Some years ago, Hugh Nibley gave the students in his BYU honors class an unusual midterm assignment. He described that experience as follows:

“I asked them … to assume that they had been guaranteed a thousand uninterrupted years of life here on earth.”

This is an Interpreter Radio Roundtable for Come, Follow Me Doctrine and Covenants Lesson 34, “A Principle with Promise” on D&C 89-92. The panelists for this roundtable were Martin Tanner, John Gee and Kevin Christensen. This roundtable was extracted from the July 11, 2021 broadcast of Interpreter Radio. The complete show may be heard at https://interpreterfoundation.org/interpreter-radio-show-july-11-2021/. The Interpreter Radio Show can be heard Sunday evenings from 7 to 9 PM (MDT), on K-TALK, AM 1640, or you can listen live on the Internet at ktalkmedia.com. Call in to 801-254-1640 with your questions and comments during the live show.

The Interpreter Radio Show is a weekly discussion of matters of interest to the hosts, guests, and callers of the show. The views expressed on the Interpreter Radio Show are those of the individuals involved and do not necessarily reflect the views of the Interpreter Foundation, nor should statements made on the show be construed as official doctrinal statements of the Church.

 

This series is cross-posted with the permission of Book of Mormon Central from their website at Pearl of Great Price Central

Listen to an audio recording of this Essay:

Download PDF

Download audio recording

 

 

The scriptures say that Eve was “beguiled” by Satan when she partook of the forbidden fruit. But Latter-day Saints believe she made the right choice. How can both statements be true? The purpose of this essay is to harmonize these seemingly contradictory statements and, along the way, to dispel some common misconceptions.

li {margin-left: 2em;} blockquote {margin-left: 2em;} p.wp-caption-text{text-align: center !important;} p.wp-caption-text:before {content: '' !important;}

table {border: 1px solid #dddddd !important;; width: 100%; margin: auto;} table td{border: 1px solid #dddddd !important;; padding: 10px !important; text-align: left; vertical-align: bottom;} table.noborder, table.noborder td{border: 0px solid #ffffff !important;; padding: 0 !important} p.wp-caption-text{text-align: center !important;} p.wp-caption-text:before {content: '' !important;} .icon {vertical-align: baseline !important;}

Eve Was Not a Pandora

Whether earnestly promoted as Christian theology or merely mentioned in tasteless jest, Eve is too often painted in the colors of Pandora,[1] a mythological figure whose unbridled curiosity unleashed a long train of potent ills against mankind. This is not the view of the Latter-day Saints.

In light of the Latter-day Saint understanding that the Fall was a necessary prerequisite for humankind’s further progression and our rejection of the generally negative portrayals of Eve in historical Christianity, Latter-day Saint authors typically emphasize her perceptiveness and interpret her role as ultimately constructive. A few have, however, taken this view to what seems to be an untenable extreme, not only rightfully exonerating her from full accountability for her transgression and honoring her lifelong faithfulness, but in addition arguing that, for various reasons, she was not actually “beguiled” by Satan in her decision to take of the forbidden fruit.[2]

Such a view goes well beyond the settled Latter-day Saint doctrines that the Fall was an essential part of the divine plan from the beginning and that Adam and Eve did not commit a sinful or otherwise blameworthy act. Though it is easy to see how such views might arise from honest misunderstanding, a careful analysis will show that they should be no more a part of the beliefs of well-informed Latter-day Saints than the opposite notion that Eve was a prototype of Pandora.

Differences in perspective with the well-intentioned Latter-day Saint authors who make such arguments are, of course, far outweighed by common beliefs and sympathies. In presenting what might be seen as necessary correctives to certain aspects of these views, no personal offense is intended. In hopes of eliminating any misrepresentation, drafts of an earlier version of this essay were sent to two of the authors referenced, Alonzo Gaskill and James T. Summerhays, who confirmed the interpretation of their views presented here. The authors graciously responded with some welcome suggestions.

After a review of the “standard” view of the Fall, this essay will examine two of the questions raised by the writings of Gaskill and Summerhays: “Was Satan entirely truthful?” and “Was Eve actually beguiled (deceived) by him?

Review of Kylie Nielson Turley, Alma 1–29: A Brief Theological Introduction (Provo, UT: The Neal A. Maxwell Institute for Religious Scholarship, 2020). 162 pages. $9.95 (paperback).

Abstract: Kylie Nielson Turley delves deep into the conversion and ministry of Alma the Younger, reading new life into a well-known narrative. By analyzing Alma’s story with the full weight of his humanity in mind, she breathes emotion into Alma’s conversion and missionary efforts. Her efforts to read Alma without a veneer of superhumanity result in a highly relatable figure who has known wickedness, repentance, loss, depression, and righteousness.

Kylie Nielson Turley accomplishes exactly what the Maxwell Institute’s Brief Theological Introductions series seeks to do — namely, to “read a few Book of Mormon stories you have probably read before and see them in a new light.”1 She achieves this through careful analysis of the life of Alma the Younger (hereafter referred to as Alma) as reported by the Book of Alma’s structural narrative. In re-analyzing familiar stories, Turley questions common (and assumed) tropes about Alma such as his age at the time of his conversion, the depths of his prior depravity, and the ramifications of personal trauma experienced during his missionary efforts. By allowing these stories the emotion all too often discarded in the standard “Sunday School answers,” Turley restores power to Alma’s [Page 250]redemptive arch and asks the reader to acknowledge the Atonement’s ability to overcome all.

The book begins by questioning the specific structure surrounding the events of Alma’s life, noticing the specificity with which dates and ages of both Alma and his father are recorded. After careful analysis, Turley concludes that Alma is far older than a wayward teenager. This provokes a poignant reflection: “Is it easier to trust an adult leader who had some youthful indiscretions (and repented) — or one who spent decades trying to destroy the church as an adult (and repented)?”2

Reading Alma as a repentant adult alters his interactions with the apostate figures he continuously faces. Turley notes, “When readers view Alma as the very wicked and idolatrous unbeliever the narrator describes, they likely interpret the text differently.”3 She goes as far as to compare characterizations of Alma to those of Amalickiah, laying out a parallel structure in descriptions that substantiate the depths of Alma’s former sinful lifestyle. And yet, Alma’s death report specifically notes, “This we know, that he was a righteous man” (Alma 45:19), demonstrating the ability of Alma’s repentance and conversion to overcome all previous sin, regardless of its severity.

Switching focus, the book discusses the trauma response of the Nephites to the destruction caused by a Lamanite attack upon the newly established Anti-Nephi-Lehis. The Nephites mourn and lament (Alma 28:4) the familial relationships lost in a battle where tens of thousands perish. In such circumstances, Turley proposes that Alma 29 is not a missionary anthem but a psalm of mourning and lament wherein Alma and the people ask “Why?”

Viewing this psalm as a trauma response to the battle and to the martyrdom of the believing women and children at Ammonihah, Turley emphasizes Alma’s ability to plead for continued hope and understanding in Christ despite the recent chaos and trauma. She says, “Questioning God about why something happens demonstrates faith that he is there and hope that he has an answer. Moreover, underlying both questions is a plea for God to make ...

 

You can listen to or download the July 18 broadcast of the Interpreter Radio Show below. It will also be included in our podcast feed (https://interpreterfoundation.org/feeds/podcast). The hosts were Terry Hutchinson, Kris Frederickson and Mike Parker. In this episode, our hosts discussed pioneers and Pioneer Day. The second portion of the show was a roundtable discussing the upcoming Come Follow Me lesson #35 (D&C 93). The Interpreter Radio Show can be heard Sunday evenings from 7 to 9 PM (MDT), on K-TALK, AM 1640, or you can listen live on the Internet at ktalkmedia.com. Call in to 801-254-1640 with your questions and comments during the live show.

 

Original air date: July 18, 2021. This recording has been edited to remove commercial breaks.

The Interpreter Radio Show is a weekly discussion of matters of interest to the hosts, guests, and callers of the show. The views expressed on the Interpreter Radio Show are those of the individuals involved and do not necessarily reflect the views of the Interpreter Foundation, nor should statements made on the show be construed as official doctrinal statements of the Church.

 

This is an Interpreter Radio Roundtable for Come, Follow Me Doctrine and Covenants Lesson 33, “Establish … a House of God” on D&C 88. The panelist for this roundtable was Martin Tanner. This roundtable was extracted from the July 4, 2021 broadcast of Interpreter Radio. The complete show may be heard at https://interpreterfoundation.org/interpreter-radio-show-july-4-2021/. The Interpreter Radio Show can be heard Sunday evenings from 7 to 9 PM (MDT), on K-TALK, AM 1640, or you can listen live on the Internet at ktalkmedia.com. Call in to 801-254-1640 with your questions and comments during the live show.

The Interpreter Radio Show is a weekly discussion of matters of interest to the hosts, guests, and callers of the show. The views expressed on the Interpreter Radio Show are those of the individuals involved and do not necessarily reflect the views of the Interpreter Foundation, nor should statements made on the show be construed as official doctrinal statements of the Church.

 

This series is cross-posted with the permission of Book of Mormon Central from their website at Pearl of Great Price Central

Listen to an audio recording of this Essay:

Download PDF

Download audio recording

 

 

Moses 4:22 records God’s words to Eve:

li {margin-left: 2em;} blockquote {margin-left: 2em;} p.wp-caption-text{text-align: center !important;} p.wp-caption-text:before {content: '' !important;}

table {border: 1px solid #dddddd !important;; width: 100%; margin: auto;} table td{border: 1px solid #dddddd !important;; padding: 10px !important; text-align: left; vertical-align: bottom;} table.noborder, table.noborder td{border: 0px solid #ffffff !important;; padding: 0 !important} p.wp-caption-text{text-align: center !important;} p.wp-caption-text:before {content: '' !important;} .icon {vertical-align: baseline !important;}

I will greatly multiply thy sorrow and thy conception. In sorrow thou shalt bring forth children, and thy desire shall be to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee.

The Suffering of Adam and Eve

In the poignant sculpture by Delaplanche pictured here, the vacant, tearless eyes and agonized posture of the solitary slumped figure bespeak the depth of Eve’s utter hopelessness immediately after her transgression. While scripture describes the results of transgression differently for Adam than for Eve, the ultimate effect of these consequences is essentially the same: a mortal life replete with the opposing experiences of good and evil, pleasure and pain.[1]

Adam and Eve’s common lot is reflected in the carefully chosen Hebrew words used to represent their suffering. As Umberto Cassuto observes:

Apparently, we have here a play upon words with reference to es [= tree]: it was with respect to es that the man and woman sinned, and it was with esebb [= pain] and issabbon [= toil, suffering] that they were punished. … The very fact that Scripture does not employ here the usual phrases found in connection with the suffering of childbirth … proves that it was some specific intention. … that these words were selected.”[2]

The same Hebrew term used to describe Adam and Eve’s sorrow recurs when Noah is “pained that the Lord had made man on the earth, and it grieved him at the heart.”[3]

The Blessings of Adam and Eve

Without the Fall, Adam and Eve would have not borne children.[4] Now Eve is told that as part of the repeated blessings of motherhood she must also undergo the recurrent pain incident to each childbirth. However, using the words of the apostle Paul, John Sailhamer reminds us that these birth pangs:

… are not merely a reminder of the … Fall; they are as well a sign of impending joy: “We know that the whole creation has been groaning as in the pains of childbirth right up to the present time. Not only so, but we ourselves, who have the firstfruits of the Spirit, groan inwardly as we wait eagerly for our adoption as sons, the redemption of our bodies. For in this hope we were saved.”[5]

By this we understand that not only the crushing of the serpent’s head, but also the blessings of spiritual rebirth for all mankind will come through the “seed of the woman,” namely Jesus Christ.

Should “Rule Over” Be Translated as “Rule With”?

Abstract: In this paper, I show that declarations of lineage in patriarchal blessings have, since the earliest days of the Restoration, evolved in terms of frequency of inclusion, which tribal lineages predominate, and understanding of the meaning of the declaration. I argue for a non- literal understanding consistent with scripture and science, but posit that these declarations have deep and important significance in connection with the gathering of Israel.

Two and a half years into my service as a Church1 patriarch, I found myself puzzled by the subject of the declaration of lineage. I embarked on a study of the matter, which in turn led to this paper. I concluded and will show that the practice of declaring lineage evolved over time. I will discuss the extent to which these declarations have contemplated a literal Abrahamic bloodline. I argue that there is a way to give respect to the concepts of literal bloodlines without connecting them to patriarchal declarations of lineage. Finally, I propose that there can be a literal gathering of Israel without concern for bloodlines.

When Did the Church Start Declaring Lineage as Part of Patriarchal Blessings, and When Did It Evolve from Common Practice to Required Element?

The practice of including a declaration of lineage in a person’s patriarchal blessing was not routine in the beginning of the Restoration. Michael H. Marquardt has collected as many as he could find of the [Page 210]blessings given between December 1833 and September of 1845.2 The charts shown in figures 1 and 2 reveal the trend.3

[Page 211]For each year from 1835 through 1846, and for 11 of the 17 years from 1847 through 1862, Marquardt’s book Later Patriarchal Blessings of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints contains some blessings for which no lineage was declared. But from 1863 through 1995, only 23 of the 471 blessings in the book fail to declare lineage.

When did a declaration of lineage become a more or less required element of a patriarchal blessing? Lacking access to the various editions of the Church’s manuals for and written instructions issued to patriarchs over the years, I have not been able to determine when (or whether) the patriarchs of this dispensation were first instructed to declare lineage, how those instructions may have changed over time, and whether they were accompanied by suggestions on how to go about it. The sixth Church Patriarch, Hyrum G. Smith, who served from 1912 to 1932, issued instructions from time to time to all stake patriarchs. In one (undated) document, he included the following as one of the duties of the patriarch: “According to the promptings of the Holy Spirit, declare the lineage of those you bless.”4 The document gives the impression this was more a reminder than a new directive.

At a 2005 training meeting for stake patriarchs and stake presidents, then Elder Dallin H. Oaks declared that “an essential part of every patriarchal blessing is the declaration of lineage.”

This is an Interpreter Radio Roundtable for Come, Follow Me Doctrine and Covenants Lesson 32, “Stand Ye in Holy Places” on D&C 85-87. The panelists for this roundtable were Steve Densley, Matthew Bowen and Mark J. Johnson. This roundtable was extracted from the June 27, 2021 broadcast of Interpreter Radio. The complete show may be heard at https://interpreterfoundation.org/interpreter-radio-show-june-27-2021/. The Interpreter Radio Show can be heard Sunday evenings from 7 to 9 PM (MDT), on K-TALK, AM 1640, or you can listen live on the Internet at ktalkmedia.com. Call in to 801-254-1640 with your questions and comments during the live show.

The Interpreter Radio Show is a weekly discussion of matters of interest to the hosts, guests, and callers of the show. The views expressed on the Interpreter Radio Show are those of the individuals involved and do not necessarily reflect the views of the Interpreter Foundation, nor should statements made on the show be construed as official doctrinal statements of the Church.

 

This series is cross-posted with the permission of Book of Mormon Central from their website at Pearl of Great Price Central

Listen to an audio recording of this Essay:

Download PDF

Download audio recording

 

 

 

Jewish pseudepigraphal texts tell of how, after Adam and Eve’s transgression, God’s “chariot throne [descends and] rests at the Tree of Life and all the flowers come into bloom.”[1] Of this painting, Conisbee writes:

li {margin-left: 2em;} blockquote {margin-left: 2em;} p.wp-caption-text{text-align: center !important;} p.wp-caption-text:before {content: '' !important;}

table {border: 1px solid #dddddd !important;; width: 100%; margin: auto;} table td{border: 1px solid #dddddd !important;; padding: 10px !important; text-align: left; vertical-align: bottom;} table.noborder, table.noborder td{border: 0px solid #ffffff !important;; padding: 0 !important} p.wp-caption-text{text-align: center !important;} p.wp-caption-text:before {content: '' !important;} .icon {vertical-align: baseline !important;}

The Rebuke of Adam and Eve perfectly illustrates Domenichino’s classical style at the peak of his career. … The group of God and the angels is derived directly from Michelangelo’s Creation of Adam. … and should be read as an homage by the seventeenth-century painter to his great predecessor. … Following Italian tradition, Domenichino shows the Tree of Knowledge as a fig tree, rather than the apple tree which was more usual in northern European art. In a clear narrative sequence, God the Father, borne by cherubim and angels, descends to rebuke Adam, who blames Eve, who in turn points to the serpent as the cause of their fall from grace. Animals still roam freely in their earthly paradise, but the lion at the right is already metamorphosing from a friendly feline to an aggressive beast.[2]

The change in God’s initial question from the KJV “Where art thou?” to the JST “Where goest thou?” emphasizes the fact that the Lord is not assessing Adam’s location but rather requesting him to reflect openly on his intentions—in view of the fact that his feet are now pointed toward the exit of the Garden.[3] Dennis Rasmussen observes: “From man God does not need information. Man’s response must be man’s own self.”[4] Umberto Cassuto[5] further explains:

The commentators who consider the question to be aimed at discovering where the man was hiding have overlooked the words “[and said unto] him.” … The query … resembles the question the Lord God asks Cain,[6] “Where is Abel your brother?” when Abel’s body is lying on the ground beneath the open sky, and no attempt is made to conceal it. … We may compare the case to that of a man who comes to chide his little son who misbehaved himself and then hid himself behind the door in order to avoid looking at his father’s angry face; the father who is well aware of the child’s hiding-place, calls out to him, “Where are you?” meaning: Why are you there? Is that where you should be? Come out and face me! [Adam’s] answer is in keeping with this interpretation; he does not reply, “I am in such-and-such a place,” but he explains why he is concealing himself.[7]