bad thing in the first place.

I think Alma’s explanation to Antionah is the opposite of what you wrote. Alma is explaining that indeed it was not possible for Adam to partake of the Tree of Life prior to his partaking of the Tree of KoGaE.

Alma 12:
23 And now behold, I say unto you that if it had been possible for Adam to have apartaken of the fruit of the tree of life at that time, there would have been no death, and the word would have been void, making God a liar, for he said: If thou eat thou shalt surely die.

1. I disagree with number 1. If Lucifer is not needed, then why in heaven would God continue to place his children within Lucifer’s reach? Since it is implied in temple teachings that he has done it in other occasions, you would think God would have learned the lesson by then… I just cannot think like this.

2. This assertion is highly speculative. Nothing wrong since this is a subject that invites for speculation, but truly there is no indication anywhere that this is so. I can neither agree nor disagree for this assertion appears to me as completely out of the blue.

3. I have heard and read this view of Adam and Eve breaking a commandment of God not being sin but simply a transgression being passed around in Church. I do not know where it originated. I respect the view, but I don’t believe in it. I think it is wrong.

I also disagree that Adam and Eve’s partaking of the fruit is analogous to putting a hand on a hot stove, where there is absolutely no intention to disobey but a simple and unfortunate mistake with natural consequences. I also think this is wrong.

I agree with you that a savior was not needed to overcome an “Original Sin.” Nevertheless, I find it that this idea (sinless Adam) has gone way too far on the other side of the spectrum by obliterating the notion of there being any sin in Adam’s fall.

Additionally, I do think that the Savior was needed for both, to atone for the sins of Adam and Eve and their posterity and to overcome spiritual death through the remission of sins, and also, to overcome physical death through the resurrection.

Your view that there is no culpability seems a bit radical to me, since we learn in very specific terms in the temple that they both knew prior to partaking, that they were breaking a commandment of God, and they also knew of at least one negative consequence: being cast out of the garden, thus being separated if Adam didn’t partake. I don’t mean this in a negative tone, I simply have my way of interpreting teachings.

I understand your aversion with a Calvinistic view of a dualistic God (but I invite you not to “despise it” rather analyze it objectively). I think this is the part which is the most difficult to convey with language. It is not that God had a secret will that opposed his public will.

How to convey with words to you how I understand this aspect of the fall seems out of my textual ability. What I can say in a limited and apologetic manner is that within His immense wisdom He understands the things that need to transpire in order for Adam to become like Him. Here is where I see the need for God’s antithesis to be an active participant, because of your very argument: God will not contradict himself. It is then Satan who lured the man and the woman to disobey God. I think this is why it is so hard to understand, because as humans, we seem to accept with words that for us to progress and become like God, being agents to ourselves discerning between good and evil, that there needs to be an opposition in all things (including God), yet in reality, we do not seem to be able to comprehend how it is that very principle, the opposition, the existence and need of an antithesis, that allows us to become like Him. Therefore we do not embrace the idea in its totallity, we would have the path to become as God is, without the need for this opposition, this antithesis, this Lucifer.

But at least now I understand why I don’t understand you. We simply have opposite understandings of the fall, and I respect that.

Sometimes while reading Alma 12 starting at verse 21 I tend to think of God’s commandment as “You can partake of the tree of knowledge and good evil and you can partake of the tree of life, but you cannot partake of both.”

Does that make sense? If you take eat from the tree of KoGaE you will surely die (can’t eat of ToL). If you continue to eat of ToL, you cannot eat of tree of KoGaE. This would frame AnE’s choice not as sinning, but choosing one of the paths provided by God. The sin comes into play when they follow Satan’s will. That is a separate issue from partaking of the fruit.

Partaking of the fruit brought death into the world. Doing so by following Satan’s command made them subject to his will (as in D&C 29:40). I also might be persuaded that the first act (eating the fruit) has an affect on all posterity. The second act (submitting to Satan’s will) has no affect on AnE’s posterity, but we each suffer the same consequences as we submit to Satan’s will in our lives.

Anyway, those are half baked ideas, not sure if it adds to the conversation, but thought I’d throw it out there.

Moses 4

21 And I will put enmity between thee and the woman, between thy seed and her seed; and he shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heel.

The typical loose interpretation of the above:

Enmity between the seed of the Eve and the seed of Lucifer, means that there needed to be restrictions on Lucifer that the fallen spirits may not be able to inhabit the bodies/vessels that would be intended for the children of Adam and Eve.

He shall bruise thy head, would mean the power of man to outsmart Lucifer.

Thou shall bruise his heel, the power of Lucifer to continue to attempt to make man stumble and fall.

All three concepts necessary for us to be able to dwell in a probatory state where Lucifer has the power to tempt us, we have the power to overcome him, and the bodies born to man would be off limits to the fallen (demonic) spirits.