Meridian Magazine published an article about Adam and Eve that somewhat goes along with our reading.  I found it interesting.

Both

Both give us power.

I don't think it is a case of either/or. Rather, it is inclusive. Both the ability to see black and white (meaning, Satan can't trick us into believing that good is evil and evil is good) and the ability to navigate ambiguities are blessings of discernment. When a person has to choose between ambiguous choices it is between several different good choices. Not a choice between something good and something bad. Eve didn't have a "bad" choice. She could choose to stay in the garden and be happy and innocent and in the presence of God. A very good choice. Or, she could transgress (move into a different state) and choose to move the plan forward. A better choice. Two good choices. Neither of those choices were evil but both would have certain consequences, so Eve had to use her judgment and personal revelation (she would have been baptized and blessed with the Holy Ghost I'm assuming, before she could have had a temple sealing) and gift of discernment to choose the best path.

Satan didn't trick her. He didn't convince her that staying in the garden was bad. She was far too spiritually prepared and in tune to be deceived by him. She saw the absolute of good and evil. She also, in her wisdom, saw the ambiguity of good and better and made the best choice.

Where the "absolute" part comes in is knowing the difference between good and evil. There is no absolute amongst the myriad goods.

PS--If there was no room to disobey Heavenly Father, then how do explain to childless couples that they have broken the commandment to multiply and replenish and as such are living in sin? Eve was warned what would happen should she make a certain choice. She chose to accept the consequences. That's different than willfully disobeying God.

Okay, good.  I like those comments.  You both make good points.  (Obedience trumps all else---I like that summary.)  So let me rephrase my question.  The book talks about how it is our knowledge of the absolutes of good and evil that makes us like God.  But then it also says that Eve's ability to deal with conflicting choices, complexity, ambiguity---her ability to choose the greater good for the greatest number (meaning, of course that there is also something less-than-good about it, for somebody)---is one of her greatest strengths.

Those two ideas seem (seem! I'm sure it can be resolved!) to contradict each other.  Which is it: our ability to see black and white gives us power? or our ability to see complexity and choose between conflicting ideas gives us power?

(The whole idea that there can BE "conflicting goods" is not a "black and white" idea.  If we're dealing in absolutes, we would say that Eve should never have disregarded anything the Father told her, ever, no matter if it was a warning or not.  Wouldn't we?)

Very Interesting

I have to say I'm of the opposite camp in that I think that absolutes are always . . . absolute. I don't see many shades of grey ever. Um, no shades of grey. I'll just say it as it is. Which is, perhaps, the only way in which I am like my mother when I always wanted to be her clone (only with my red hair--obviously).

First, I don't think of people as absolutes. We all sin. We all need forgiveness. I liked Marilyn's example of someone who smokes. Of course the smoking is wrong (absolute) but the person is no better or worse than myself. A murderer, on the other hand (and I'm not including abortion in this example), I can safely say is farther off the path than I am. Still a precious child of God--but clearly not trying too hard to be obedient. So yes, while people are ambiguous, it is sometimes clear whether or not a person is farther off the path than I am. I would not, however, know if that person was farther off the path than another person that is not myself. Say Kami. She's a hellion. Who knows what she's up to when she's not feeding her baby and taking care of her children. She could be doing anything. So I cannot safely say that Kami is not farther off the path than anyone else. Because I'm not her.

The previous paragraph was basically useless because the important thing to remember about people is that no matter where they are in relation to their obedience to the commandments, we are still required to treat them the same--with love. With kindness. With compassion.

While people as a whole are ambiguous, actions are never ambiguous. Just because I lose my temper and yell at my children for very good reasons I am never justified. It is always wrong. Yelling at a child because said child is in danger is always okay. Absolutely. Smoking, always wrong. Gossiping--always wrong (and that is one of many reasons I'm going to hell). Stealing--always wrong. Indulging in road rage thoughts--always wrong. Wearing a sleeveless shirt--always wrong.

Abortion is not a special case. Getting an abortion because you don't want the baby--always wrong. Getting an abortion because the mother's life is at risk is always okay. Unless the mother has a special witness to her that it isn't. Then it isn't. Still absolute.

Some people may claim that there are murky issues, like deciding to work when you are a mother. However, those issues aren't truly murky to the person deciding. It is only murky to those of us evaluating that person's decision and gossiping about said decision. Being a working mom is not wrong. That's an absolute. Choosing to stay home and not work is not wrong. That's an absolute. Neither of those choices is sin. Receiving revelation about whether or not you should make a choice and then following the inspiration is always right. Choosing to not follow the inspiration is always wrong.

So that's how I see the world. I was worse when I was younger and I cringe when I think about some thoughtless remarks I made as a Youth (as Marilyn would say) because I didn't understand the role of personal revelation. I definitely agree that as I age, I see levels of complexity in life that I didn't see before. I also gain compassion as I experience more of what life throws out. But even that new awareness has not changed my basic belief in obedience trumping all else. Now if I could just always do what I know I should do--that would be wonderful!!!

Response to Marilyn

I probably should think longer before I respond, but my girls are playing happily in the tub, Sebastian's asleep, and the stars are aligned so I decided to take advantage of the moment, and respond as soon as I read your thoughts.

The first thing that popped into my head when I read, "Our reasons for sinning---and for choosing not to sin---are often motivated by many factors, and while that doesn't make the sin less wrong, it does make ME more hesitant to judge others" was a talk I heard in EFY. It's been a long time so I don't really remember all of them, but the speaker was saying there's different motivations for choosing not to sin, some better than others. I think it went something like this.

1. Fear of what others think or will say (worst reason)
2. Fear of God, hell, etc.
3. I forgot
4. Love for others (our family, friends, etc.)
5. LOVE of God and wanting to please him (best reason)

Anyway, I think there are a lot of ambiguities in life. I was just listening to NPR yesterday and there was a guy on who wrote a book, Bargaining with the Devil: When to Negotiate, When to Fight. Here's a link to the interview. It talked about many of the issues of what you discussed. And then again on NPR, I only caught a snippet of it, was a discussion with this guy about whether it's better (in his hypothetical example) to push one guy off a bridge to his death in order to save 5 people that soon will be crossing the bridge. His real life example of it was a when a group of 4 Special Operations soldiers were deployed into some hills along the Afghanistan/Pakistan border with the knowledge that some top Taliban leaders were in this town nearby and they were supposed to take them out. By random happenstance some Afghan shepards with a bunch of sheep came up on them and they had to decide whether to kill these innocent Afghan shepards or risk that they'd go alert the Taliban and ruin their mission. Well the four guys voted and decided they did not have the moral justification to kill the shepards and they had no way to detain them, so they let them go, and within an hour they were surrounded by Taliban and only one escaped alive and a rescue helicopter was shot down too so another 11 guys died as well. The soldier that escaped said he wished he would have chosen to kill the two shepards instead. Anyway, definitely a hard call, and one that I'm glad I'll never face.

I think that Adam and Eve gained the knowledge of opposites (joy vs misery, right vs. wrong, pleasure vs. pain) but that doesn't mean that there isn't things between those. For instance, very rarely do most people feel absolutely miserable or absolutely joyful. And while I realize I'm on a slippery slope here, I think the same applies to right and wrong. Something might be right for one person and wrong for another. For instance, homeschooling, or having ten kids. Or what about that lady in the Bible who drove a stake through the bad guy's head (sorry I don't recall the names and I'm too lazy to look it up) after being all nice to him and letting him sleep in her tent. Right or wrong? I don't think the Bible is very clear on that one. (But then again maybe I'm not remembering correctly). Anyway, point being is I agree that only God can know someone's heart and so He's the only one able to judge with absolute understanding and the rest of us just need to rely on the Spirit to make our own decisions and not judge other's decisions. Easier said then done, eh?

Marilyn's thoughts about "Eve and the Choice Made in Eden"

I finished the Eve book last night, so now I'm ready to post some thoughts.  Well, not ready as in "I have a nicely thought-out essay to present", but ready as in "I liked the book and took lots of notes so let me ramble on about that for a while."

I really liked the Hebrew word meanings it presented---transgression being to pass into a new state, command being a warning possibly temporary in nature, beguiled implying an intense emotional/spiritual experience, etc.  Those translations really helped open up the meaning of the story for me.

I also liked the point that Eve (women) carry not just the breath of life but the breath of LIVES inside them.  I liked the emphasis on how Eve's choice was made with US in mind---a selfless choice in many ways, since she herself had the chance NOT to experience death and pain, but that would have left all of us stranded.  I knew that that was the case but I guess I hadn't thought much about it before.  It makes me relate even more to Eve, as a mother---the fact that I, too, have sometimes had to subordinate my own comfort/security to the greater good of bringing another life into the world.

Another symbolic idea I loved: that Adam AWOKE when Eve was created.  Beautiful symbolism there, of how husbands and wives awaken each other; how we become aware of and able to do so much more than we can alone.  That is, TOGETHER (in a celestial marriage, of course) the world can be so much lovelier, clearer, more real.  I love that.

Here's a question, though.  One quote in the book (and someone else mentioned this) says something like "the knowledge of the absolutes of good and evil give us power like God."  Yes--page 40--"Satan wishes to blur our knowledge of the absolutes of good and evil" . . . he tries to diminish our sensitivities in this regard . . . etc.  Okay, so I understand that and agree.  People always talk about how it's bad to have "relativism" where we don't acknowledge that there is actually RIGHT and WRONG, and how we in the gospel know that there is GOOD and EVIL and not just "everyone can do whatever they feel is the best thing and all philosophies are basically equal."  Fine.  BUT---
in other parts of the book, there's an emphasis on how women have a special gift for "discenment"---being able to tell the difference between ambiguous choices, to see "beyond the literal to the divine essential." (p. 42)  This is exactly what Eve did---and it mentions it several times---she chose the "greatest good for the greatest number" etc.  And again, in the last chapter, we learn that women make decisions based on interrelationships, how others will be affected, deciding "which, of conflicting statements, is paramount."
So doesn't that conflict, in a way, with the idea that our knowledge of ABSOLUTES gives us the most power?  Women acknowledge, and navigate around, ambiguity---and they KNOW that not all choices are "black and white"---and they have to OFTEN choose which, of many good or acceptable things, is BEST.  I'm not saying there are no absolutes---but I definitely think there are fewer than I used to believe!  I think when I was younger, I saw so many things that way---this person is bad because he smokes, this person is bad because she got pregnant before she was married, etc.  Not that I thought those people couldn't repent, but I thought that they were somehow "lesser", in some indefineable way, and "I never want to be like that!"  As I've gotten older, I see so many more complexities.  AND, I've learned that we ALL need the atonement---just as much as anyone else---someone who breaks the Word of Wisdom doesn't need it MORE than someone who doesn't.  Very few people ever act because of an "absolute motivation," if that makes sense.  Our reasons for sinning---and for choosing not to sin---are often motivated by many factors, and while that doesn't make the sin less wrong, it does make ME more hesitant to judge others.

I guess what I'm saying is, I understand that God can see RIGHT and WRONG in an absolute way.  He can look at someone, weigh all the millions of different factors in their choices, love them for exactly what they are, and come up with the perfectly just and also perfectly merciful judgement for that person.  But . . . NO ONE else can really do that.  How can I ever say, in an "absolute" way, whether someone is good or bad?  And how could it possibly be beneficial for me to even TRY to do that?  It rings much more true to me to say, like she did in the last chapter, that we make better decisions when we DO weigh all the ambiguities, the complexities, the "shades of grey" (if you will---I know that phrase has bad connotations).  Not that we don't acknowledge that there IS evil, but that we don't claim to always know exactly what it is or where it is.  Because we're humble and we know only God can judge that.  Right?

Help me out here.  I'm sure I'm missing something.  Maybe the problem comes when we label PEOPLE as absolutes of "good" or "evil", because people are complex?  But it's fine to label ACTIONS as absolutes of "good" and "evil"?  But again, that doesn't totally hold up in my mind.  Because sure you can say, "adultery is always, totally, unequivocally wrong."  "Murder is always totally wrong."  But there are so many other issues that aren't so clear.  "Abortion is always totally wrong."  Well . . . maybe nearly always . . . but not always.  So not an "absolute."  And what about "divorce"?  Or "birth control"?  Waay more room for complexity in those choices.  So that statement she makes, that God-like power comes from knowing the ABSOLUTES OF GOOD AND EVIL---I'm just wondering how that's true.  What does she mean by that?  How did such knowledge help Adam and Eve?  I welcome your ideas! :)

Tons more I liked in this book, and lots more connections it sparked in my mind, but I guess I better stop now.  THANK YOU for recommending it!  I loved reading it, and found it really helpful---I can't wait to get to the temple and do some more thinking about all the things I learned.

Not yet!

WAIT!  Wait, wait, wait!  Don't move on yet.  I just got EATCMIE (ha! funny acronym) from the library yesterday and I'm still trying to read it.  So hold your horses!  Actually it's fine if you all move on.  But I still plan on posting about Eve, once I finish reading it, which also requires that I start reading it, which I'll work on when I get a free second, which hopefully will not be too long from now.


And Kami, good name choice, and do you call him Sebby?  I have grown to love the nickname Sebby for a tiny guy. :)


Re:veils and the middle eastern culture, that's one of the things that was interesting about this presentation---that it really ISN'T a modesty thing for us.  At least the way I understood it.  Paul was explaining how the veil for women was departing from that Jewish/Middle Eastern tradition.  How it did NOT mean modesty/social status/etc. in this context, but AUTHORITY.  Which it certainly didn't convey, in those other traditions.  I thought that was a cool thought.  (I mean, not that we aren't modest or that modesty would be a bad reason or anything.  But it's just more limiting in what it implies, I guess.)

Randomness continued

While I was at the hospital after I delivered Sebastian, I was reading Guns, Germs and Steel and the pediatrician came in. He asked me if it was good, because he had bought it and planned on reading it, but hadn't gotten around to it yet. That's my story. And the absolute lack of anything at all worthwhile in that story shows that I should go to bed. Goodnight.

Random veil thoughts

I always just thought the wearing a veil was similar to Middle Eastern culture, and I believe in some forms of Judaism, women wear veils in the synagogue too, (but I'm not too sure on that). Anyway, I thought it just tied into a modesty issue. Also in Judaism (at least in more orthodox forms) and Islam, men and women sit seperated from each other in the mosques and synogogues, the same as in our temple. Again, isn't it more of a modesty thing? Not sure, I never really questioned either practice though--randomly enough--since Muslims and Jews have the same practice, I thought it fitting that we would too. Same roots, I guess.

Moving on?

I think almost everybody has posted on Eve and the Choice Made in Eden. I still plan on reading the book, but I've only moved up to spot #3 on the waiting list for it (before I was #5) so it will still be a while. So I've decided to move us along to Guns, Germs and Steel. Hopefully however, we all be able take a break and read the new Megan Whalen Turner first (Andrea, I might die if you don't bring it on Sunday!!!)