Justice

Hemi posted some very worthwhile quotes a while back about spirits and spirit matter. It might be useful to look those up. There were several from Joseph Smith that you can't find in scriptures and can alter one's perception about what spirits are.

Oh and Apple, very good comments. I believe that we always have moral agency, regardless of what choices are available, which is what President Packer was speaking about. Also, there is another side. As was also stated in your post, we can lose freedoms by choices we make, which removes our ability to choose those things. In my mind, that limit is a limit of agency. We cannot be held accountable for choices we cannot make. Perhaps I have a wierd way of wording it, or perhaps my words aren't what others would use, but it makes sense to me. There are different definitions to agency, as Webster pointed out. One of the requirements in having agency is to have a choice. If there is only vanilla you cannot have agency to choose anything else, even though you are free to choose. If options are removed, or not available for a choice, then you cannot exercise your agency to make those choices. That limits or removes your agency in that thing, and that's how Satan planned to "destroy the agency of man." It's not that he could have taken our moral agency away, or prevented us from making choices, he had to remove options from the choice set, thus destroying our agency to choose those things... namely Christ in that case. Remove the ability for Christ to be born to a mortal mother and you remove the blood atonement, thereby eliminating our ability to choose to follow Christ back to the Father... or "destroying the agency of man." That's how I view it and word it. So, I completely agree with what President Packer said. Thank you for sharing that.

You know, Vanhin, to disagree as often as we do, we sure agree on a lot of things. Your descriptive post was very much like writings I have in my study journals, even word for word at times. :)

I was getting to it. :) So, does anyone think Christ actually walked on water? Why? Why not?

This is going to seem like an odd direction to go on this subject, but I want to make a point before I try to explain. Did Jesus really walk on water? Vanhin, As a note of interest, you and bytor have the same answer (accorind to my understanding)... you just chose different methods of saying it. You, obviously, have a more thorough description, but aren't you basically saying what bytor is saying? And, did you say we were born as spirits just to make me happy? :) One last thought on your comments, do you mean "light of Christ" or "light of truth," or do you use the 2 terms synonomously?

What is agency, exactly? When do you have it? I'm going to pull from some documents on the topic I've made over the years. There are only 6 scriptures that use the word agency, but many others teach the concept with other words (like dominion). First I'll post 5 of the scriptures that directly use the word agency (please read them and as much of the surrounding verses as necessary to get an idea of what's being said): D&C 29: 36 And it came to pass that Adam, being tempted of the devil—for, behold, the devil was before Adam, for he rebelled against me, saying, Give me thine honor, which is my power; and also a third part of the hosts of heaven turned he away from me because of their agency; D&C 93: 31 Behold, here is the agency of man, and here is the condemnation of man; because that which was from the beginning is plainly manifest unto them, and they receive not the light. D&C 101: 78 That every man may act in doctrine and principle pertaining to futurity, according to the moral agency which I have given unto him, that every man may be accountable for his own sins in the day of judgment. Moses 4: 3 Wherefore, because that Satan rebelled against me, and sought to destroy the agency of man, which I, the Lord God, had given him, and also, that I should give unto him mine own power; by the power of mine Only Begotten, I caused that he should be cast down; Moses 7: 32 The Lord said unto Enoch: Behold these thy brethren; they are the workmanship of mine own hands, and I gave unto them their knowledge, in the day I created them; and in the Garden of Eden, gave I unto man his agency; The one I left out really doesn't pertain to this discussion as it was directed at one individual. One thing that I'd like to point out is that agency is not the same for all. For instance, someone in prison does not have the same agency as someone who is not. It's a difficult discussion to reach any agreement on until you set some definitions. It seems when the General Authorities teach or discuss agency, or the general ability to choose given to man, they say "moral agency" and not just agency (as pointed out in D&C 101). This makes it easier to discuss agency. Moral agency covers a man's given ability to choose how moral he will be, or whether or not he will obey law. He does not have to have all laws and commandments available in order to exercise his moral agency. Adam was given a choice between 2 things in the Garden, and exercised his agency to choose one. However, since there was not a third option, he did not have agency to choose that 3rd thing. We can only be held accountable for the choices we makes against what choices are available. Thoughts? Another thought to the astute reader: we see a seeming contradiction between D&C 29:36 and Moses 7:32... anyone see it? Any thoughts about the seeming contradiction?

I'll divert the topic to agency and start a new thread. Thanks for the discussion.

Yes, what makes it possible for us to be saved is Christ. Nothing we do made it possible. Yet, we can't be saved without them. Maybe its semmantics. If it were possible to be saved in ignorance of the ordinances then temple work would not be necessary. If the atonement were the only thing required for a man to be saved, then all would be saved. All are saved from physical death, so the atonement is the only thing required for that. All are not saved from spiritual death, so something esle has to be required. This is one of the simplest yet most misunderstood principles in all of Christianity.

Before you go, this confuses me even more than I was about your position. What do you mean "That really happened to Adam?" This describes what "would have" happened had Adam chose Satan's plan to partake of the tree of life immediately after partaking of the forbidden fruit. It did not happen. And, HAD it happened, it most certainly would have applied to the rest of us because ALL MANKIND would have been lost forever had Adam ate the tree of life. Had he done so the plan of salvation would have been frustrated... don't you see why? I know, because the mortal probation for men wouldn't have happened, and man would not have had a chance to repent... blah blah blah and the rest of the Primary answer. The driver for the plan was the blood atonement of the Son of God. Repentance meant NOTHING without it. Had Eve partaken of the tree of life and became immortal (never tasting of death) that means she no longer would have had blood. Mortals have blood; mortals die. Immortals do not have blood; immortals do not die. Think about the birth of the Son of God and why it HAD TO BE to a mortal MOTHER. The Father of the Son of God did not have blood, but the mother did. The Son of God had blood. That means the children take on the characteristics of the mother. That's why Satan went after Eve! All he had to do was get her to partake of the forbidden fruit AND THEN the tree of life and all mankind would have been born immortal (just like it says in Alma). ALL the children of Adam and Eve would have been born immortal, or having no blood... including the Son of God. That rendered the plan of salvation "frustrated" because it would have been impossible for the Son of God to perform a blood atonement for the sins of men. Thus, all mankind were lost in their sins and fallen forever, with no chance at redemption, rendering repentance meaningless (just like it says in Alma). This would have literally DESTROYED the agency of man BECAUSE man no longer could have chosen (exercised their agency) to follow the Son of God back to the presence of the Father (which was Satan's plan). I learned all this from Alma 12 and 42 (and a few other scriptures). Here I am still trying to teach something that needs to be caught. Oh well, now you have more ammunition.

OK, I get that we disagree, and is why I enjoy the discussion. However, clearly you feel I am ignorant in the matter and am ignoring scripture that is plain to everyone but me. You have closed your mind because you know you're right. That's OK with me. But, it makes a discussion very difficult. You have tried to explain your answer to me but I still see contradiction in your words. I disagree that a person can have agency in a choice that he cannot make. That doesn't make sense to me, and I have asked for you to explain how it can. A choice has to be available in order for agency to be present. I do not believe God removed Adam's agency to follow his plan, either before OR after he partook of the forbidden fruit. So, if God prevented Adam from eating from the tree of life immediately after he fell, then God removed Adam's agency in that matter. It's that plain and simple. Because we disagree in this point we will see it differently. So, I guess we'll agree to disagree. My whole point is that Adam chose God's way, not Satan's way, yet you explain it to me as if I'm the one saying Adam didn't have a choice. I'm the one saying he did while you're the one saying God prevented him from making the choice. If, after reading Alma 12, you don't see that it was Satan's plan for Eve to partake of the tree of life immediately after partaking of the forbidden fruit, or why, then this discussion will profit nothing. This is not some random phenomenon, or some hypothetical situation that Alma, then Mormon, wrote about to take up space in the plates. There's something to this "if Adam partook of the tree of life..." story Alma is telling (more than once). Alma 12 makes it perfectly clear, at least to me, that it was Satan's plan. I mean, look at the consequences of them eating the tree of life immediately after, they are EXACTLY what we know Satan hoped to accomplish. Oh well, I was told that truths like this are caught and not taught. I just don't listen.

Well, the church has a series of videos now that you can watch on-line for all who will teach in the church. Many of the things discussed in this thread are mentioned. There are ALL kinds of aids. But, I assume you will get all this info at your training meetings held monthly... ...which I also say you should consider it a top priority to attend each and every one of them every single month. They are awesome and will uplift you, even just being around those in the stake that are your peers; your fellow seminary teachers. Those training meetings will prepare you fast.

Don't be thrown off by "if it were possible..." He very well could be saying that it simply wasn't possible because God's plan was not going to fail. Again, look at the companion verse in 42 where Alma says "if Adam partook of..." This doesn't necessarily mean Adam did not have a choice and it was impossible for him to partake.

I think this is the important part. If you believe God placed the guard on the tree of life to prevent Adam from partaking the tree of life after he fell, then in my view, you have to believe that Adam did not have agency to do so, since God prevented him even if he wanted to. If you believe the guard was placed there for the purpose of preventing Adam from partaking, and you somehow believe Adam still had his agency to do so, I need to hear further explanation. If you can marry those two thoughts together then I need to rethink my position based on your explanation. But, to me, if God placed a guard so Adam could not partake, then he did not have his agency to eat it since the choice was removed. Once you see that he did have agency (barring your explanation) and therefore had to have made this choice (even if not mentioned in scripture), then this part becomes clear, that he was speaking about Adam, but directing the remarks at Adam's mortal offspring who would want to become immortal. Since, Adam had already made the choice to become and remain mortal. Adam would not have needed the guard, but his offspring would have.

In a sense there actually are. As a result of the fall of Adam we inherit 2 deaths: physical and spiritual. Death is but a separation: physical death is when our body is separated from what gives it life, or from our spirit, and spiritual death is separation from what give it life, or from God. Although we are accountable for our own sins and not Adam's transgression, "spiritual death" came about as a result of the fall, not just physical death. So, if all you want is to be "saved" from physical death, then you don't have to do a thing. The Savior's atonement will provide that for all men and women who ever live on this earth. But, if you want to be "saved" from spiritual death, then there are some things you need to do in order to for it to happen. This is where ordinances come in, and principles like repentance. For instance: If you have no desire to live with God again then there is no need to repent. But, if you desire to live with Him, then you must repent because no unclean thing can dwell with Him.

Tie Alma 12 in with Alma 42: 1 And now, my son, I perceive there is somewhat more which doth worry your mind, which ye cannot understand—which is concerning the justice of God in the punishment of the sinner; for ye do try to suppose that it is injustice that the sinner should be consigned to a state of misery. 2 Now behold, my son, I will explain this thing unto thee. For behold, after the Lord God sent our first parents forth from the garden of Eden, to till the ground, from whence they were taken—yea, he drew out the man, and he placed at the east end of the garden of Eden, cherubim, and a flaming sword which turned every way, to keep the tree of life— 3 Now, we see that the man had become as God, knowing good and evil; and lest he should put forth his hand, and take also of the tree of life, and eat and live forever, the Lord God placed cherubim and the flaming sword, that he should not partake of the fruit— 4 And thus we see, that there was a time granted unto man to repent, yea, a probationary time, a time to repent and serve God. 5 For behold, if Adam had put forth his hand immediately, and partaken of the tree of life, he would have lived forever, according to the word of God, having no space for repentance; yea, and also the word of God would have been void, and the great plan of salvation would have been frustrated. 6 But behold, it was appointed unto man to die—therefore, as they were cut off from the tree of life they should be cut off from the face of the earth—and man became lost forever, yea, they became fallen man. Read Alma 12 and 42 in unison. Alma 12 is worded a bit different, but I believe it is worded the way it is because of the difficulty of their language and writting on metal plates. Once you decide that God would not have removed their agency, it becomes clear. Alma 12 and 42 say the same thing. Had Adam partook of the fruit (specifically Eve, but Adam is included) then all mankind would have been born to immortal parents, and had been lost and fallen forever (for reasons I have mentioned before). This was Satan's design, as so clearly stated in Alma 12. Look at Alma 12 and what he was speaking about before Zeezrom interrupted him with a question about the resurrection. He was explaining Satan's plan. When Alma gets back on track he says "this is the thing which I was about to explain to you." He was trying to explain Satan's plan. We could have a very long discussion about Alma 12 and 42, they are my favorite scriptures anywhere. They have enlightened me about the creation, fall, and atonement more than any other 2 chapters. Look at all the consequences that Alma describes would have happened had Adam and Eve ate from the tree of life and became immortal before they had children. It would have accomplished everything Satan was after. It would have brought about his design. I fall back on this one very basic piece of logic: If all Satan wanted to do was destroy God's plan, all he had to do was not temp Eve, and leave them in the garden. The logic in that statement is simple, yet sound. He tempted Eve for a reason. Not just "them" but Eve specifically. He tempted Eve because he was still trying to bring about his plan... namely as described in Alma 12 and 42... where all mankind would be born immortal and bypass mortality. Alma 43 and 44 shed more light on this, if you understand the symbolism. Alma 43: 1 And now it came to pass that the sons of Alma did go forth among the people, to declare the word unto them. And Alma, also, himself, could not rest, and he also went forth. 2 Now we shall say no more concerning their preaching, except that they preached the word, and the truth, according to the spirit of prophecy and revelation; and they preached after the holy order of God by which they were called. 3 And now I return to an account of the wars between the Nephites and the Lamanites, in the *eighteenth year of the reign of the judges. Some of the best chapters in the Book of Mormon are when the sons of Alma go about preaching. Why would the author return to an account of the wars at this point? The war described in 43 and 44 is teaching of another much earlier war. See if you can see the symbolism.

Vanhin, often man and Adam are synonomous terms. We are the family of man or the family of Adam. There are even other times that "Adam" is used sybolically to represent all men who would be born mortal. I have studied those particular scriptures you posted for many years. Those are the very scriptures I have used to determine that God gave Adam a choice whether or not to partake of the tree of life after falling. As you first begin to read those scriptures and try to understand them they most certainly do sound like God removed Adam's agency and forbid him to partake of the tree of life afterward. However, after many years of studying this topic, using those very scriptures and others, I have come to the conclusion that God did not remove Adam's agency. Now those scriptures make it plain to me. All I can do is tell you that I know God did not remove Adam's agency. Had Adam chose to partake of the tree of life God would not have prevented him from doing so. Understanding these scriptures is what allowed me to "turn the corner" on my study of the creation, fall, and atonement. Hint: verse 21 from above that you posted is NOT a prophet speaking. Alma spends many verses refuting the idea presented in verse 21. It is simply a question posed to Alma by someone who has been taught incorrectly about the fall. Alma never says the tree was there to prevent Adam from eating it, but man. I believe that is harmonious with what is taught in the temple, when understood as symbolism. In the temple we are to put ourselves in place of Adam the character in the story.

I taught Seminary for 3 years. I would say the most important thing is that they feel the spirit each and every day. It's a challenge, especially on days when you aren't your best. But, that's what the youth need most.

I say let them. The leaders of the church can deal with it legally if it becomes a problem.

Not necessarily. I read those verses that Adam chose not to partake of it and the guard was placed for "man" not to partake. Other men, who were to be born, might partake of it if presented a choice. It never specifically says the guard was placed for Adam. So, I don't think Adam had to be guarded from it because he already chose not to partake of it. Perhaps he might have changed his mind later, but I doubt it. Let me know what you think after looking up those verses.

If you guys aren't watching these videos you are missing out on some GOOD stuff! LDS.org - Mormon Messages

To clarify, God didn't say "In the day you stop eating of the tree of life you will surely die," He said," The day you partake of the forbidden fruit you will surely die." That's what I was getting at. In any case, I believe it was the act of disobedience that actually caused the fall, and not any charateristic in the fruit. I believe they were born of immortal parents, specifically an immortal mother, giving birth after her kind, meaning they were born immortal and fell to the state of death, or mortality. And, if you believe Adam was "mortal" but kept alive by the tree of life, then you don't believe Christ literally reversed the affects of the fall in His own body. Adam went from immortal to mortal, Christ went from mortal to immortal while yet on earth. I believe this literally. I believe Christ literally did not have to die. I believe He gave up the ghost because He had purged Himself of blood. He didn't just "bleed," He purged Himself of blood, making Himself immortal. Interesting discussion. I do see your points, and they are very hard for me to side-step (not that I'm trying to). I have always believed Adam was born of Father and Mother and have always viewed the scriptures as symbols of this, if not more specific in some areas. I will certainly ponder and study this.

This would mean that all animals on the earth at that time had to eat of the tree of life in order to keep them from dying (unless you suggest they actually were immortal). I suppose it's plausible. It seems a stretch to beleive this and at the same time believe that Adam fell when he partook of the forbidden fruit. If partaking of the tree of life is what prevented Adam from dying, then partaking of the forbidden fruit didn't actually cause a fall. Not partaking of the tree of life brought about the fall. I don't believe the fruit itself had any bearing on whether his body was immortal or mortal. I believe it was transgression that caused the fall, and not something in the fruit. Otherwise, all life would have had to partake of the forbidden fruit (or not partake of the tree of life) in order for all flesh to fall. I believe Adam and Eve chose not to partake of the tree of life after falling (Alma 12 and 42). I believe they chose to become mortal, or they chose to follow God's plan and not Satan's. I don't think God removed their agency, in fact I believe He offered them the choice. It was Satan's plan for them to partake of the tree of life after falling. I don't believe they would have to re-partake over and over to not die. I believe it says had they partaken they would have lived forever. I guess I just assume that to be true before hand as well. I don't think they had to re-partake of the tree of life over and over. I don't believe it renders it false. I guess all we can do is disagree. I will try to find other sources where this distinction is made

I think we can "celebrate" the acheivements of others without condoning or agreeing with what they are doing. Celebrate is probably the wrong word to use here. Support may be better. I don't think anyone disagrees with this. I think what some are expressing is that we may appear to condone others in their wrong doing if we support them. I think if what they are doing is wrong then we can lovingly tell them so, while we love them.

This is a spiritual rebirth (born again), not a physical one. I am speaking of physical birth. We become part of this fallen world of flesh and blood when we are born into it, through no act of our own. Christ redeems ALL men from this physical fallen condition that we inherited from Adam. This is not the "joint heir" rebirth spoken of in that scripture. We must be reborn spiritually before we are reborn physically. This spiritual rebirth comes through Christ's atonement and obedience to commandments and ordinances... including baptism. All are present in the symbol: water, blood, and spirit. I never said we are all born physically of Father and Mother. I said Adam was (before the fall when they still walked and talked with the Father), and Jesus was born of the Father and a mortal mother. We all had 2 mortal parents (physical births). Our disagreement is in who Adam's physical body was parented by. That's all. I believe scripture says it was Father and Mother.

Moses 6: 22 And this is the genealogy of the sons of Adam, who was the son of God, with whom God, himself, conversed. Luke 3: 38 Which was the son of Enos, which was the son of Seth, which was the son of Adam, which was the son of God. These scriptures are speaking of physical ancestory. I don't believe it somehow changes when it gets to the last line... that would be misleading. I believe a distinction is made between immortal flesh (Adam) and mortal flesh (Christ). Christ is the Only Begotten in the flesh, meaning He was born of a mortal mother. Adam was born of an immortal mother. I believe there is a difference and distiction. God (Father) said to let "us" make man in "our image" both male and female. Genesis 1: 26 And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth. 27 So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them. I believe "us" is Father and Mother. It could not have been anyone else or He would not have said "let us..." If Adam was the first man and he was not born on this planet, then he was not made from the dust of the earth. If Adam was not the first man, and others were brought here before him, and Adam was born of someone else, then he is not the son of God as mentioned in the scriptures I quoted. Other sources would be wrong as well because scripture and prophets claim Adam was the first man. Again, it goes back to understanding scripture symbolism. Christ being the Only Begotten Son in the flesh, to me, means the only Son born of an immortal mother, or flesh and blood. Our Heavenly Parents still do have their physical bodies and are fully capable of creating immortal physical bodies. What they cannot create together are mortal physical bodies. Hence, the need for a mortal mother for the Messiah.