I recently came across a blog post by an Evangelical Group, "Life After" Ministries:
What struck me was the quote mining and eisegesis of this one single blog post. Consider the following:
Firstly, John Tvedtnes was not an editor of the book. Only Donald W. Parry was the editor. John contributed an essay in the book:
Secondly, the essay in question is not a presentation of LDS doctrine per se but, had they bothered to present the name of the essay, it would be obvious that the author is presenting various traditions about the garment of Adam from Jewish, Christian, and Muslim traditions:
Stephen D. Ricks, “The Garment of Adam in Jewish, Muslim, and Christian Tradition” in Donald W. Parry, ed. Temples of the Ancient World (Provo, Utah: Foundation for Ancient Research and Mormon Studies, 1994), pp. 705-39
Here is the quotation with the footnotes attached (btw, it is pp. 710-11, not p. 711):
The garment given by God to Adam represents not merely protection and repentance, but authority as well.33 Of extraordinary brilliance and splendor and possessed of supernatural qualities,34 Adam’s garment was passed down from Adam to his descendants, who wore it as priestly robes. Thus the Numbers Rabbah states that “as Adam was about to sacrifice, he donned high priestly garments; as it says: ‘God made for Adam and his wife coats of skin’ (Genesis 3:21). They were robes of honor which subsequent firstborn used.”35 The firstborn sons sacrificed while wearing the garment before priests took over the role of sacrificing the offerings.36 Similarly, according to the Midrash Tanḥuma, “the liturgy was performed by the firstborn in [Adam’s garment].”37 It was this garment, passed through the generations from Seth to Noah,38 that was worn by Noah when he sacrificed on an altar.39 It was one of the items that Noah saved and carried with him in the ark.
Notes for the Above
33. The garment as a sign of authority is found in the Gnostic Gospel of Philip 57, which says, “In this world those who put on the garment are better than the garment. In the kingdom of heaven the garments are better than those who have put them on.” This may mean that the garment of the person in heaven have more power than the person alone. We find an even more convincing passage in Pistis Sophia 1:9, where Jesus is given authority immediately after (or through) his putting on his garment after his death: “It happened now when Jesus finished these words to his disciples, He continued again with the discourse, and he said to them, ‘Behold, I have put on my garment and all authority is given to me through the first mystery.'”
34. See [Ginzberg] L[egend of the]J[ews], 5:103. During the Middle Ages the traditions of Adam’s garments of light and his priestly garments were combined in the Yalqut 1:34 in ibid., 5:104: “God made high-priestly garments for Adam which were like those of the angels; but when he sinned, God took them away from him.” According to Garber, “Symbolism of Heavenly Robes,” 50, “This was an attempt to retain ‘skin’ (côr) in Genesis 3:21 without losing the sense of “light” (‘ôr).” Similarly, Zohar 1:36b starts, “at first they had coats of light, which procured them in the service of the highest of the high, for the celestial angels used to come to enjoy that light. . . . After their sins they had only coats of skin good for the body but not for the soul.” Here we see that the garment of skin (temporal) mirrors the garment of light (spiritual). According to Smith, “Garments of Shame,” 16, “before their expulsion from Eden, Adam and Eve had bodies or garments of light, but that after the expulsion, they received bodies of flesh or a covering of skin”; cf. Sverre Aalen, Die Begriffe “Licht” und “Finsternis” im alten Testament, im Spätjudentum und Rabbinismus (Oslo: Dwybad, 1951), 198–99, 265–66, 282–85.
35. Numbers Rabbah 4:8 on Numbers 3:45.
36. See Genesis Rabbah 20:12.
37. Midrash Tanḥuma 1:24.
38. In the Mandaean religion, there is a similar belief that the garment of Adam was inherited by Noah, Das Johannesbuch der Mandäer, ed. and trans. Mark Lidzbarski (Giessen: Töpelmann, 1905–15), 83; see Hans Schoeps, Urgemeinde, Judenchristentum, Gnosis (Tübingen: Mohr, 1956), 53. Cain, it appears, may have had this garment before Seth, but cast it off when he chose to follow evil, Ginzā: Der Schatz oder das große Buch der Mandäer, trans. Mark Lidzbarski (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1925), 128.
Thirdly, as it so often the case, the Protestant apologist assumes but never proves Sola Scriptura:
The Bible says nothing about Adam passing his garments on down to the next generation
My question to the author and other Protestants who think this is a good argument would be:
Where does the Bible say something must be explicitly stated in the Bible for it to be true? The answer, of course, is “nowhere.” For a full refutation of Sola Scriptura, see:
I will happily engage the author (“Michelle”) and/or any other Protestant apologist in a public debate on whether the Bible teaches Sola Scriptura. I have challenged a number, and so far, all have chickened out.
Lastly, they are also dead-wrong in their assessment of the garment given to Adam. They write:
[The Bible] tells us a garment was given to them to cover their shame. Here’s what Matthew Henry said about them, and you’ll notice how vastly different the insights are.
“Their clothes were made, not of silk and satin, but plain skins; not trimmed, nor embroidered, none of the ornaments which the daughters of Sion afterwards invented, and prided themselves in.”
One will notice that they do not provide any biblical exegesis for their position and only quote Matthew Henry. So much for the Bible being the final court of authority ;-)
John Tvedtnes dealt with a similar argument in a response to Matt Slick of CARM. In response to Slick’s argument that “God rejected the fig leaf aprons which Adam and Eve made (Gen. 3:21). Why do Mormons memorialize the fall by using fig leaf aprons in the secret temple ceremonies?” Tvedtnes responded:
The aprons are mentioned only in Genesis 3:7. Nowhere does the text tell us that God "rejected" them, only that, in place of the temporary fig leaf aprons (fig leaves dry up and blow away), God provided more permanent skin clothing (Genesis 3:21). The Latter-day Saints recognize the symbolic nature of the fall, represented by the fig-leaf apron and of God giving mankind a probationary time in which to repent, as represented by the "coats of skins."
Elsewhere, in another response to a (pathetic) “counter” to the Tvedtnes piece by Matt Slick, LDS apologist Russell Ashdown wrote:
MATTHEWS RESPONSE--I am sorry, but you fail to understand the significance of the biblical account. Adam and Eve covered themselves with their own works and God rejected it by replacing their works with His: animal skins. This is significant because it involved the shedding of blood (in order to get the skins, typifying the atoning work of Christ.)
Theologically, the fig leaf aprons symbolize their own efforts to be covered before God. This is not sufficient and is rejected by God.
Additionally, from what I understand of the temple ceremony, the aprons are the same as the one worn by Lucifer. After Lucifer is asked by Adam, "What is that apron you are wearing?" Lucifer replies that it is the symbol of his power and priesthoods. Immediately afterwards, the people going through the temple ceremony are asked to put their aprons on.
Please let me know if I am incorrect about this.
MY RESPONSE--I am sorry Matt but I was have to agree with Tvednes again. Nowhere in the Bible does it say that God rejected it. Your adding to the Bible now Matthew. Your inserting your views in a text where it does not demand it to be inserted. Nowhere does it say anything like "Adam and Eve covered themselves with their own works and God rejected it by replacing their works with His: animal skins." Where in the world are you getting this from? Yes God gave them animal skins, which actually would be a sacred holy garment to Adam and Eve by the way but that is in addition to the fig. I love your statement "Theologically, the fig leaf aprons symbolize their own efforts to be covered before God. This is not sufficient and is rejected by God." Don't know where your getting this from but theologically speaking, this is BS. Sorry but that is true. Just because you think that God rejected it does not make it so. WHere does it say this in the Bible or anywhere else? What "theology" are you referring to? I have no idea.
It should be clear that the author of this piece, “Michelle,” is utterly clueless and intellectually disingenuous. This post should emphasise the absolute importance of checking sources and the claims of Evangelical Protestants, not just when they discuss “Mormonism,” but also when they attempt to defend their own aberrant beliefs.
Paypal