<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		xmlns:itunes="http://www.itunes.com/dtds/podcast-1.0.dtd"
	xmlns:media="http://search.yahoo.com/mrss/"
	>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Common Scriptures in Review: Genesis 3:12</title>
	<atom:link href="http://mormonmatters.org/2008/12/02/common-scriptures-in-review-genesis-312/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://mormonmatters.org/2008/12/02/common-scriptures-in-review-genesis-312/</link>
	<description>A weekly podcast exploring Mormon culture and current events.</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Wed, 23 May 2012 11:40:00 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.2</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: The role of parsing in Mormonism &#171; Irresistible (Dis)Grace</title>
		<link>http://mormonmatters.org/2008/12/02/common-scriptures-in-review-genesis-312/#comment-124326</link>
		<dc:creator>The role of parsing in Mormonism &#171; Irresistible (Dis)Grace</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 18 Dec 2009 03:54:34 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://mormonmatters.org/?p=3178#comment-124326</guid>
		<description>[...] faulty inferences, he frees himself from questionable and undesirable viewpoints. You can see more here and here. Others have written about the vagueness that allows this possibly being a gospel [...]</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[...] faulty inferences, he frees himself from questionable and undesirable viewpoints. You can see more here and here. Others have written about the vagueness that allows this possibly being a gospel [...]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: peter</title>
		<link>http://mormonmatters.org/2008/12/02/common-scriptures-in-review-genesis-312/#comment-55654</link>
		<dc:creator>peter</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 30 Jan 2009 10:10:48 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://mormonmatters.org/?p=3178#comment-55654</guid>
		<description>the whole story is unlolgic,adam and eve was both not know what was good or evil when they eat the apple.so it can not be that they was guilty of anythings.
when they was swallow the apple it was allready to late ,even to know they was doing evil or good.
this story is anyway also 1 evidence more thats a lot of things in the bibel not compertible is with logic and untrue,it speaks for it self!</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>the whole story is unlolgic,adam and eve was both not know what was good or evil when they eat the apple.so it can not be that they was guilty of anythings.<br />
when they was swallow the apple it was allready to late ,even to know they was doing evil or good.<br />
this story is anyway also 1 evidence more thats a lot of things in the bibel not compertible is with logic and untrue,it speaks for it self!</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Anon</title>
		<link>http://mormonmatters.org/2008/12/02/common-scriptures-in-review-genesis-312/#comment-50560</link>
		<dc:creator>Anon</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 11 Dec 2008 04:22:44 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://mormonmatters.org/?p=3178#comment-50560</guid>
		<description>ITT a bunch of men rationalize their pride</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>ITT a bunch of men rationalize their pride</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Jeff Spector</title>
		<link>http://mormonmatters.org/2008/12/02/common-scriptures-in-review-genesis-312/#comment-49620</link>
		<dc:creator>Jeff Spector</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 03 Dec 2008 22:21:46 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://mormonmatters.org/?p=3178#comment-49620</guid>
		<description>I tend to agree with Ray on this as well. Just for fun, I went to the Hebrew to see if there was any difference. It is pretty much a word for word translation. And the Masoretic English translation is exactly the same as the KJV.

I always viewed this as a decision between a good choice and a better choice.  We portray Adam and Eve as innocent which some translate as dumb. While Lucifer had a hand in moving things along, Adam and Eve knew what they were doing. God clearly gave them a choice. They made it in favor of mankind.

Satan thought he was thwarting the plan but, in fact, he helped it.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I tend to agree with Ray on this as well. Just for fun, I went to the Hebrew to see if there was any difference. It is pretty much a word for word translation. And the Masoretic English translation is exactly the same as the KJV.</p>
<p>I always viewed this as a decision between a good choice and a better choice.  We portray Adam and Eve as innocent which some translate as dumb. While Lucifer had a hand in moving things along, Adam and Eve knew what they were doing. God clearly gave them a choice. They made it in favor of mankind.</p>
<p>Satan thought he was thwarting the plan but, in fact, he helped it.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Jeff Spector</title>
		<link>http://mormonmatters.org/2008/12/02/common-scriptures-in-review-genesis-312/#comment-49619</link>
		<dc:creator>Jeff Spector</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 03 Dec 2008 22:10:46 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://mormonmatters.org/?p=3178#comment-49619</guid>
		<description>&quot;Well, my TBM parents taught me they were doing the hokey-pokey and got caught. And somehow I turned out all right.&quot;

Depends on if you still believe that..... :) BTW, was it right foot in or right foot out?</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>&#8220;Well, my TBM parents taught me they were doing the hokey-pokey and got caught. And somehow I turned out all right.&#8221;</p>
<p>Depends on if you still believe that&#8230;.. <img src='http://mormonmatters.org/wp-includes/images/smilies/icon_smile.gif' alt=':)' class='wp-smiley' />  BTW, was it right foot in or right foot out?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Ray</title>
		<link>http://mormonmatters.org/2008/12/02/common-scriptures-in-review-genesis-312/#comment-49616</link>
		<dc:creator>Ray</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 03 Dec 2008 21:29:44 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://mormonmatters.org/?p=3178#comment-49616</guid>
		<description>Nice, Hawk.  That&#039;s a solid theological foundation.  *grin*  

wayfarer, since I read it figuratively, I think you are free to teach them whatever you see as the best interpretation.  For example, I would argue with your &quot;Eve knew what she was doing&quot; view if I was parsing strictly (since she says she was &quot;beguiled&quot; [meaning &quot;tricked&quot; or &quot;fooled&quot;]), but I also could blame the male compilers for that wording if I chose to do so - since we believe in translation and transmission errors.  Reading things figuratively kind of leaves it wide open for interpretation, and I like that when dealing with really ancient records.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Nice, Hawk.  That&#8217;s a solid theological foundation.  *grin*  </p>
<p>wayfarer, since I read it figuratively, I think you are free to teach them whatever you see as the best interpretation.  For example, I would argue with your &#8220;Eve knew what she was doing&#8221; view if I was parsing strictly (since she says she was &#8220;beguiled&#8221; [meaning "tricked" or "fooled"]), but I also could blame the male compilers for that wording if I chose to do so &#8211; since we believe in translation and transmission errors.  Reading things figuratively kind of leaves it wide open for interpretation, and I like that when dealing with really ancient records.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Hawkgrrrl</title>
		<link>http://mormonmatters.org/2008/12/02/common-scriptures-in-review-genesis-312/#comment-49595</link>
		<dc:creator>Hawkgrrrl</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 03 Dec 2008 17:32:33 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://mormonmatters.org/?p=3178#comment-49595</guid>
		<description>&quot;Also, guys, what `m I supposed to be teaching my children about the creation and fall these days? Or is that a blogjack?&quot;  Well, my TBM parents taught me they were doing the hokey-pokey and got caught.  And somehow I turned out all right.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>&#8220;Also, guys, what `m I supposed to be teaching my children about the creation and fall these days? Or is that a blogjack?&#8221;  Well, my TBM parents taught me they were doing the hokey-pokey and got caught.  And somehow I turned out all right.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: wayfarer</title>
		<link>http://mormonmatters.org/2008/12/02/common-scriptures-in-review-genesis-312/#comment-49577</link>
		<dc:creator>wayfarer</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 03 Dec 2008 15:16:41 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://mormonmatters.org/?p=3178#comment-49577</guid>
		<description>Thinking out loud. Eve took the fruit having conversed with Satan in the knowledge that the only way to progress was for us to make our own choices in the absence of God.Having partaken she was willing to accept the consequences and be accountable for them.Adam,seeing that he could not fulfill the commandment to be fruitful without Eve also willingly partook,and accepted the consequences.I think the problems arise when we put the two commandments to be fruitful and multiply and not to partake of the tree in opposition.I wonder how we started to do that-traditions of men creeping in there perhaps? 
Also,guys,what `m I supposed to be teaching my children about the creation and fall these days?Or is that a blogjack?</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Thinking out loud. Eve took the fruit having conversed with Satan in the knowledge that the only way to progress was for us to make our own choices in the absence of God.Having partaken she was willing to accept the consequences and be accountable for them.Adam,seeing that he could not fulfill the commandment to be fruitful without Eve also willingly partook,and accepted the consequences.I think the problems arise when we put the two commandments to be fruitful and multiply and not to partake of the tree in opposition.I wonder how we started to do that-traditions of men creeping in there perhaps?<br />
Also,guys,what `m I supposed to be teaching my children about the creation and fall these days?Or is that a blogjack?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Ray</title>
		<link>http://mormonmatters.org/2008/12/02/common-scriptures-in-review-genesis-312/#comment-49453</link>
		<dc:creator>Ray</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 02 Dec 2008 21:18:40 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://mormonmatters.org/?p=3178#comment-49453</guid>
		<description>Missionary Stu, we simply sip different recipes for Kool-Aid, my friend.  I like a little more sugar in mine; you like to use straight lemon juice instead of water.  To each his own.  *grin*  

I literally only have time to type the following before I dash: 

Thanks, everyone.  I&#039;ll try to address individual comments when I get back home.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Missionary Stu, we simply sip different recipes for Kool-Aid, my friend.  I like a little more sugar in mine; you like to use straight lemon juice instead of water.  To each his own.  *grin*  </p>
<p>I literally only have time to type the following before I dash: </p>
<p>Thanks, everyone.  I&#8217;ll try to address individual comments when I get back home.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Missionary Stu</title>
		<link>http://mormonmatters.org/2008/12/02/common-scriptures-in-review-genesis-312/#comment-49450</link>
		<dc:creator>Missionary Stu</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 02 Dec 2008 20:53:09 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://mormonmatters.org/?p=3178#comment-49450</guid>
		<description>&quot;Every religion has added a lot to the Adam &amp; Eve narrative...&quot;

Oh, I didn&#039;t realize this was &quot;Every Religion Matters&quot;. My mistake. In the future, I&#039;ll make sure I don&#039;t bring up the Mormon skew on anything religious.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>&#8220;Every religion has added a lot to the Adam &amp; Eve narrative&#8230;&#8221;</p>
<p>Oh, I didn&#8217;t realize this was &#8220;Every Religion Matters&#8221;. My mistake. In the future, I&#8217;ll make sure I don&#8217;t bring up the Mormon skew on anything religious.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Lorin</title>
		<link>http://mormonmatters.org/2008/12/02/common-scriptures-in-review-genesis-312/#comment-49448</link>
		<dc:creator>Lorin</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 02 Dec 2008 20:45:32 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://mormonmatters.org/?p=3178#comment-49448</guid>
		<description>Hawkgrrrl,

I thought the same thing after reading this post. A lot of meat to chew on in the family/God dichotomy, or at least the conflict that we think is there but probably isn&#039;t. For example, in Adam&#039;s case, it wasn&#039;t actually a choice between sticking with Eve and doing God&#039;s will -- he stated that he partook of the fruit because he was commanded to remain with her (and couldn&#039;t multiply without her). It was precisely because of his obedience that he partook of the fruit and was cast out tnd that&#039;s precisely what God wanted him to do, but he wouldn&#039;t make the decision for him. Adam had to transgress another command in order to fulfill the one he saw as more important.

We likewise have a lot of daily choices where it seems we can serve God on the one hand or our families on the other, and it&#039;s up to us to decide which command we most need to keep and/or which transgression bears the lesser of the consequences. At least in theory, family members of a practicing homosexual, for example, don&#039;t necessarily have to choose between loving their children and accepting their choices and their belief the teaching that only husbands and wives should have sexual relationships. But as we all know, that&#039;s much easier in theory than in practice among real family members with real needs and feelings. And there can likewise be some very strange dynamics and decisions at play in dysfunctional families and marriages.

Family: the greatest source of joy, and the primary source of our own Abrahamic and Adamic tests!</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Hawkgrrrl,</p>
<p>I thought the same thing after reading this post. A lot of meat to chew on in the family/God dichotomy, or at least the conflict that we think is there but probably isn&#8217;t. For example, in Adam&#8217;s case, it wasn&#8217;t actually a choice between sticking with Eve and doing God&#8217;s will &#8212; he stated that he partook of the fruit because he was commanded to remain with her (and couldn&#8217;t multiply without her). It was precisely because of his obedience that he partook of the fruit and was cast out tnd that&#8217;s precisely what God wanted him to do, but he wouldn&#8217;t make the decision for him. Adam had to transgress another command in order to fulfill the one he saw as more important.</p>
<p>We likewise have a lot of daily choices where it seems we can serve God on the one hand or our families on the other, and it&#8217;s up to us to decide which command we most need to keep and/or which transgression bears the lesser of the consequences. At least in theory, family members of a practicing homosexual, for example, don&#8217;t necessarily have to choose between loving their children and accepting their choices and their belief the teaching that only husbands and wives should have sexual relationships. But as we all know, that&#8217;s much easier in theory than in practice among real family members with real needs and feelings. And there can likewise be some very strange dynamics and decisions at play in dysfunctional families and marriages.</p>
<p>Family: the greatest source of joy, and the primary source of our own Abrahamic and Adamic tests!</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: SteveS</title>
		<link>http://mormonmatters.org/2008/12/02/common-scriptures-in-review-genesis-312/#comment-49447</link>
		<dc:creator>SteveS</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 02 Dec 2008 20:44:03 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://mormonmatters.org/?p=3178#comment-49447</guid>
		<description>And if you take stock in evolution, you MUST believe that physical death and sexual reproduction occurred previous to the Fall. Following this path, Adam and Eve are the first human beings with spirits begotten by HF and HM, and no spiritual death nor spiritual procreation (process by which another spirit of HF and HM enter the body of human offspring) existed before the Fall. I see Adam and Eve&#039;s fall as a process of becoming self-aware, of understanding one&#039;s own existence as something separate and unique in the world, and of an ability to chart one&#039;s course through that world through one&#039;s own wits. Only when we are awakened to a sense of self can we start contemplating along these lines: &quot;I am here now. Where did I come from? Where am I going? What am I made of?&quot; Perhaps the fruit is simply the vehicle for helping Adam and Eve contemplate their own sense of self. &quot;I will partake that man might be&quot;? By understanding the concept of &quot;I am&quot; and &quot;man is&quot;, Adam had effectuated his fall even before taking the bite.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>And if you take stock in evolution, you MUST believe that physical death and sexual reproduction occurred previous to the Fall. Following this path, Adam and Eve are the first human beings with spirits begotten by HF and HM, and no spiritual death nor spiritual procreation (process by which another spirit of HF and HM enter the body of human offspring) existed before the Fall. I see Adam and Eve&#8217;s fall as a process of becoming self-aware, of understanding one&#8217;s own existence as something separate and unique in the world, and of an ability to chart one&#8217;s course through that world through one&#8217;s own wits. Only when we are awakened to a sense of self can we start contemplating along these lines: &#8220;I am here now. Where did I come from? Where am I going? What am I made of?&#8221; Perhaps the fruit is simply the vehicle for helping Adam and Eve contemplate their own sense of self. &#8220;I will partake that man might be&#8221;? By understanding the concept of &#8220;I am&#8221; and &#8220;man is&#8221;, Adam had effectuated his fall even before taking the bite.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Hawkgrrrl</title>
		<link>http://mormonmatters.org/2008/12/02/common-scriptures-in-review-genesis-312/#comment-49443</link>
		<dc:creator>Hawkgrrrl</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 02 Dec 2008 20:31:34 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://mormonmatters.org/?p=3178#comment-49443</guid>
		<description>Missionary Stu - Ray only sips the pure kool-aid of the vine through a fine straw with his pinky raised.

Every religion has added a lot to the Adam &amp; Eve narrative, most of it sexual innuendo. It&#039;s kind of a sexy story, when you think about it.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Missionary Stu &#8211; Ray only sips the pure kool-aid of the vine through a fine straw with his pinky raised.</p>
<p>Every religion has added a lot to the Adam &#038; Eve narrative, most of it sexual innuendo. It&#8217;s kind of a sexy story, when you think about it.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Lorin</title>
		<link>http://mormonmatters.org/2008/12/02/common-scriptures-in-review-genesis-312/#comment-49441</link>
		<dc:creator>Lorin</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 02 Dec 2008 20:17:54 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://mormonmatters.org/?p=3178#comment-49441</guid>
		<description>&quot;Yet another example of the flawed gospel and wretched legacy of JS!&quot;

Stu, LDS do not believe that &quot;partaking of the fruit&quot; is a euphemism for procreative acts. There&#039;s no inconsistency in Ray&#039;s thinking. We believe the transgressed a command by partaking of fruit they were commanded to avoid; the fruit made them mortal and the transgression removed them from God&#039;s presence, making them totally dependent on the Savior for their redemption. Sexual relationships were not part of the equation in LDS thought -- they were married, so FAILURE to procreate would have been disobedience. Depending on who you ask, it may be that they could not have children until they left their UNmortal state and became mortal; however, it is implied by the text that they knew procreation only happened when they were together, so the knowledge about procreation appears to have been in place before their transgression.

&quot;adding to the text only serves to confuse and diminish the original&quot;

Or clarifies the original intent of the biblical version. We reject the notion Adam and Eve&#039;s loss of innocence had anything to do with sexual sin, and we reject the &quot;original sin&quot; philosophies that accompany such a viewpoint. Of course this conflicts with mainstream Christian understanding of the fall, which is precisely the point. Thank goodness for the legacy of Joseph Smith.

&quot;rabid Kool-Aid drinker&quot;

You stay classy.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>&#8220;Yet another example of the flawed gospel and wretched legacy of JS!&#8221;</p>
<p>Stu, LDS do not believe that &#8220;partaking of the fruit&#8221; is a euphemism for procreative acts. There&#8217;s no inconsistency in Ray&#8217;s thinking. We believe the transgressed a command by partaking of fruit they were commanded to avoid; the fruit made them mortal and the transgression removed them from God&#8217;s presence, making them totally dependent on the Savior for their redemption. Sexual relationships were not part of the equation in LDS thought &#8212; they were married, so FAILURE to procreate would have been disobedience. Depending on who you ask, it may be that they could not have children until they left their UNmortal state and became mortal; however, it is implied by the text that they knew procreation only happened when they were together, so the knowledge about procreation appears to have been in place before their transgression.</p>
<p>&#8220;adding to the text only serves to confuse and diminish the original&#8221;</p>
<p>Or clarifies the original intent of the biblical version. We reject the notion Adam and Eve&#8217;s loss of innocence had anything to do with sexual sin, and we reject the &#8220;original sin&#8221; philosophies that accompany such a viewpoint. Of course this conflicts with mainstream Christian understanding of the fall, which is precisely the point. Thank goodness for the legacy of Joseph Smith.</p>
<p>&#8220;rabid Kool-Aid drinker&#8221;</p>
<p>You stay classy.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Missionary Stu</title>
		<link>http://mormonmatters.org/2008/12/02/common-scriptures-in-review-genesis-312/#comment-49434</link>
		<dc:creator>Missionary Stu</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 02 Dec 2008 19:21:33 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://mormonmatters.org/?p=3178#comment-49434</guid>
		<description>hawkgrrrl,

You know Ray is a rabid Kool-Aid drinker when it comes to the LDS church. He wants us to consider the text Gen 3:12 and suggest that Adam understood that he and Eve were to stay together because it was the greatest commandment given to Adam from God. That&#039;s all fine and good if you are going to look at the Bible only. But I would think that a rabid Kool-Aid drinker would be honest about what JS ADDED to the Adam and Eve story and evaluate the implication of the narrative that tells a story of Adam&#039;s knowledge of procreation prior to having that knowledge.

And yes hawkgrrrl, that is my point, adding to the text only serves to confuse and diminish the original.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>hawkgrrrl,</p>
<p>You know Ray is a rabid Kool-Aid drinker when it comes to the LDS church. He wants us to consider the text Gen 3:12 and suggest that Adam understood that he and Eve were to stay together because it was the greatest commandment given to Adam from God. That&#8217;s all fine and good if you are going to look at the Bible only. But I would think that a rabid Kool-Aid drinker would be honest about what JS ADDED to the Adam and Eve story and evaluate the implication of the narrative that tells a story of Adam&#8217;s knowledge of procreation prior to having that knowledge.</p>
<p>And yes hawkgrrrl, that is my point, adding to the text only serves to confuse and diminish the original.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Hawkgrrrl</title>
		<link>http://mormonmatters.org/2008/12/02/common-scriptures-in-review-genesis-312/#comment-49432</link>
		<dc:creator>Hawkgrrrl</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 02 Dec 2008 19:01:12 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://mormonmatters.org/?p=3178#comment-49432</guid>
		<description>Missionary Stu - I don&#039;t see that in this text, just implied in the temple. I think that&#039;s Ray&#039;s point.  You have to strip away what&#039;s not in the text and only look at what is.  Going deeper can&#039;t mean adding to the text, which is arguably your point (that the temple adds what is not there?).

Ray - What really struck me as I read this was that it&#039;s clear that family came before God.  This is something I have been puzzling out for a while.  It seems that often we hear (and it&#039;s in the NT by the Savior no less) that God comes before family.  (Matt 10:37:  &quot;He that loveth father or mother more than me is not worthy of me: and he that loveth son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me.&quot;)

But the church&#039;s emphasis on family really puts family first (even before God in a practical sense).  And I think that it&#039;s right to put family first.  I guess the real question is which way does it shake out the best?  If God is before family and to the exclusion of family, people are alienated and caught up in being right and excluding others.  If family comes before God, the pace to God may be slower, but more likely to influence more people for good (unless it&#039;s a family of con artists, but you get the point).

When there is a difficult choice between God and family (families with gay members), that&#039;s the real test.  I think families have to stick together first and foremost and try for a solution that ennobles all.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Missionary Stu &#8211; I don&#8217;t see that in this text, just implied in the temple. I think that&#8217;s Ray&#8217;s point.  You have to strip away what&#8217;s not in the text and only look at what is.  Going deeper can&#8217;t mean adding to the text, which is arguably your point (that the temple adds what is not there?).</p>
<p>Ray &#8211; What really struck me as I read this was that it&#8217;s clear that family came before God.  This is something I have been puzzling out for a while.  It seems that often we hear (and it&#8217;s in the NT by the Savior no less) that God comes before family.  (Matt 10:37:  &#8220;He that loveth father or mother more than me is not worthy of me: and he that loveth son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me.&#8221;)</p>
<p>But the church&#8217;s emphasis on family really puts family first (even before God in a practical sense).  And I think that it&#8217;s right to put family first.  I guess the real question is which way does it shake out the best?  If God is before family and to the exclusion of family, people are alienated and caught up in being right and excluding others.  If family comes before God, the pace to God may be slower, but more likely to influence more people for good (unless it&#8217;s a family of con artists, but you get the point).</p>
<p>When there is a difficult choice between God and family (families with gay members), that&#8217;s the real test.  I think families have to stick together first and foremost and try for a solution that ennobles all.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Missionary Stu</title>
		<link>http://mormonmatters.org/2008/12/02/common-scriptures-in-review-genesis-312/#comment-49430</link>
		<dc:creator>Missionary Stu</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 02 Dec 2008 18:19:11 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://mormonmatters.org/?p=3178#comment-49430</guid>
		<description>Ray you didn&#039;t go deep enough...

With the introduction of modern scripture (PoGP) and the temple, we are supposed to accept that Eve convinced Adam that they would not be able to fulfill the &quot;multiply and replenish&quot; commandment if they are to be separated. Adam reasons this out in his mind (BEFORE eating of the fruit of the tree) and appears to UNDERSTAND procreation at a time when he supposedly doesn&#039;t yet have this understanding.

Now if you of the belief that they were able to procreate prior to partaking of the fruit and they had the knowledge that this was possible, then what evidence in scripture do you have of this?

I see a real problem with the LDS church, on one hand, trying to sell us on the idea that they were &quot;innocent&quot; BEFORE partaking of the fruit and then had that knowledge AFTER partaking of the fruit, while on the other hand, we are supposed to buy the idea that Adam had prior knowledge of procreation thus allowing himself to reason out why he needed to remain with Eve in order to fulfill the commandment.

Yet another example of the flawed gospel and wretched legacy of JS!</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Ray you didn&#8217;t go deep enough&#8230;</p>
<p>With the introduction of modern scripture (PoGP) and the temple, we are supposed to accept that Eve convinced Adam that they would not be able to fulfill the &#8220;multiply and replenish&#8221; commandment if they are to be separated. Adam reasons this out in his mind (BEFORE eating of the fruit of the tree) and appears to UNDERSTAND procreation at a time when he supposedly doesn&#8217;t yet have this understanding.</p>
<p>Now if you of the belief that they were able to procreate prior to partaking of the fruit and they had the knowledge that this was possible, then what evidence in scripture do you have of this?</p>
<p>I see a real problem with the LDS church, on one hand, trying to sell us on the idea that they were &#8220;innocent&#8221; BEFORE partaking of the fruit and then had that knowledge AFTER partaking of the fruit, while on the other hand, we are supposed to buy the idea that Adam had prior knowledge of procreation thus allowing himself to reason out why he needed to remain with Eve in order to fulfill the commandment.</p>
<p>Yet another example of the flawed gospel and wretched legacy of JS!</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Lorin</title>
		<link>http://mormonmatters.org/2008/12/02/common-scriptures-in-review-genesis-312/#comment-49419</link>
		<dc:creator>Lorin</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 02 Dec 2008 17:08:18 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://mormonmatters.org/?p=3178#comment-49419</guid>
		<description>&quot;So the principal reason why he took the fruit was to be able to have children and fulfill that God given commandment not necessarily the other one of not separating.&quot;

I don&#039;t see a lot of conflict between this interpretation and Ray&#039;s, unless you are stating that Adam cared only for God&#039;s commands and would have let Eve be cast out if he could have done so without disobeying without breaking a commandment. If so, I don&#039;t agree. The commandment to multiply was certainly a major part of Adam&#039;s decision to partake, but I think the wording suggests he also knew this was a choice about whether to live with his father or with his wife. The &quot;to multiply&quot; command is implied, but the &quot;to remain with Eve&quot; rationale is explicitly stated.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>&#8220;So the principal reason why he took the fruit was to be able to have children and fulfill that God given commandment not necessarily the other one of not separating.&#8221;</p>
<p>I don&#8217;t see a lot of conflict between this interpretation and Ray&#8217;s, unless you are stating that Adam cared only for God&#8217;s commands and would have let Eve be cast out if he could have done so without disobeying without breaking a commandment. If so, I don&#8217;t agree. The commandment to multiply was certainly a major part of Adam&#8217;s decision to partake, but I think the wording suggests he also knew this was a choice about whether to live with his father or with his wife. The &#8220;to multiply&#8221; command is implied, but the &#8220;to remain with Eve&#8221; rationale is explicitly stated.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Benjamin O</title>
		<link>http://mormonmatters.org/2008/12/02/common-scriptures-in-review-genesis-312/#comment-49399</link>
		<dc:creator>Benjamin O</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 02 Dec 2008 14:18:01 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://mormonmatters.org/?p=3178#comment-49399</guid>
		<description>I parse this much the same way as Ray...that Adam is very specifically NOT assigning blame to Eve but is rather simply recounting the events as they occurred.

This sequence came to me some time back, but what strikes me as important is that Eve does the same thing in the next verse (Gen 3:13) when queried:
&quot; And the Lord God said unto the woman, What is this that thou hast done? And the woman said, The serpent beguiled me, and I did eat. &quot;

She doesn&#039;t try to hide what she has done, nor does she blame the serpent for its actions, but simply states the facts.  

I&#039;ve always found this to be instructive as to what judgement will be like.  God will ask us to give an accounting and beneath his watchful eye, and all-knowing gaze we will simply state the simple actions that we performed, including the causes for those actions as best we are able.  What happens next?  The serpent is punished, while stage is set for the repentence of Adam and Eve.  (Of course, that&#039;s not entirely clear from the Genesis account, but that is what&#039;s going on...they transgressed a command, and had to be punished, but God also set up a time for them to repent.  In the day of judgement the reverse is true...we will have not only sinned, but had time to repent--and Christ can then step in and intercede as appropriate.--at least that&#039;s my understanding).</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I parse this much the same way as Ray&#8230;that Adam is very specifically NOT assigning blame to Eve but is rather simply recounting the events as they occurred.</p>
<p>This sequence came to me some time back, but what strikes me as important is that Eve does the same thing in the next verse (Gen 3:13) when queried:<br />
&#8221; And the Lord God said unto the woman, What is this that thou hast done? And the woman said, The serpent beguiled me, and I did eat. &#8221;</p>
<p>She doesn&#8217;t try to hide what she has done, nor does she blame the serpent for its actions, but simply states the facts.  </p>
<p>I&#8217;ve always found this to be instructive as to what judgement will be like.  God will ask us to give an accounting and beneath his watchful eye, and all-knowing gaze we will simply state the simple actions that we performed, including the causes for those actions as best we are able.  What happens next?  The serpent is punished, while stage is set for the repentence of Adam and Eve.  (Of course, that&#8217;s not entirely clear from the Genesis account, but that is what&#8217;s going on&#8230;they transgressed a command, and had to be punished, but God also set up a time for them to repent.  In the day of judgement the reverse is true&#8230;we will have not only sinned, but had time to repent&#8211;and Christ can then step in and intercede as appropriate.&#8211;at least that&#8217;s my understanding).</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Anon</title>
		<link>http://mormonmatters.org/2008/12/02/common-scriptures-in-review-genesis-312/#comment-49388</link>
		<dc:creator>Anon</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 02 Dec 2008 13:03:37 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://mormonmatters.org/?p=3178#comment-49388</guid>
		<description>What would I change about this version? the &quot;I realized we would be separated as a result&quot; part since I don&#039;t think that this is implied because Eve spoke about &quot;multiplying&quot; which she claimed would not happen if Adam was a lone man in the Garden of Eden, so then Adam says &quot;Eve, I see that this must be&quot; and then &quot;I will partake that man might be&quot; or exist. So the principal reason why he took the fruit was to be able to have children and fulfill that God given commandment not necessarily the other one of not separating. 

The whole story is really about them, Adam and Eve, becoming adults and leaving their parents (God) presence to be able to have children.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>What would I change about this version? the &#8220;I realized we would be separated as a result&#8221; part since I don&#8217;t think that this is implied because Eve spoke about &#8220;multiplying&#8221; which she claimed would not happen if Adam was a lone man in the Garden of Eden, so then Adam says &#8220;Eve, I see that this must be&#8221; and then &#8220;I will partake that man might be&#8221; or exist. So the principal reason why he took the fruit was to be able to have children and fulfill that God given commandment not necessarily the other one of not separating. </p>
<p>The whole story is really about them, Adam and Eve, becoming adults and leaving their parents (God) presence to be able to have children.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

