Abstract:This paper investigates the pragmatic aspect of communication between God and our first parents while in the Garden of Eden—the psychological impact of placing them under contradictory injunctions that result in a situation of “damned if you do and damned if you don’t.” God could not introduce knowledge that, by definition, also involves introducing evil, which is a prerequisite for choice. Instead he issued a paradoxical injunction that placed Adam and Eve in an influence-free decision-making environment with the implied message of “make a decision!” The beguiling influence of Satan provided additional information, a way to escape the paradox. Hence, the paradoxical injunction became an instrument to influence a decision-making process without God having to introduce evil and without having to make an argument in one direction over another.
I’m pleased to add, by the way, that Jared Balmer is a native of my beloved Interlaken area in Switzerland’s beautiful Berner Oberland region. He was already a legend in the Interlaken Branch when I was on my mission there.
A video introduction to this Interpreter article is now available on all of our social media channels, including on YouTube at https://youtube.com/shorts/cM55tCEDUY8.
The Takeaway: Balmer briefly explores the contradictory set of commandments that God presented to Adam and Eve, suggesting that this “paradoxical injunction” forced them to decide but did not influence them in their choice or remove their agency.
An artistic enhancement and colorization of a public domain 19th-century photograph of Green Flake. Probably taken in Salt Lake City, Utah around the 1890s. (Wikimedia Commons public domain image)
My remarks at FAIR and my Meridian article were inspired by, and are heavily dependent upon, Amy Tanner Thiriot, Slavery in Zion: A Documentary and Genealogical Historyof Black Lives and Black Servitude in Utah Territory, 1847-1862 (Salt Lake City: University of Utah Press, 2022) and W. Paul Reeve, Christopher B. Rich Jr., and LaJean Purcell Carruth, This Abominable Slavery: Race, Religion, and the Battle Over Human Bondage in Antebellum Utah (New York City: Oxford University Press, 2024).
Predictably, I’m being denounced by The Usual Suspects as attempting to whitewash Brigham Young. The claim is that I’m denying that Brigham held views that would be considered racist by the standards of the twenty-first century (although I absolutely don’t deny that), as saying that Brigham did not endorse chattel slavery (which is precisely what I do say, because the evidence is clear), and as declaring that Utah’s Act in Relation to Service, which was signed by Governor Young on 4 February 1852, was not a slave code (which it plainly wasn’t).
I see no value in attempting to debate people on this topic who simply regurgitate the old familiar critical talking points that they’ve found online regarding Brigham Young, race, and slavery and who have clearly not read Reeve, Rich, and Carruth, This Abominable Slavery. (One commentator seems not even to realize that the Act for the Relief of Indian Slaves and Prisoners, which became law on 7 March 1852, was entirely distinct from the Act in Relation to Service. He conflates the two. Which is no great sin, of course, unless you plan to pose as one who knows what he’s talking about on this subject.) I stand by my reading of the evidence (much of it newly available) that is so abundantly presented, at considerable length, in This Abominable Slavery. (I also interviewed Paul Reeve for a couple of hours a few weeks back.) Finally, I think it ironically amusing to be accused of being uninformed by people who, I’m quite confident, are unfamiliar with the work on this subject of Thiriot, Reeve, Rich, and Carruth.
Cove Fort Historic Site (Wikimedia Commons public domain photo). The courtyard lawn has since been replaced with a hard clay-like surface.
If you enjoy Mr. Marzulli’s insights, I suggest that you also look into the work of David Icke. But there’s no end to the dramatic revelations that are now opening before you, if you’re only willing to open your eyes. Consider, for example, this small sampling: