1 Samuel 19:24.
 R. Jamieson et al., Commentary, pp. 219-220 n. 24. Cf. D. T. Tsumura, 1 Samuel, p. 499.
 E. Robinson, Dictionary, p. 302 s.v. Naked.
 Cf. G. J. Wenham, Genesis 1-15, p. 200: “Westerners who are strangers to a world where discretion and filial loyalty are supreme virtues have often felt that there must be something more to Ham’s offense than appears on the surface.” Ross explains the heinousness of the act of seeing one’s father’s nakedness in cultural context (A. P. Ross, Creation, p. 215):
By mentioning that Ham entered and saw his father’s nakedness, the text emphasizes that this seeing was the disgusting thing. Ham’s errant looking, a moral flaw, represented the first step in the abandonment of a moral code. This violation of a boundary destroyed the honor of Noah. (For similar taboos against such “looking,” cf. Genesis 19:26; Exodus 33:20; Judges 13:22; 1 Samuel 16:19). Ham desecrated a natural and sacred barrier. His going out to tell his brothers about it without covering the old man aggravated the act. Because of this breach of domestic and filial propriety (the expositor must keep in mind that these are not little boys), Ham could expect nothing less than the oracle against his own family’s honor.
 I.e., maternal incest, drawing on the prohibition in Leviticus 18:7-8 that equates the act of uncovering “the nakedness of [one’s] mother” with the idea of having uncovered the nakedness of one’s father. See, e.g., J. S. Bergsma et al., Noah’s Nakedness. For related precedents for such actions, see the incident of Reuben with his father’s concubine (Genesis 35:22, 49:3-4) and Absalom’s attempt “to secure his hold on the kingdom by going in to his father’s concubines (2 Samuel 16:20-23)” (G. J. Wenham, Genesis 1-15, p. 200). For a refutation of this interpretation, see, e.g., A. P. Ross, Creation, pp. 214-215.
 I.e., castration or homosexual relations. On the former, see, e.g., M.-A. Ouaknin et al., Rabbi lizer, 23, p. 142; Talmud Sanh. 70a. On the latter, see, e.g., J. L. Kugel, Traditions, p. 222; D. Steinmetz, Vineyard, pp. 198-199.
 G. J. Wenham, Genesis 1-15, p. 200.
 U. Cassuto, Noah to Abraham, p. 151. Cf. C. Westermann, Genesis 1-11, p. 488 n. 9:22: “All… conjectures [of a more grave sin] have missed the point. They have not seen that Ham’s outrage consists in not covering his father.”
 After having reviewed the evidence for the various views, Embry vigorously argues against proponents of the idea that Ham committed a “sexually deviant act” and produces evidence for the assertion that the “voyeuristic position is the likely explanation for Noah’s reaction against Ham: it was simply the act of seeing Noah uncovered that warranted the cursing from Noah” (B. Embry, Naked Narrative, p. 417). After considering the alternatives, Ross concludes (A. P. Ross, Creation, p. 215): “There is… no clear evidence that Ham actually did anything other than see the nakedness of his father.” W. Vogels, Cham Dcouvre, p. 568 likewise concludes that there is “nothing in the statement that Ham saw the nakedness of his father’ that hints at a sexual act.”
 Koler and Greenspahn, quoted in W. Vogels, Cham Dcouvre, p. 567 n. 31.
 R. S. Hendel, Demigods, p. 23.
 See Genesis 7:1.
 See, e.g., G. K. Beale, Temple, pp. 66-80; J. M. Bradshaw, God’s Image 1, pp. 146-49; R. N. Holzapfel et al., Father’s House, pp. 17-19; J. M. Lundquist, Reality; J. Morrow, Creation; D. W. Parry, Garden; D. W. Parry, Cherubim; J. A. Parry et al., Temple in Heaven; T. Stordalen, Echoes, pp. 112-116, 308-309; G. J. Wenham, Sanctuary Symbolism.
 Ephrem the Syrian, Paradise, 3:5, p. 92.
 J. M. Bradshaw et al., Mormonism’s Satan, pp. 18-19; J. M. Bradshaw, The tree of knowledge as the veil of the sanctuary.
 R. M. Zlotowitz et al., Bereishis, p. 101, cf. p. 96. See also L. Ginzberg, Legends, 1:70, 5:91 n. 50.
 Brock in Ephrem the Syrian, Paradise, p. 53.
 Brock in ibid., p. 53. See Ephrem the Syrian, Paradise, 2:9-13, pp. 88-89, 3:1-5, pp. 90-92. See also C. Buck, Paradise, pp. 259-288; A. S.-M. Ri, Commentaire de la Caverne, p. 208.
 See, e.g., N. Wyatt, Hollow Crown, p. 40.
 J. E. Seaich, Ancient Texts 1995, p. 660, see also 568-77, 661, 807-09. For a summary of parallels in the imagery of merkavah mysticism and the experience of Israel at Sinai, see J. Magness, Heaven, p. 35 n. 238.
 Genesis 6:16.
 Ephrem’s distinction between “animals,” “birds,” and “men” seems to have a symbolic significance here.
As a key to this idea, note that the Animal Apocalypse in 1 Enoch 85-89 is written in a code that represents key individuals (and their righteous and wicked descendants) as “animals” of different colors (G.W. E. Nickelsburg, 1 Enoch 1, 85-89, pp. 364-367). Some “animals” (notably Noah and Moses) are eventually transformed into “men,” which, according to M. Barker, Hidden, p. 45, represents the acquiring of “angelic” status after having been taught a “mystery” (see 1 Enoch 89:1). Likewise, according to Ephrem and various pseudepigraphal accounts, while humankind (Adam and Eve) lived inside the Garden of Eden, the “animals” (meaning individuals not fit for terrestrial glory, including the “serpent”) lived just outside its walls in the “telestial world” (see G. A. Anderson, Perfection, p. 80).
The angel Yahoel is described as both man and bird in the Apocalypse of Abraham (A. A. Orlov, Angelology. See also A. Kulik, Retroverting, p. 83; B. Louri, Review). For other references to angels as birds, see, e.g., Ezekiel 1:10; Book of Abraham Facsimile 1, figure 1; P. Alexander, 3 Enoch, 2:1, p. 257, 22:9, p. 278, 26:3, p. 280, 44:5, p. 295, 47:4, p. 300.
 Brock in Ephrem the Syrian, Paradise, p. 52.
 G. A. Anderson, Perfection, p. 129; cf. C. R. A. Morray-Jones, Divine Names, pp. 372-373. Morray-Jones, following Chernus notes, however, that at least in some cases, “underlying these traditions is a theme of initiatory death,’ … leading to rebirth” (C. R. A. Morray-Jones, Transformational, p. 23).
 Genesis 2:9.
 J. M. Bradshaw, God’s Image 1, 3:9h, p. 167; S. K. Brown, Voices, p. 175; D. W. Parry, Cherubim, pp. 10-11.
 Numbers 21:8-9; John 3:14-15; 2 Nephi 25:20; Alma 33:19; Helaman 8:14-15. See also J. M. Bradshaw, God’s Image 1, pp. 247-248. For a comprehensive study of the ambivalent symbolism of the serpent, see J. H. Charlesworth, Serpent.
 J. H. Charlesworth, Serpent, pp. 444-445, see also pp. 30, 87, 220, 258, 332, 426; K. R. Joines, Winged Serpents.
 Ephrem the Syrian, Paradise, 3:5, p. 92.
 2 Nephi 9:41.
 M. E. Stone, Adamgirk, 1:3:71, p. 101.
 Ibid., 1:3:27, p. 96, emphasis added. Nibley succinctly sums up the situation: “Satan disobeyed orders when he revealed certain secrets to Adam and Eve, not because they were not known and done in other worlds, but because he was not authorized in that time and place to convey them” (H. W. Nibley, Return, p. 63). Although Satan had “given the fruit to Adam and Eve, it was not his prerogative to do so-regardless of what had been done in other worlds. (When the time comes for such fruit, it will be given us legitimately)” (H. W. Nibley, Gifts, p. 92).
 J. M. Bradshaw et al., Mormonism’s Satan, pp. 18-19.
 By analogy to the layout of the Garden of Eden. For those who take the Tree of Life to be a representation within the Holy of Holies, it is natural to see the tree itself as the locus of God’s throne (Revelation 22:1-3, G. A. Anderson et al., Synopsis, Greek 22:4, p. 62E). “[T]he Garden, at the center of which stands the throne of glory, is the royal audience room, which only those admitted to the sovereign’s presence can enter” (G. B. Eden, Mystical Architecture, p. 22).
 Koler and Greenspahn, as discussed in W. Vogels, Cham Dcouvre, pp. 566-567. Cf., e.g., D. C. Matt, Zohar 1, 1:73a-b, p. 434 n. 700: “‘the tent of the vineyard,’ namely the tent of Shekhinah.”
 Genesis 9:21.
 Compare Moses 3:9; 4:9, 14.
 R. M. Zlotowitz et al., Bereishis, p. 101, cf. p. 96. See also L. Ginzberg, Legends, 1:70, 5:91 n. 50.
 Genesis 3:9.
 T. L. Brodie, Dialogue, p. 192.
 D. C. Matt, Zohar 1, 1:73a, p. 431. A. J. Tomasino, History, p. 130 elaborates on the role of the “serpent” in the Garden of Eden and in Noah’s garden:
When he saw his father’s nakedness, Ham went and told (wayyagged) his brothers about it (Genesis 9:22). When Adam and Eve told Yahweh God that they had hidden because they were naked, God asked, “Who told (higgid) you that you were naked?” (Genesis 3:1). The source of this information turned out to be the serpent. Furthermore, when Ham told his brothers about their father’s nudity, he was undoubtedly tempting them with forbidden knowledge (the opportunity to see their father’s nakedness). Finally, for his part in the Fall, the serpent was cursed (arur) more than any of the other creatures (Genesis 3:14). His offspring were doomed to be subject to the woman’s offspring (Genesis 3:15). Ham’s offspring, too, became cursed (arur), doomed to subjugation to the offspring of his brothers (Genesis 9:25).
 D. C.
Matt, Zohar 1, 1:73b, p. 435 n. 708.For more discussion on the curse of slavery, see D. M. Goldenberg, Curse, pp. 157-167; D. M. Goldenberg, What Did Ham. For a broad survey of the way in which Genesis 9:25 and other biblical texts were appropriated to justify the practice of American slavery, see S. R. Haynes, Curse.
 See Genesis 9:25.
 M. McNamara, Targum Neofiti, 9:27, pp. 80-81.
 See Exodus 20:26, 28:72. Cf., e.g., B. Embry, Naked Narrative, pp. 431-432.
 H. W. Nibley, Twilight World, pp. 169-170.
 E.g., M.-A. Ouaknin et al., Rabbi lizer, 24, pp. 145-146.
 Genesis 3:21.
 H. Freedman et al., Midrash, 4:8 (Numbers 3:45), pp. 101-103; L. Ginzberg, Legends, 5:199 n. 79; J. T. Townsend, Tanhuma, 1:24, pp. 16-17. See H. W. Nibley, Vestments, pp. 100-102, 124-126; S. D. Ricks, Garment, pp. 710-714; J. A. Tvedtnes, Clothing, pp. 649-662 for discussions of Egyptian, Jewish, Greek, and Christian traditions surrounding the leather garment.
Ginzberg draws on Jewish tradition to further explain that, in the case of Joseph, the popular understanding that the garment had “many colors” is incorrect, and that the description is meant to convey “an upper garment in which figures are woven” (L. Ginzberg, Legends, 5:329 n. 43, citing Mishanic understandings). The notion of “figures” that were woven into the garment of Joseph recalls the account in the Book of Adam and Eve, where in making the skin garment they placed palm-thorns through the skins and prayed that the thorns would “be hidden, so as to be, as it were, sewn with one thread” (S. C. Malan, Adam and Eve, 1:52, pp. 56-57).
 H. Freedman et al., Midrash, 4:8 (Numbers 3:45), pp. 101-102. The Mandaean Book of John asserts that the “garment of repentance” of Adam was passed down to Noah’s son Shem, and eventually came down to John the Baptist (cf. Matthew 3:4; Mark 1:6) so that he might make his ascent: “Das Gewand, das das erste Leben Adam, dem Manne, gegeben hat, das Gewand, das das erste Leben Rm, dem Manne, gegeben hat, das Gewand, das das erste Leben Surbai, dem Manne, gegeben hat, das Gewand das das erste Leben Sum bar Nu gegeben hat, hat es jetzt dir gegeben. Es hat es dir gegeben, Jahj, damit du emporsteigest und mit dir emporsteige.” [The garment that the First Life gave to Adam, the Man [ = the Celestial Man or Adam of Light (G. R. S. Mead, Mandaean John-Book, p. 41 n. 6)], the garment that the First Life gave to Rm [ = Rm the Great, coupled also with Bhrm, also Bahrm = Avestan Verethragna (ibid., p. 41 n. 7)], the Man, the garment that the First Life gave to Shurbai [not identified (ibid., p. 42 n. 1)], the Man, the garment that the First Life gave to Shem, son of Noah [according to the Mandaeans, the first world age was that of Adam, the second of Rm and Rd, the third of Shurbai and Sharhab-el, and the fourth was that of the Flood (ibid., p. 42 n. 2)]-he has now given you. It has been given you, Jahj [John], so that you may ascend and that those may ascend with you.] (M. Lidzbarski, Johannesbuch, John-Jonah, p. 83). (ibid., John-Jonah, p. 83. See S. D. Ricks, Garment, pp. 711-712, 729 n. 38).
 L. M. Morales, The Tabernacle Pre-Figured (pre-publication draft), p. 157.
 Genesis 8:13.
 Exodus 40:19.
 L. M. Morales, The Tabernacle Pre-Figured (pre-publication draft), p. 157 notes that “the Ark [is] the only exception to the term’s otherwise exclusive usage in reference to the tent of meeting.”
 Quoted in H. W. Nibley, Return, p. 81. Drawing on a retrospective interview of Joseph Smith, Sr. by Fayette Lapham (F. Lapham, Interview, p. 466), D. Bradley, Piercing has explored a purported Book of Mormon account of revelation through the use of divine interpreters whereby their possessors would, put them on as spectacles and then put their face inside a “skin.” The conversation that revealed this manner of receiving knowledge is said to have occurred through an exchange of human and divine voices inside a Nephite “Tabernacle,” recalling the account of the brother of Jared at the “veil” in Ether 3 and the conversation of Moses with the Lord in Exodus 4. For a good summary, see B. Haymond, Earliest.
The danger of looking beyond the veil for someone who is unready and unauthorized is described by a petitioner in the Islamic mystical text, The Mother of Books, who is warned by God that if someone were to move “the curtain and the veil the slightest bit [to] make the high king visible… their spirit would leave their body” (W. Barnstone et al., Mother, p. 672). By way of contrast, the Armenian Descendants of Adam (M. E. Stone, Descendants, 14-22, p. 85) says that the righteous Enoch refrained from looking at the heavens-which is equated to the fact that he did not eat of the:
… tree of meat [i.e., the tree of knowledge] … And he drew linen over his face, and did not look at the heavens, on account of the sin of Adam. And he said, “When of the servant, there is trouble, the servant does not to look at the crown. And he quickly becomes sweet. And I, on account of the sin of Adam, I dare not look at the heavens, that God may have mercy upon Adam.
” And God had mercy upon Enoch and transferred him to immortality.
In some texts Enoch is seen as having reversed the Fall of Adam (A. A. Orlov, Enoch-Metatron, p. 248). For a discussion of a wider redemptive role attributed to Enoch, see A. A. Orlov, Polemical Nature; A. A. Orlov, Redeeming Role.
In some respects, the fall of Satan, who said, aspiringly, “I will ascend into heaven… I will be like the most High”(Isaiah 14:13-14_ and “sought that [God] should give unto him [His] own power” (Moses 4:3), parallels the Fall of Adam. The fifteenth-century Adamgirk text has Satan saying: “I fell, exiled from the heavens, Without fruit [from the Tree of Life], like Eve” (M. E. Stone, Adamgirk, 3:7:3, p. 65). Nibley remarks that “dire consequences” may result from transgression of divinely-set bounds: “Pistis Sophia went beyond her degree’ and, becoming ambitious, looked behind the veil’ [and] fell from glory” (H. W. Nibley, Message 2005, p. 443. See G. R. S. Mead, Pistis, 1:29-30, pp. 33-36; C. Schmidt, Pistis, 1:29-30, pp. 83-91. For a general discussion of such dangers, see J. Dan, Mysticism, 1:261-309).
 H. W. Nibley, Return, p. 126.
 Moses 7:3. Cf. H. W. Nibley, Vestments, pp. 118-119:
Why the insistence on [the idea of being “clothed upon with glory”]? Enoch says, “I was clothed upon with glory. Therefore I could stand in the presence of God” (cf. Moses 1:2, 31). Otherwise he could not. It is the garment that gives confidence in the presence of God; one does not feel too exposed (2 Nephi 9:14). That garment is the garment… of divinity. So as Enoch says, “I was clothed upon with glory, and I saw the Lord” (Moses 7:3-4), just as Moses saw Him “face to face, … and the glory of God was upon Moses; therefore Moses could endure his presence (Moses 1:2). In 2 Enoch, discovered in 1892, we read, “The Lord spoke to me with his own mouth: … Take Enoch and remove his earthly garments and anoint him with holy oil and clothe him in his garment of glory.’ … And I looked at myself, and I looked like one of the glorious ones” (see F. I. Andersen, 2 Enoch, 22:5, 8, 10, pp. 137, 139). Being no different from him in appearance, he is qualified now, in the manner of initiation. He can go back and join them because he has received a particular garment of glory.
It appears that the ritual garment of skins was needed only for a protection during one’s probation on earth. Ephrem the Syrian asserted that when Adam “returned to his former glory, … [he] no longer had any need of [fig] leaves or garments of skin” (Commentary on the Diatessaron, cited in M. Barker, Hidden, p. 34). Note also Joseph Smith’s careful description of the angel Moroni (JS-H 1:31): “I could discover that he had no other clothing on but this robe, as it was open, so that I could see into his bosom.” We infer that Moroni had forever laid aside his “garment of repentance,” since he was now permanently clothed with glory. The protection provided by the garment was accompanied by a promise of heavenly assistance. In this connection, Nibley paraphrases a passage from the Mandaean Ginza: “… when Adam stood praying for light and knowledge a helper came to him, gave him a garment, and told him, Those men who gave you the garment will assist you throughout your life until you are ready to leave earth'” (H. W. Nibley, Apocryphal, p. 299. The German reads: “Wie Adam dasteht und sich aufzuklren sucht, kam der Mann, sein Helfer. Der hohe Helfer kam zu ihm, der ihn in ein Stu?ck reichen Glanzes hineintrug. Er sprach zu ihm: Ziehe dein Gewand an… Die Mnner, die dein Gewand geschaffen, dienen dir, bis du abscheidest’” (M. Lidzbarski, Ginza, GL 2:19, p. 488)).
When this time of probation ended, the garment of light or glory that was previously had in the heavenly realms was to be returned to the righteous. As Nibley explained (H. W. Nibley, Message 2005, p. 489. See also E. Hennecke et al., Acts of Thomas, 108.9-15, pp. 498-499; B. T. Ostler, Clothed, p. 4):
The garment [of light] represents the preexistent glory of the candidate… When he leaves on his earthly mission, it is laid up for him in heaven to await his return. It thus serves as security and lends urgency and weight to the need for following righteous ways on earth. For if one fails here, one loses not only one’s glorious future in the eternities to come, but also the whole accumulation of past deeds and accomplishments in the long ages of preexistence.
While Noah had not yet finished his probation when he spoke with Deity in the tent, he and others of the prophets experienced a temporary transfiguration that clothed them with glory and allowed them to endure God’s presence (see, e.g., Moses 1:12-14, 31; 7:3). A conjecture consistent with this view is that Ham took the garment of skins that Noah had laid temporarily aside during his transfiguration.
 M.-A. Ouaknin et al., Rabbi lizer, 24, pp. 145-146. Cf. M. M. Noah, Jasher, 7:27, p. 15, which, according to Ginzberg, derived its version of the story from Rabbi Eliezer (L. Ginzberg, Legends, 5:199 n. 78). See also M. J. bin Gorion (Berdichevsky), Die Sagen, p. 211: “Doch in der Zeit, da er die Arche verliess, stahl Ham seinem Vater jenes Kleid weg und verwahrte es vor seinen Brdern [After he left the Ark, Ham stole his father’s garment and hid it from his brothers].”
 H. C. Kimball, 11 January 1857, p. 172. Like the previously cited statement by Joseph Smith (J.Smith, Jr., Teachings, 7 November 1841, p. 193), President Kimball’s comments were made in the context of a talk where he urged the Saints to give up finding fault in petty matters, as in the case of Noah who in this instance “drank a little too much wine.”
-A. Ouaknin et al., Rabbi lizer, 24, p. 148. See J. A. Tvedtnes, Clothing, pp. 654-659 for a discussion of Jewish traditions relating to the stolen garment. Midrash Rabbah, on the other hand, says that Noah’s garment was passed on to Shem and then eventually to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob (H. Freedman et al., Midrash, 4:8 (Numbers 3:45), pp. 102-103). Al-Tha’labi tells of how when (A. I. A. I. M. I. I. al-Tha’labi, Lives, p. 190):
Abraham was stripped of his clothes and thrown into the fire naked, Gabriel brought him a shirt made from the silk of the Garden [of Eden] and clothed him in it. That shirt remained with Abraham, and when he died, Isaac inherited it. When Isaac died, Jacob inherited it from him, and when Joseph grew up, Jacob put that shirt in an amulet and placed it on Joseph’s neck to protect him from the evil eye. He never parted with it. When he was thrown into the pit naked, the angel came to him with the amulet. He took out the shirt, dressed Joseph in it, and kept him company by day.
Later, when Joseph learned that his aged father had lost his eyesight (ibid., p. 228):
… he gave them his hisrt. Al-Dahhak said that that shirt was woven in Paradise, and it had the smell of Paradise. When it only touched an afflicted or ailing man, that man would be restored to health and be cured… [Joseph] said to them, “Take this shirt of mine and cast it on my father’s face, he will again be able to see” (Qur’an 12:93)…
 S. C. Malan, Adam and Eve, 1:50-51, pp. 55-56, cf. 2:17, p. 128.
 G. R. S. Mead, Pistis, 1:55:18-24, p. 89. Cf. Psalms of Thomas 2; cf. C. R. C. A. Allberry, Psalm-Book, 2:205, quoted in H. W. Nibley, Vestments, p. 128.
 B. Maruani et al., Midrach Rabba, Gense 1, 36:6, p. 275.
 I.e., breeches (H. Freedman et al., Midrash, 1:292 n. 5).
 For ancient traditions respecting protection and wisdom afforded by the garment, see J. A. Tvedtnes, Clothing, pp. 659-662.
 B. Maruani et al., Midrach Rabba, Gense 1, p. 375 n. 21.
 J. Neusner, Genesis Rabbah 2, 36:6:1, p. 31.
 H. W. Nibley, Vestments, p. 129.
 J. A. Tvedtnes, Clothing, p. 659. Cf. sources cited in L. Ginzberg, Legends, 5:192 n. 61.
 H. W. Nibley, Twilight World, pp. 169-170 observed that Hebrew term for the clothing used by Shem and Japheth, simlah, “means only a woven garment and can hardly refer to the original skin article” that was stolen by Ham.
 Photograph IMGP1821, 24 April 2009, Stephen T. Whitlock. Detail of Patriarchs Window, Holy Trinity Church, Stratford-upon-Avon, England.
 See, e.g., J. H. Sailhamer, Genesis, p. 94 n. 8:20-9:17.
 See, e.g., A. J. Tomasino, History, p. 129.
 See, e.g., J. H. Sailhamer, Genesis, p. 80; A. J. Tomasino, History, pp. 129-130.
 Exodus 25:8-40.
 1 Chronicles 28:11-12, 19.
 Genesis 6:14-16. Cf. E. A. Harper, You Shall Make, pp. 55-56
 C. H. T. Fletcher-Louis, Glory, p. 41.
 Exodus 2:3-5.
 Cf. N. Wyatt, Darkness, p. 96.
 Moses 5:5-8.
 Genesis 8:20.
 E.g., J. M. Bradshaw, God’s Image 1, p. 248.
 Genesis 9:21-27.
 T. L. Brodie, Dialogue, p. 192.
 D. C. Matt, Zohar 1, 1:73a, p. 431.