My Favorite View of the Garden of Eden Narrative

I love the idea that the garden narrative is an allegorical telling of the pre-existent war in heaven between Jehovah and Lucifer. I know that is a very Mormon reading of it that probably is not consistent with the original purpose of its recording, but I don't mind, since I like the concept of likening all things unto ourselves.

The very short summary:

God's children had to choose between remaining in a state of never-ending stagnation, luxury, and ease (Eden) or leaving God's presence (as couples, not individually) by following Satan into a world of turmoil, strife, hard work, sin . . . and eternal progression.

In this view, the competing commandments were nothing more than the only options: commandments simply because they had to choose one or the other. They weren't commanded to to both; they were commanded to choose one or the other.

I also think it is fascinating and instructive that, in the garden narrative, they had to be tricked into choosing the right one (and that Adam only agreed in the end because he knew that staying with his wife was more important than staying alone with God) - that their "nature" (and prior experiences) leaned toward ease and unchallenging bliss. There is a deep lesson in that part of the narrative.

I love the Garden of Eden story - but only if I take it completely as an allegory / grand creation myth from which I can draw conceptual meaning. I don't believe at all that it is historically accurate.

"I am that I AM." -- "It is what it is."

I know quite a few people who have struggled at some point in their lives with feelings of pressure and guilt from situations that were not within their control.  This pressure and guilt were the result of unrealistic expectations about how their lives "should be" - feeling like they should be able to handle things differently and have lives that were closer to "ideal" in some way.  

I understand such feelings, but, in cases where the cause of the struggle is not chosen or intentional, those feelings must be addressed and understood positively and proactively in order for those people to be healed in a meaningful way. 

If that description fits you to any degree, I hope the following helps somehow:

The first thing I would emphasize is that our 2nd Article of Faith says, in my own translation, that we will not be punished for struggling with things we do not choose - that come to us simply as a result of the Fall of Adam, so to speak.  This means that there is no "guilt" attached by God to the existence of those things in our lives - that they are covered automatically and freely by his grace and the Atonement of Jesus Christ.  That recognition alone can be powerful and emotionally healing.  

I would reframe that concept as a clear recognition that there is absolutely nothing "wrong" with struggling with lots of things - simply because you can't avoid them. Just as the best name for God is "I AM", often the best answer to something is simply, "It is". That recognition won't eliminate anything automatically, even the guilt felt right away, but it is important to recognize unrealistic expectations and learn to know when they are hitting "in the moment".

On a very practical note, my wife started writing a weekly blessing list on her personal blog a few years ago. Despite the struggles in her life, which aren't few for her, that has forced her to look back and "count her blessings" regularly. What she has discovered over the past few years is that knowing she would be writing such a post has made her more aware of the blessings as they happen - which has given her the ability to recall them in the moments of hardest struggle - which has given a degree of perspective she didn't have before she started compiling her blessing lists. She still struggles with some things that are her own "thorns of the flesh", but she is able to break out of those struggles more quickly and even avoid them at times.

However you can do it, counting your many blessings and naming them one-by-one is a good idea.

Nakedness is Not Shameful

I see the story of Adam and Eve, as presented in the temple endowment, as Lucifer positioning himself as the "God of this world" by inserting himself between Adam & Eve and God, "commanding them" and convincing them to hide from God. In other words, Lucifer pointed out their nakedness and then used that nakedness as a wedge to separate them from God. 

Having said that, I don't take it literally, so I don't believe things actually happened as I just described. I'm talking about the meaning taken from the story within the endowment - and I really like that meaning, since it includes shame and guilt over simple nakedness as being introduced by the "father of lies". The idea that nakedness is shameful in and of itself is a horrible lie, in my opinion - and I appreciate a story that attributes that shame to "the devil".

Why Mortal Suffering?: or, We Are Meant to Be the Gods of This Earth

Adam and Eve were told they would be "Lord of all the earth" - and "Adam" and "Eve" are generic terms for "man" and "mother".  Thus . . .

I believe we have been given the power and authority to "be God" on this earth - that our decisions and actions (our allegiances - whom we follow and emulate) determine who is the God of this earth.

So, why does God allow terrible suffering and abuse?

Maybe it's because we aren't willing yet to step up and assume our intended roles - and we allow it to continue and be so pervasive. We like to blame God, but we aren't willing to see ourselves as the God we are blaming. In my own sphere of influence, I am that I am - but it's easier to shift the blame to the great I AM and not tackle what goes on around us in our own kingdom of embryonic gods.

Yes, there must needs be opposition in all things, so suffering is inevitable.  How we deal with it, however, is up to us.  If we know someone is being abused and do nothing to stop it . . . if we know people are starving and do nothing to feed them (or simply over-consume and keep resources from them) . . . if we know women and children are being forced into prostitution and sit back without trying to stop it . . . if we know of evil and don't fight it . . .

We can believe that such things are a result of the Fall and part of the Plan, so, in a way, we can say God is responsible for their existence - but WE, collectively, are responsible for the degree to which these things flourish, and we have examples of peoples who banded together and simply refused to allow them to continue within the spheres of their own influence.  They stepped up and represented God, in a very real way - and they changed the world around them.

My Sunday School Lesson Recap: "What do the sciptures teach us about the Aronement?"

This month, the lesson topic is "The Atonement of Jesus Christ". The topic I chose for this week (and next, assuming it would take at least two weeks) is:

"What do the scriptures teach us about the Atonement of Jesus Christ?"

I wrote four questions on the board: "What?"  "Why?"  "How?"  "Why God?"

I told the students that we might not get to all four questions, especially the last one, and that we probably would have to take at least two weeks to cover everything I wanted to cover.

I started not by opening the scriptures first, but rather by asking the students how they would define the atonement if someone at school asked them what it means. They mentioned the Garden of Gethsemane and Golgotha, and they mentioned "returning to God". We probed a bit further and went into the Bible Dictionary for what it says. We focused on the meaning of bringing two things together as one and talked about what that means - and how oneness in Mormon theology is different than just being with God - that it's being like God enough to be gods in our own right.

I had them open the Topical Guide and look under "Atonement" to see how many scriptures are listed there. They saw that there are no verses or passages listed; instead, there are other topics listed, including "Jesus Christ - Atonement through". We turned to that topic, and they saw that there are about 1 1/2 columns of verses listed there. I asked each of them (10 students total) to take 5 seconds and choose one of those verses to read and discuss. I told them to close their eyes and put their fingers on one if they wanted, since I didn't care at all which ones we read. I waited about 10 seconds and then asked them, one-by-one, which verses they picked. They stayed in the Topical Guide, while I found and read each scripture. (I did that to save time and to allow them to pick a different scripture if someone before them picked the same one they had chosen.) I read the ten scriptures and we talked very briefly about each one. I told them we would talk more next week about the ones that dealt with pain, suffering, affliction, temptation, sickness, infirmities, etc. being covered by the Atonement.

I then asked why an atonement is necessary. They mentioned that we can't get to heaven on our own and a couple of other good but standard answers. I asked them to think even more fundamentally and simply, using the definition we had read as the basis for their answer. One girl said, "Because of the Fall of Adam and Eve" - so I asked what she meant. She said that we are separated from God and need to get back to Him and be like him, which we aren't right now. I agreed and said that being made "at one" can't occur unless we aren't at-one.

I then asked them how we can become at one with God - not how Jesus suffered, but what our responsibility is in the process of atonement. That stumped them at first, but someone mentioned obeying the commandments. I changed that to "doing what we think will make us like God", since not everyone agrees about what the commandments are, and they all agreed with that. Someone then said we need to repent, and we talked about the meaning of repent being, at the core, nothing more than "change". I pointed out that if we are different than God and want to be like God, the ONLY thing that is necessary is to change that difference - and, again, that means our part of the deal simply is to try our best to change in ways that we believe will make us more like God. I told them that I don't really care much about exactly how someone understands the Atonement intellectually; what I care about is how someone strives to be Christ-like in how they act and how they treat other people.

We ended by reading John 17 - the Intercessory Prayer - the entire chapter. I reminded them that this was Jesus' farewell prayer right before the Garden and the Cross. I asked them to keep that in mind as we read the prayer. I highlighted, especially, verse 3 (life eternal is knowing God, the Father, and Jesus, the Christ), verse 5 (which I read as a request by Jesus that he be given back the glory of his status as a God, so he could handle what he knew was coming), verse 10 (that Jesus' glory was in his disciples - a very different definition of glory than many people have concerning God), verse 13 (that full joy is internal and shared), verse 15 (saying, essentially, "I have protected them up to this point, but I won't be around much longer, so take care of them when I'm gone" - which hits my heart every time I read it), verses 21-23 (which I told them I believe is the simplest, most pure description of "at-one-ment" we have in all of our scriptures) and verse 25 (which says, in essence, that the disciples still didn't know the Father like Jesus knew the Father). We went back to verse 3 and read just that verse and verse 25 back-to-back, pointing out that Jesus was praying in a very real way that the disciples would be able to gain "life eternal" in his absence - that AFTER he left them, they could come to know Heavenly Father in a way they couldn't when Jesus still was with them.

Seeing God in the Mirror: Part 2

Somehow, the post I wrote last night got deleted and there was a weird combination of posts and titles when I logged in this morning.  The following is something I wrote nearly three years ago, and it felt right to re-post it this morning in place of what I lost from last night.  I hope it helps someone, somehow:

-------------------------------------
I was struck by something the other day that I have been considering ever since. It is not profound, but the combination of a very common scripture (and then one more) and the effort to understand and become more pure in heart has put something into a little different perspective for me.

The Book of Mormon includes the following statement from Alma, the High Priest, to Korihor, the professed atheist :

"The scriptures are laid before thee, yea, and all things denote there is a God; yea, even the earth, and all things that are upon the face of it, yea, and its motion, yea, and also all the planets which move in their regular form do witness that there is a Supreme Creator." (Alma 30:44)

Alma lays out both a scientific and mathematical argument in this verse - speaking of the complexity of the creation and its intricate, "regular" operation as proof that God exists. In essence, he says:

"This could not be without a God to make it be."

This seems simple to many people - that the creation itself, seen as encompassing all of which we are aware, testifies of a Supreme Creator. They think:

"How is it not self-apparent to all? Why can some people look around - or even study the intricacies of molecular biology and string theory and quantum physics and other astounding modern discoveries - and not see that it simply can't be the result of random mutation from an origin that still is unfathomable to scientists? Why can these people not understand this, even when many of them are very good, moral people? We haven't even scratched the surface of it all, and yet some can't recognize it as a sign of a creator. WHY?"
 

"For the natural man is an enemy to God, and has been from the fall of Adam, and will be, forever and ever, unless he yields to the enticings of the Holy Spirit, and putteth off the natural man and becometh a saint through the atonement of Christ the Lord, and becometh as a child, submissive, meek, humble, patient, full of love, willing to submit to all things which the Lord seeth fit to inflict upon him, even as a child doth submit to his father."

What struck me is that there is an element of "they shall see God" in one's ability to recognize the hand of God in His creations, but that ability is contingent on "yielding to the enticings of the Holy Spirit" - to having a heart purified by that Holy Spirit. What just hit me this instant, and is changing how this post evolves as I type, is that it is relatively easy - with even a small and comparatively weak connection to the Spirit - to see the grandeur of the universal creation and be humbled into a recognition of God in that creation.

It is more difficult to rise above the natural man and see God in His most inspiring creation - His children.

From both a religious and evolutionary perspective, we are the height of creation - but we also carry within us its depth. We are both god and devil in very practical terms, and, while it is easy for nearly everyone to see the fallen man (the chasm that separates us from God), it is very hard for many to recognize the embryonic god-child within that fallen man (the tie that will be bound in heaven). It is easy to see the caterpillar, but it is very difficult to see the butterfly within that caterpillar when it still is a caterpillar.

One of the most amazing things that happens when our hearts are purified by the power of the Holy Ghost is that, to some degree or another, we glimpse the inner butterflies around us while they still are limited by their caterpillar exteriors - and, in glimpsing those butterflies, we suddenly, in a very real and powerful way, begin to see God.

What Does It Mean to Be "Blameless" in How We Walk Before God?

In the previous two New Year's Resolution Posts this month, I wrote about walking (not running or sitting) before God and walking "before God".  In this post, I want to share some thoughts about walking "blamelessly" before God. 

In the context of the usage in Alma 5, "blame" is defined as:

responsibility for anything deserving of censure

"Censure" is defined as:

strong or vehement expression of disapproval

Thus, walking "blamelessly" before God means walking in such a way that God will not strongly or vehemently disapprove. 

Two things struck me as I initially defined the central words and reached the defintion above - one which I have understood for a long time and one that was completely new to me. 

The one I have understood for a long time deals with the nature of the Atonement and my understanding of the difference between "sin" and "transgression".  Essentially, God does not disapprove strongly or vehemently of our best efforts to act according to the dictates of our own consciences.  In fact, I believe our 2nd Article of Faith teaches that we will not be punished for the things we do as a direct result of the Fall - which, in this case, include transgressions of eternal law we commit out of ignorance or as a result of things we simply can't control.  If we do not choose consciously to do things that are contrary to our best understanding of what we believe God wants of us, those actions are paid for through the Atonement of Jesus, the Christ - and I believe the magnitude of those things for which we have been redeemed already is MUCH larger than most people realize. 

The second thing that struck me was not new in theory, as it is something I have believed for a long time, but it was new to me in the context of walking blamelessly before God.  It really is just a re-statement of the first one I just explained, but I think it is important to phrase it the way it came to my mind.  It is:

God does not expect us to walk "perfectly", nor does he expect us to walk without stumbling and falling and getting skinned up in the process.  He simply asks us to avoid those things of which he would disapprove "strongly" or "vehemently".

 

The best example I can give is how I view my own desires for my children.  I expect them to make mistakes in their lives.  In fact, I believe that is the only way they will learn many important lessons in life - by experiencing the opposition that must needs be and failing occasionally (or more than occasionally, if they are like me).  I am not about to react strongly or vehemently to the vast majority of mistakes they make.  However, there are some things they might do to which I would react strongly or vehemently.  Those things are so serious in my eyes that I would go outside my normal principle of teaching correct principles and watching them govern themselves to actively begging them to stop. 

The thing that struck me is that there really are relatively few things that fit that category that I believe are "universally accepted", but, even with my own children, the underlying principle would be things that violate their own consciences.  Thus, the things toward which I would react strongly or vehemently in relation to one child would differ somewhat from the things that would cause the same reaction in relation to another child - assuming I know my children well enough as differing individuals to understand what and how much they understand about the things they believe and the choices they make. 

I can't "blame" them for things they do out of ignorance, and I refuse to "blame" them for things they do with which I disagree simply because I disagree - as long as I believe they are acting in accordance with their own understanding and conscience.  Most importantly, the list of things they might do that would bring my strong and vehement disapproval and cause me to "blame" and "censure" them is much shorter than many people probably think. 

What I gained this week from my contemplation of this concept of walking "blamelessly" before God is that the assignment of blame rests with GOD, not with us - and that, in my opinion, that assignment will be based MUCH more on how well we walk in accordance to the dictates of our own consciences than on the exact steps we take in our walk before God.

Eve Didn't Know What She Was Doing

Many members have taken the stance recently that Eve knew what she was doing when she partook of the forbidden fruit - that her action was noble and enlightened. However, the idea that Eve acted knowing that she was furthering God's plan and doing the right thing isn’t supported in either the text or the temple.

I believe this for three reasons:

1) Her own words state that she was beguiled. ("The serpent beguiled me, and I did eat." - Genesis 3:13) "Beguiled" means "tricked, misled, deluded" - NOT knowledgeable and insightful. She says she was tricked; I believe her - at least, I would if I took the story literally.

2) 2 Nephi 2:18 makes a direct connection from Lucifer's status as "the father of all lies" and what he said to Eve. Thus, his statement to Eve was a lie - and she bought it, acting as she did because she believed a lie.

3) It appears to me that Adam and Eve were kicked out of the Garden less for partaking of the fruit than for doing so at the behest of Lucifer. In other words, they were punished for placing their trust in the devil instead of their God. God knew Lucifer would try to get them to disobey Him, so he set up a scenario that would test them. According to their own account and God's subsequent words and actions, I believe they failed the test.

In fact, I would argue that it isn't clear that Eve actually was "doing the right thing" by partaking. I agree completely that leaving the Garden of Eden ("falling from the presence of God") was a necessary part of the plan (that "Adam fell that man might be"), but there is nothing in the text or the temple that indicates Eve knew what she was doing.

I think the Fall narrative teaches the danger of trying to take shortcuts in becoming like God and introduces a reason for the struggle and temptations of mortality.

Interestingly, there is nothing to indicate whether or not God had an alternate way for them to leave the Garden of Eden if they stood firm and refused to partake of the fruit - if they could have "fallen" and still faced mortal temptation with their progeny without buying Lucifer's lie in the Garden of Eden.

Fundamentally, I don't believe this was a literal event, so that last possibility doesn't bother me at all. I believe it is allegorical and figurative, so the "you will be punished if you reject your God and follow another god" theme rings true for me - especially given the ebb and flow of the OT record. I don't read the narrative as a victory of any kind. I read it as teaching, "If you don't follow my commandments and resist temptation to take shortcuts, you will lose the blessing of my influence. I will provide a way to return, but it will be painful - and you will have to work hard for it to happen."

Frankly, I think Eve ate the fruit in the story because the story was written by men in order to explain the social, political, gender-influenced structure in which they lived. I believe it is an inspired narrative in many ways, and I believe it is an amazingly practical narrative, but I believe it is a figurative narrative just the same. I believe in a literal first man and first woman, but not in the literalness of the Biblical Fall narrative.

Those Whose Mortal Struggles Overwhelm Them

I know someone who has some intense struggles.

He lived with friends for a while after he could no longer live at home, and, during that time, he had a couple of incredibly strong spiritual experiences - after first deciding to listen to the missionaries because both sister missionaries were "absolute babes". (What can I say; he was 18.)       He is highly intelligent, and he "got it" very quickly.  He and I had some long talks, and he really did have some awesome experiences and insights.   He was baptized while living with his friends, then left for college a few months later.

He had some negative experiences in his new ward that don't need to be detailed here.  As a result of those experiences and the subsequent lack of the type of support system he had when he joined the Church, he began to return to the life he had lived prior to coming to that.  His dysfunctional adolescence caused some very deep habits and inclinations, and, left on his own, they resurfaced.  I have prayed for him and hoped for him, but I have seen his actions take him away from activity in the Church.

He returned home once for the summer, and his father mocked his inactivity by saying something like, "I guess that Mormon thing isn't working out for you."  His response gave me hope in the midst of my concern. He said to his father, "I'm not living the way I should be living, but the Mormon Church is still the truest thing I've ever heard. I just have to get myself together before I can live it."

 

I hang onto faith that "when he is old, he will not depart from it". I KNOW his experiences and insights were real; he knows they were real. I have to trust that God's mercy truly will save him from the results of Adam's transgression in his life - and I see the issues that are keeping him from full activity directly as a result of what he inherited from his parents and what he had to "become" to cope without killing himself - and the experiences he had in a non-supportive environment when he first was on his own.

I believe the Atonement is MUCH more powerful than we often realize. Surely, God understands those whose struggles overwhelm them, and we someday will "stand all amazed at the love Jesus offers (them); confused at the grace that so fully he proffers (them)."

More on Disabilities and the Fall

We teach that the Atonement and God's grace that underlies it have the power to save all, regardless of their individual "disabilities". We also teach that all will, at some point in their eternal existence, have the opportunity to be judged on their own individual merit. When we construct speculations that are extrapolated to many from what was given to a few, we necessarily exclude others who struggle with disabilities that are just as real and difficult for them. In effect, like the Oliver Cowdery example of feeling a burning in the bosom or a stupor of thought, we end up setting conditions and expectations that might or might not apply to each individual - and we risk incredible harm in doing so.

Personally, I know of WAY too many investigators who felt the Spirit, believed we had the truth and had a desire to join the Church but waited because they were told by the missionaries that they could feel "an overwhelming burning in their bosom" - and who took the absence of such a burning as a stupor, thus never joining the Church. In very real terms, they were placed into a "disabled" category that never should have been applied - that was flawed in its very composition, since, like me, they simply don't receive answers in that way. I believe they paid a heavy price for being held to an incorrect standard.

Where does it stop? Why do we exclude some and not others? What makes someone with DS or MS or a form or mental retardation or schizophrenia different than someone who is bi-polar or suffers from chronic depression or is deaf, mute and/or dumb (or blind) or any number of other inherited manifestations of the effects of the Fall? What about someone who is raised in extreme bigotry and succumbs to that bigotry through no conscious choice of their own? How do we define what is an individual exercise of agency and what is not - thus defining what is covered by the Atonement and what is not? More importantly, why do we need to make that determination? Why can't we simply accept that Jesus will make that decision for us and treat everyone the same way within the limitations of their own disabilities?

All of us are disabled in one way or another. Why do we need to label some and not others when it comes to spiritual things, separating them from us in a very real way, when all of us are in the same boat from God's perspective? Why do we need to imply that all in one category are better or worse than others in different categories? I simply prefer to say, in all cases, "I don't know; I won't judge."

Emotional & Spiritual Disabilities and The Fall

We are taught that the Atonement saves us from Adam's transgression, but I think too often we fail to see that this must logically include the effects of the Fall - which include the random physical, emotional, intellectual, spiritual, etc. "disabilities" with which we each are born. Some people are born with emotional disabilities that, for them, are just as debilitating as any physical or mental disabilities are for others - but we have never said they were more righteous in the pre-existence. By making a special case of someone else's disability, we are, in effect, denying (not making allowances for) our own - and that is a scary, dangerous path.

In my opinion, we simply need to stop separating people based on biological attributes that are beyond their control (and that we are told are covered by the Atonement) and start seeing and treating them all as equals (because of the power of the Atonement). This means we stop elevating some and not elevating others - that we accept all as fundamentally flawed in some way, but possessing the same eternal potential. That is not a "natural" reaction, and it is not easy, but it's what I believe the Gospel teaches.