The LDS document, The Family: A Proclamation to the World is a fascinating religious text. One of the most intriguing parts is the assertion found in the fourth paragraph: “the first commandment that God gave to Adam and Eve pertained to their potential for parenthood.”

In terms of the biblical narrative, this is absolutely a true statement, but NOT in the way the authors assume. The first command God gave to Adam and Eve is Genesis 2:16-17 (and technically, it was only given to the man):

“And the LORD God commanded the man, saying, ‘Of every tree of the garden you are free to eat; but as for the tree of knowledge of good and bad, you must not eat of it; for as soon as you eat of it, you shall die.’”

A careful reading of the account reveals that the specific knowledge the fruit gave the first humans was a knowledge of sexual awareness. After all, the first thing the couple learns after eating the fruit is the fact that they are naked.

Prior to eating the fruit, the woman is simply called “the Woman.” After she partakes, God changes her name to Eve, meaning “life giver.” And, as soon as the couple leaves the garden, we read that the man “knew” his wife and she conceived a child.

Even the Book of Mormon specifically states that if Adam and Eve had not eaten the fruit, "they would have had no children; wherefore they would have remained in a state of innocence" (2 Nephi 2:23).

Hence, God’s first command to Adam and Eve did pertain to their potential for parenthood. God commanded them NOT to eat the fruit that would grant them this ability. God did not want the humans to gain sexual awareness and create families.

What the authors of the Family Proclamation fail to recognize is that the story of Adam and Eve is an entirely separate literary account from the creation story in Genesis 1. Adam and Eve are not even mentioned in the Genesis 1 narrative.

Genesis 1:26 uses the word adam, but the Hebrew term clearly means “humanity,” not Adam, as is illustrated by the corresponding third person masculine plural jussive, “let them have dominion.”

Moreover, contrary to what the Proclamation asserts, there is literally nothing in the account that pertains to the human potential to create families as husband and wife. Marriage is not discussed, and if it was, it would be nothing like the views found in the Proclamation.

Marriage in the Bible is a legal arrangement that secured the rights of fathers, husbands, and masters over Israelite women, children, and slaves. Women are property, not partners. Biblical marriage never unites one man and one woman for the purpose of procreation and sex.

Instead, marriage unites free Israelite men with as many women and slaves as they can possibly support. And Speaking of traditional marriage, in the biblical story of Eden, the woman was not created as a wife for the man.

The woman was created as an ezer or “helper” to assist in the man’s agricultural assignment. If God had intended the woman to be man’s wife, the account envisions the first man engaged in bestiality,

since the woman was simply created when the animals proved unfit to fulfill the role of an ezer. That various rabbinic commentators recognized this intrinsic logic is seen through the following statement from the Jerusalem Talmud regarding the man’s declaration,

“This one, this time is bone of my bone and flesh of my flesh” (Gen 2:23): “This teaches that Adam cohabited with every animal and beast but his mind was not at peace until he cohabited with Eve” (b. Yebamot 63a)

In the end, the LDS Proclamation on the family is much more consistent with the American ideal of the 1950's than it is the views presented in the Bible.