In the autobiography of a Shaker, Evans explained the importance of the Orders of Generation and Resurrection. This originated from Gen 1: 26-27, in which male and female are created in the image of God. Evans explained that because of this, God must have both male and female counterparts. Thus, when God sent Jesus, who cleansed the sins of all descendants of Adam, the male Heavenly Father took human form to save all from their sins. In order to complete this "saving" full circle, the "Heavenly Mother" was sent down in the form of Ann Lee, who Shakers believed was the female form of Jesus. As such, Adam and Eve were the originally generated humans, both created in the image of God. And because of this, both a male (Jesus) and female (Ann Lee) divinity had to take on human form.
Furthermore, Evans explained that men represented wisdom of the woman, while women represented the love of the man. In other words, he agreed with a former philosopher we have read about, that the "glory of man" was woman, and the "glory of God" was man.
In the section entitled God Is Male and Female, Evans explained the reasoning behind the existence of a Heavenly Father and Mother. Because of Gen 1:26-27, which explained that male and female were created in God's image, he elucidated that male and female counterparts must exist in heaven. Thus, there must be a Heavenly Father and Mother. And because without a father, there can be no mother, and vice versa, there must exist these two celestial counterparts, based on the order of nature. Evans explained that because there is an existence of male elements, since frequently God is referred to as male, there "implies the existence of a counterpart."
In the section entitled The Shakers on the Fall of Man, Evans discussed the significance of the fall of mankind. First of all, he incorrectly stated that the fruit Adam and Eve ate was an apple, which was highly unlikely, considering apples do not grow in that georgraphic location in the world. However, he did explain that it was not the fruit itself that caused the fall of man, but rather their disobedience that caused it. He did not believe that it was the natural order of things that the man should rule over the wife, since most times in nature, the female rules in the work of reproduction. He also pointed out that the snake represented the "sensual" nature of the man, since it was the serpent who tempted the man into eating the fruit. This however goes against the text, since it was the wife, not the serpent, who initiated Adam to eat the "apple."
In Compendium, Evans explained Shakers believed in the eternal distinction of sex, and thus, since Adam and Eve were male and female counterparts, there must be a "Second Adam" (Jesus) and a Second Eve. Since Jesus was male, he could represent the male element of God, while Ann, who was female, represented the female spirit of God.
In the Divine Book of Holy and Eternal Wisdom, many different beliefs were demonstrated and explained. It traced many of these beliefs back to Genesis. In the beginning, all sources of existence had male and female principles or counterparts, which obviously originated from Gen 1: 26-27. It also traced some of its beliefs from Genesis 2, in which God decided to created Eve. In Bates version, God decided it was not good for Adam (in other words, God's male element) to be alone, and thus, needed the existence of his Mother Spirit to achieve natural order. Thus, God created Eve in order to complete the full circle of the natural order. The Book also denounced the notion that females had no soul, since they were not made in the image of God and were merely a machine for means of reproduction. It explained that this notion could be denounced by the fact that God existed in two deities, male and female. The Book also explained that in order for the sin of Adam and Eve to be redeemed, both a male and female form of a Savior was necessary to achieve this forgiveness and cleansing of sins. Thus, the Book constantly discussed the multifarious effects of the notion that God created male and female counterparts in his image. Since there was a fall of both man and woman, both man and woman must be saved by a male and female form of God, the Heavenly Father and Mother. The author then quoted Corinthians 11, which stated that "neither is the man without the woman, nor the woman without the man." Thus, men and women are dependent on one another for existence, and thus, this explained why male and female were created together.
In the History of American Socialisms, many different propositions were listed. Some of these originated from the Book of Genesis. Proposition 5 originated from Genesis 2-3, in which husbands are given the ability to rule over their wives. In the Kingdom of Heaven, Noyes explained, this possession does not exist. Thus, the kingdom of Heaven was what existed before the fall of mankind. Proposition 14 originated also from Genesis 2-3, in which the origin of sexual attraction and lust may or may have commenced. It was indeed possible that the fall of mankind brought about the notion that sexual and bodily desires were evil. Thus, this proposition stated that the institution of marriage merely gave into sexual appetites and desires. This was because the sexual appetite was "starved" by years of waiting for marriage. Thus, this led to multifarious bodily desires and practices that were considered at the time shameful, such as masturbation, prostitution, etc.
Noyes also explained that the fall of mankind involved two distinct separations. One was a separation of Adam and Eve from God, in which they hide from him in Genesis 3, and a separation from one another, depicted by their shamefulness of their nudity to one another. These of course, as Noyes stated, were the two physical manifestations of original sin. As such, the redemption of these two separations was the means of cleansing one's self from original sin. Thus, Noyes explained that one must reconcile with God through the reconciliation of sins through the sacraments and practices of the Mass, and bring about the "true union of the sexes."
Noyes also suggested that life before the fall of man involved Eve loving Adam unconditionally, since she of course was his first neighbor. "Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself," was the second part of Golden Rule given to Christians by Christ. This idea, according to Noyes, originated from the concept of Adam and Eve. Thus, before the fall, in which the world was the "kingdom of heaven," all humans would love one another unconditionally. The existence of this "kingdom of heaven" on earth would essentially establish the immortality of mankind.
Noyes also attempted to seek the reasoning behind Gods punishments and the effect these punishments have had on mankind. The punishment placed on men and women, of course, had a great effect of reproduction. Because sex could lead to pregnancy, which of course led to painful childbirths, and even disease, it was looked down upon to commence in these acts outside of marriage. However, as Noyes explained, God made this so, and thus, it must be correct. In other words, he took a Thomas Aquinas approach to explaining the punishments of God.
Noyes further explained the punishments, explaining the punishment of forcing labor upon all humans. He explained that with out this labor, natural order would not persist, and there would also be no distinction or mingling of the sexes. This of course would be a very boring life without labor. He further elucidated that the reconiliation with God opens the way for reconciliation of the sexes. This of course allows for woman to be more free and open, which makes labor "more attractive." And by doing so, one can abolish all sin, and thus conquer death, and essentially choose the path to eternal life. He of course explained that eternal life was represented by the Tree of Life, which was mentioned in Genesis 2-3. Essentially, Noyes believed that the fall of mankind led to distortions of human perception and relationships. An attempt to correct and reestablish the natural order prior to the fall of man was also an attempt to achieve eternal life, since it was a heroic attempt to bring the kingdom of heaven upon earth.
This is an odd combination of good reading and misreading.
ReplyDeletePart One: On the Shakers:
I wouldn't say that Ann Lee was the female form of Jesus, but rather she was the female appearance of the 'Christ Spirit', corresponding to Jesus as its male appearance. The word 'form' doesn't quite fit.
"Furthermore, Evans explained that men represented wisdom of the woman, while women represented the love of the man. In other words, he agreed with a former philosopher we have read about, that the "glory of man" was woman, and the "glory of God" was man"
The quote is from 1 Cor 11, although I don't really see how Noyes interprets this.
"First of all, he incorrectly stated that the fruit Adam and Eve ate was an apple, which was highly unlikely".
This is a quibble; for his point any fruit would do. In any case, reading allegorically, he does away with the fruit entirely, a more significant point. And he isn't a biblical scholar and likely knew the Bible only in translation.
"However, he did explain that it was not the fruit itself that caused the fall of man, but rather their disobedience that caused it."
I fou d him rather unclear on this point. He never refers to 'disobedience', rather he blames "man's sensual nature", rather similar to Philo, except that he identifies this with the snake. How this is a "social evil" I don't get.
"In Bates version, God decided it was not good for Adam (in other words, God's male element) to be alone, and thus, needed the existence of his Mother Spirit to achieve natural order."
Bates seems to be running an analogy between Adam and God, placing God in the role of Adam in Gen 2, needing a female counterpart so as not (for Himself) to be alone, so He creates "the Mother Spirit) not Eve.
I'll continue in the next post.
Part Two: On Noyes
ReplyDelete"Proposition 5 originated from Genesis 2-3, in which husbands are given the ability to rule over their wives. In the Kingdom of Heaven, Noyes explained, this possession does not exist. "
If you look at the NT references, Noyes is not addressing male domination in marriage but marriage itself, which acc.to the NT didn't exist in heaven.
"Proposition 14 originated also from Genesis 2-3, in which the origin of sexual attraction and lust may or may have commenced. It was indeed possible that the fall of mankind brought about the notion that sexual and bodily desires were evil."
Proposition 14 simply addresses the practical difficulties that arise from the institution of monogamy and traces sexual deviance not to any sense that sex is sinful but that it isn't allowed enough (nothing to do with Gen 2-3 or its sexual interpretation). You are projecting here.
On Proposition 17:
"Thus, Noyes explained that one must reconcile with God through the reconciliation of sins through the sacraments and practices of the Mass, and bring about the "true union of the sexes."
Where in the world did you get "the sacraments and practices of the Mass" from Noyes? He is not at all clear about how he intends to go out the "reconciliation with God".
"Noyes also attempted to seek the reasoning behind Gods punishments and the effect these punishments have had on mankind. The punishment placed on men and women, of course, had a great effect of reproduction. Because sex could lead to pregnancy, which of course led to painful childbirths, and even disease, it was looked down upon to commence in these acts outside of marriage."
Again, you are reading something into the text that isn't there. Noyes describes the punishments without any interest in justifying them. Rather his only interest is in how to overcome them through his form of "free love". He sees these punishments being played out within the 'fallen' state of marriage, not outside it.
" Noyes further explained the punishments, explaining the punishment of forcing labor upon all humans. He explained that with out this labor, natural order would not persist, and there would also be no distinction or mingling of the sexes. This of course would be a very boring life without labor".
You really misunderstood Noyes here. What he claims is that with the proper social organization, labor would no longer be characterized as punitive; in other words, one could undo this punishment and labor would be "attractive".
You end up with a correct estimation of Noyes but with many slips along the way.