mordorbund
-
Posts
6451 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
28
Posts posted by mordorbund
-
-
* No elder should ever enter the mission field to "gain a testimony." That part should be done well in advance.
I whole-heartedly agree. I have no problems with a missionary strengthening her testimony through her mission service, but that should be a biproduct of the service and not the endgoal.
It also irks me when people talk about serving as a missionary opportunity. That's fine if it's a biproduct, but if that's the agenda - it's not service.
What I noticed more is that elders go and struggle with being a missionary because they can't say "I know...." Going back to that know vs. believe thing, I think you'd find a lot less people "searching for testimonies" as missionaries if they didn't feel pressured to know, and felt that merely believing was a good start.
I had a companion tell me about an experience he had while testifying. He was bearing testimony in the standard fashion and formulaicly preceded each statement with "I know...". The investigator called him on it and asked why he kept saying that, it made it sound like he was trying to convince himself.
Since he told me that, I've dropped the formula (though I don't fault anyone for using it) and stated my testimony as a series of facts. Joseph saw God. President Monson is a prophet who speaks for God. etc. It also makes it more conversational. Maybe tonight at the dinner table I'll start using "I know" in the way it's used for testimonies. "I know that this meal looks delicious and I'm very grateful that you made it. I also know that I'm looking forward to watching tv with you tonight. The laugh track is a huge distraction for comedies, but I know that we can find programs that do not employ such nuissances."
-
And lest I should be exalted above measure through the abundance of the revelations, there was given to me a thorn in the flesh, the messenger of Satan to buffet me, lest I should be exalted above measure. For this thing I besought the Lord thrice, that it might depart from me.
Every time I read this, I'm convinced Paul had a mission companion he couldn't get along with.
(the little one's Paul) -
From The Mortal Messiah
“The seeming refusal of Jesus to permit Mary to touch him, followed almost immediately by the appearance in which the other women were permitted to hold his feet, has always been the source of some interpretative concern. The King James Version quotes Jesus as saying ‘Touch me not.’ The Joseph Smith Translation reads ‘Hold me not.’ Various translations from the Greek render the passage as ‘Do not cling to me’ or ‘Do not hold me.’ Some give the meaning as ‘Do not cling to me any longer,’ or ‘Do not hold me any longer.’ Some speak of ceasing to hold him or cling to him, leaving the inference that Mary was already holding him. There is valid reason for supposing that the thought conveyed to Mary by the Risen Lord was to this effect: ‘You cannot hold me here, for I am going to ascend to my Father.’” (The Mortal Messiah: From Bethlehem to Calvary, 4 vols
Maybe he had a more pressing agenda than when he visited with the Nephites and tarried at their request?I have also heard that she was trying to embrace him (hence, "hold me not"), and Jesus was reserving the first resurrected hug for his Father (I've heard it attributed to Truman Madsen, but I've never seen a source).
-
Oh but we are Souly. BenRaines is a head mod.
Is he really? I'm so intimidated by his neck, I've never seen if he has a head or not.
-
I think the only way to not have a credit score is to never have played.
Joshua, is that you?
-
Anyone see the symbolism between the fig leaves Adam and Eve used verse the coats of skin God made for them to cover their nakedness?
Someone pointed out something to me today that I hadn't thought about before.
In order to get the skins, to cover their nakedness, God had to shed the blood of an animal.
I'm curious to hear your comments.
The covering provided by the Lord is also a symbol of the atonement with the word choice. The hebrew word that keeps showing up as atone/atonement means "to cover". The seat of atonement (ark of the covenenant lid) was a seat of covering. So when the Lord covers Adam's nakedness, he symbollically shows that he will atone for Adam's transgression.
Compare this also with 2 Nephi 9 (a great chapter on the Atonement):
Wherefore, we shall have a perfect knowledge of all our guilt, and our uncleanness, and our nakedness; and the righteous shall have a perfect knowledge of their enjoyment, and their righteousness, being clothed with purity, yea, even with the robe of righteousness.
-
I was thinking of the Cain and Abel reference as well.
Thank you.
The fruit was not acceptable as a sacrifice, but the blood of animals was.
Kind of along the same lines.
The Mosaic law called for meal offerings that were basically flour and oil that was cooked into a cake (bread-stuff). So the offering of the fruit of the ground in and of itself does not make it an invalid offer. Cain's primary error was that he was making a sacrifice in obedience to satan's command - not the Lord's.
-
How deeply are we Mormons entrenched in this idea of bodies being without blood? What is the original scripture that this idea comes from and does it have more than one meaning?
I got curious on this a couple of months back. The earliest reference I could find to pre-Fall Adam and Eve having spirit coursing through their veins instead of blood was Joseph Fielding Smith. In Doctrines of Salvation, he states essentially what is found in the Bible Dictionary using the verse in Leviticus as support, "the life of the animal is in its blood." In an earlier work (Man, his Origin and Destiny I think), he uses the same verse to show that Adam didn't have blood, and then in DofS it's expanded so that the blood is replaced with spirit.
Can anyone find anything earlier?
-
No reason why it can't be both. The kind of mediating you're observing is the same kind of mediating Moses did on behalf of Israel. If you'll recall, God was ready to destroy all of Israel and establish just Moses' posterity as the covenant people. But Moses convinced him otherwise.
When we look at the symbolism of OT sacrifice, we see a sinner voluntarily giving a proxy. The sacrifice represents the sinner who merits death ("the wages of sin is death"). So the animal stands in for the sinner. Simultaneously, the animal also represents the Savior, who is the "great and last sacrifice".
So again, there's no reason why it can't be both.
-
You seem to be heading in the direction and you're making some good counterpoints here, but I think I'll need better clarification on some of it.
Sure. First off, if you take away verse 19, I think the sermon is very clear. Jesus has power to "quicken" or bring life because it is a power his Father has given him. In addition to that, Jesus can use his own discretion about the use of such power because his Father has granted him Judgement also. This was the case of his healing the invalid, and telling him to carry his cot on the Sabbath. These same principles are then broadly applied to refer to a general resurrection, when the dead will hear his voice and be quickened. Now add verse 19 back into this context, and you still have the exact same framework. Jesus has power to to quicken the man's lame legs (this is the Father's power given to him). He has authority to command his legs to walk, and authority to tell the man to carry his cot (this is the Father's authority, who's Sabbath it is). And if onlookers have a problem with this, they will really have a problem when Jesus judges the dead (the Father's authority and work) and resurrects them (the Father's power and work).
So first thing, I don't think you've met the burden to show that this section includes Jesus' own death and resurrection.
That being said, I'm in a sporting mood so I'll continue with the assumption that you post something stronger.
You're right that it's not exactly the same. But the principles are still the same whether it's your own life or someone else's. The heart must stop."You've mentioned that the Son lays down his life. Has the Father ever stopped a person's life?" Wouldn't the correct parallel for the Son laying down His life be that the Father at some point in time having laid down his life as well? I don't quite follow, "Lay down my life = Stop somebody else's life." Or am I misreading?
I took a second look at John 5. Nowhere in this passage is death mentioned except to segue to the resurrection theme. "The Son lays down his life" is only used in connection with this chapter in Joseph Smith's sermon. So I'm willing to go so far as to show some similarities between the work that is traditionally associated with the Father (stopping of life), but not so far as to what is generally considered blasphemy by our Christian friends (the Father died at some point). For this point, you need to first show that 1) Jesus mentions here that he has power to take life (or at least his Father does - and this can be something as simple as a withering in the same general sense as quickening), and 2) Jesus mentions that he has power to give up his own life. Once you get that far, I may be more willing to yield some space on this point.
"You have Life in Yourself. Command your body to rise, the same as you did to Lazarus, and this time animate it with Your everlasting wellspring of Life!" Okay but I don't see where that precludes the Father from having done the same thing at some point. The only difficulty is sorting out where and how. We know it didn't happen on this earth because if it had then Christ's resurrection would have served no purpose. Now in Hebrews 11:3 we find mention of "worlds" in the plural. So one good logical conclusion, going just from the Bible alone, is that God the Father did the same works as Christ, but on some other world.
The logical conclusion from the Bible alone, is that Jesus communicated directly with his Father; that his Father showed him how to judge righteously; that his Father showed him the principles of Life and how to use it to raise the dead; and (from the Hebrews verse you just added) that many worlds were created (not really tied in with John 5).
Addressing your Hebrews 11 reference, nowhere in the Bible does it say anything about other worlds being peopled. So if you see that in verse 3, you are adding that in yourself.
Addressing John 5, the Son resurrecting himself in no way precludes the Father from having done the same. But you cannot arrive at that conclusion from the Bible alone, and working only within the biblical text was a limitation that you placed on your argument from the start.
I mentioned it because I am not a Trinitarian. So I don't know what other churches teach concerning who raised Jesus from the dead. Come to think of it, I'm not too sure I know the official LDS stance on who raised Jesus from the dead (maybe the start of another thread?). But for any religion that feels there's enough in the Bible to definitively conclude that the Father resurrected the Son, you'll have to address that argument as well. And it may be as simple as saying, "The Bible says the Son resurrected himself."I've never liked sidestepping any passage of scripture. There's a stubborn streak in me that says that the proper understanding is in that very passage, I just need to dig it out. Diverging to another passage that says "Jesus didn't raise himself, the Father did it" opens to door to the merry chaos of a good ol' Bible-bash session -- since a significant number of passages elsewhere say that Christ rose himself up from the dead. But it's a clever play.
Finally, I think you're argument stated elsewhere in this thread applies nicely here. (edits in bold).
Are the notions of "ex nihilo creation" The King Follett Discourse leading you to confusion here? You have to set your notions of creation from nothing kfd aside if you want to understand LDS traditional Christian teachings. The ideas that "God spoke and the universe materialized out of nothing" "God is an Exalted Man"or "God spoke and the world appeared out of nothing." "The Father laid down his life and took it up again" are not only completely baffling to most any Latter Day Saint mainstream Christian, but it's not found anywhere in the Bible. If you already believed in creation out of nothing Exalted Man-God, then of course you see it there. But if you had no notion of creation out of nothing a resurrected God the Father, there is no passage that would lead you to conclude beyond all doubt that this was how "creation" occurred Jesus did what he saw the Father do and indeed the intended meaning of the word "create." John 5.
-
What about the child labor in our own back yard. The other day I was walking around a typical capitalist American mall and saw a factory where parents PAID to have their kids LABOR on the assembly line manufacturing teddy bears!!!!!
Perhaps we wouldn't be so upset at Nike if they had their own Build-a-Shoe Workshop.
-
Not exactly. As far as I know there might exist eight different ones of them. (See under quantum field theory). So he worships eight instead of one, and that's what will make it more difficult for the clever electrician.
There's only 1 gluon you heretic.
(although, now that I try to see your side of things, I can see how you could think there were 8 based on the configurations of the 3 in the 1 gluon).
-
Wait, so Jack Chick worships a gluon?
-
There are many times when I feel like people are setting us up for the next propagandist smear campaign. The world's perception of "Mormons" is a very strange thing indeed. Case in point, the world should have woken up to the fact that we do not practice polygamy anymore a VERY LONG TIME AGO. But it seems that most religious educators either don't know the facts (how on earth could they not know???) or intentionally ignore the present facts and just let the false rumors rule the day. Most will even encourage those rumors. The world knows very well that slavery is no longer legal in the USA anymore. The world knows that Catholic Inquisitions are not actively seeking out heretics and heathen, torturing them and burning them at the stake anymore. But something the Latter Day Saint religion has not practiced for 130 years somehow sticks to us and never goes away. News reports on a tiny handful of groups of long since excommunicated former LDS no bigger that 10,000 strong are used to falsely paint the entire religion of 14 million that cast them out. The best known fact about "Mormonism" is completely false, purporting that members are practicing something that they don't practice and if they did practice it, they would be excommunicated. I doubt the religious world at large is very sincere about wanting to know the truth about "Mormonism" nor are they interested in really understanding what we believe/practice. Sensationalism is so much more interesting. No doubt many would say that it's all the better because it serves to scare people away from the "Mormons." "Polytheism" sounds to me like something that can and will be treated in much the same way. I think that's the biggest reason most Latter Day Saints feel apprehensive about being labeled "polytheists." Sounds like another chance for traditional Christendom to sow more misunderstanding and mischaracterization. We've learned from experience that so-called "Christians" will never let it go once they make any heretical sounding accusation stick to us.
Sorry for going on about that, but I hope it illustrates one important reason we might balk at being labeled "polytheists."
Sooooo.... We have one god for every wife? Are these referred to as gods-in-law?
-
My understanding of LDS teaching is that Heavenly Father and Mother produced (created) all spirits which include Jesus, you and me. We are all literal brothers and sisters. If that is truly the case then Jesus is a creation and not the creator of all things. (John 1:3) (Col 1:16-17) Remember the sceptics question of "who created God".
The Revelation of St John the Divine has this to say:
These things saith the Amen, the faithful and true witness, the beginning of the creation of God
The Son doesn't seem to have any qualms with identifying himself as a creation.Therefore there would be a point in the past when the Godhead was not. Their "unity and oneness" are not infinite.
Mathematically, a ray can be infinite in length (and has the same length as a line).
-
Really, I just want to get all sides of the argument from all different sorts of members of the church. My opinion is that I was a recipient of the scholarship before it was lottery funded. So, even without the new state lottery, i would still be receiving the money. I also don't see the exchanging of hands from dumb citizen->subcontracted lottery company->state government->department of higher ed->me as constituting me taking part in the lottery.
Another part of this is that I want to see different arguments to maybe understand what others would do in this situation. It does seem to play part in a large ethical dilemma, which is obvious by the varied responses garnered in the thread.
Sounds like you're okay with it but your fiance is giving you grief. I say, pay for your education out of pocket and spend the scholarship on her. See if she's still opposed to your "ill-gotten gain".
-
John 5:17-27
"17 My Father worketh hitherto, and I work.
19 The Son can do nothing of himself, but what he seeth the Father do: for what things soever he doeth, these also doeth the Son likewise.
20 For the Father loveth the Son, and sheweth him all things that himself doeth:
21 For as the Father raiseth up the dead, and quickeneth them; even so the Son quickeneth whom he will.
22 For the Father judgeth no man, but hath committed all judgment unto the Son:
23 That all men should honour the Son, even as they honour the Father. He that honoureth not the Son honoureth not the Father which hath sent him.
26 For as the Father hath life in himself; so hath he given to the Son to have life in himself;
27 And hath given him authority to execute judgment also, because he is the Son of man."
I'm not a Trinitarian, but I think I can see where you're think there's more to it than stated. For a moment, forget about the King Follett sermon. Forget about LDS theology and just focus on the words cited and their context.
Before v17, Jesus had just healed an invalid on the Sabbath. Jesus, Why did you do this on the day of rest? "My Father works today, and so do I." Then, in proper manner, Jesus further explains his thesis. The Father shows the Son what work he does (even if it is the Sabbath:
- He raises the dead; and gives them life.
- He judges righteously (the execution of which belongs to the Son).
- He is the source of Life; and the Son is similarly a wellspring of Everlasting Life.
Now I'll raise a counterpoint, that prior to Jesus' resurrection, raising the dead was only a temporal, not an eternal life. This can be explained with the Father and the Son both having life in themselves. The Father may have shown the Son what "I AM" really means. You have Life in Yourself. Command your body to rise, the same as you did to Lazarus, and this time animate it with Your everlasting wellspring of Life!
Or you can sidestep it with Peter's testimony that the Son didn't actually resurrect himself, but was raised up by God on the 3rd day.
-
Explain how God would weep over a past event unless He is constantly weeping. When humans express emotion it is because something just happened, either a memory of an event comes up or we realize its significance or a thought comes to mind that we weren't thinking of previously or we experience something at that moment that brings it on (I'm sure there are other situations too). The point is that expressed emotions signify something has changed.
So, with a God who has perfect memory and knowledge what changed to allow Him to weep at that moment? The only possible explanation I could think of is that He experienced that specific event for the first time, for this particular world for this specific event (not that it hasn't been done before) which would not be the case if He could jump from time to time and had experienced it previously. God's emotional character, to me, is a sign that He has linear time. Otherwise, I don't understand how God could be emotional.
Works for me. Let's say God exists in linear time. The model I'm describing has two dimensions of linear time - God's, and ours. God still has a moment in his time where he's weeping, but that doesn't necessarily map cleanly in our time unless he was in a cross-section of our time when it happened. Just because his time is linear, that doesn't mean that our time is viewed linearly for him (because his time is orthogonal to ours). Both of what you're describing fits here. If God is interacting with our time, then he can weep over something that happened in his past that happened for us in our past or even our future. If God is outside of our time when he weeps, we could say that he's always weeping.
You can apply what we know about multiple spacial dimensions to multiple temporal dimensions. If you have a sphere that intersects with flatland, it would be accurate for the flatlanders to say that "Sphere is a circle (sometimes ellipse) that appears as a point and gets larger until it fills a specific place with such and such coordinates. It exits by diminishing in size until it is a single point again and then disappears." From the flatlanders' perspective, they would be completely correct. From the sphere's perspective, there's more to the story, but it's accurate enough. But now lets say that flatland fits within the sphere and is circumscribed by the sphere. Now what could the flatlanders say? "Sphere is mystically both greater/larger than flatland, and exists everywhere in flatland." And from their perspective, they'd be correct. From the sphere's perspective, they are only half right. The sphere is greater/larger than flatland, but infinite in flatland doesn't count for much in the 3rd dimension (classic example is the math case of Gabriel's horn, which has a infinite surface area but finite volume. This works because I can keep squashing a single drop of paint to fill any flat space you have). I hope this helps and doesn't actually cause more confusion.
-
That removes the question of whether or not God prevented Adam from eating the tree of life, and whether or not God interfered with Adam's agency to do so. I do not believe He would have. However, if He placed the guard there to prevent Adam from eating it, there is no other conclusion to draw than God interfered with Adam's agency.
The only other option is that if it was a natural consequence, but I think you see why it could not have been. If it were, there would have been no way to stop it. Alma describes a way it could have been stopped... hence this discussion.
I'm sidestepping the first part of your post (about Adam's status vs Satan's) because for me it comes down to the things I posted above.
Whether or not the cherubim interfered with Adam's agency. This reminds me of a Monkey Math word problem. 3 ladies go to a hotel and share a $30 room. They split it evenly $10 a piece. They head up to the room and the fellow that checked them in realizes that he's made a mistake and it's really a $25 room. So he sends the bell hop up with $5 to return to the ladies. The bell hop, knowing that the 3 ladies wanted to split the bill evenly, decides to give them each $1 and keep $2 as a tip. So in the end the ladies each paid $9, for a total of $27 between the 3 of them. Add the $2 tip, and you've got $29. What happened to the last dollar?
The monkey math is in the question. And the difficulty is, once you've heard the question, you have a hard time correcting it into what it should be. The question should not be (3x9)+2=29 != 30. It should be 3x9=25+2 : they paid a total of $27 and $25 went to the room and $2 went to a tip. Or it could similarly be 3x10=25+2+(3x1) : they paid a total of $30 up front and $25 went to a room, $2 to a tip, and $1 each came back to them.
I feel like you keep harping on "the cherubim remove a choice and interfere with Adam's agency" (where's the other dollar? WHERE'S THE OTHER DOLLAR??). But we've been trying to tell you, it's not really a valid question. There are actions and consequences; acting and acted upon. Natural or artificial, a consequence is a consequence. Angels guarding the Tree of Life is a consequence, Adam didn't have a say in it anyway.
Adam is shown the lesson of Alma 34 - you cannot suddenly say "No fair! I chose this path, and now that the consequences are upon me I want to take another." When the consequences are upon us, it is too late.
-
You said one tree was an exit (tree of the knowledge of g&e) and one was an entrance (tree of life).
I very much see how the one was an exit, and am in complete agreement. What I don't see is how the tree of life was an entrance before Adam ate the forbidden fruit. Once he ate the forbidden fruit I very much see how it was an entrance.
It would be great if you could explain how the tree of life served as an "entrance" before he ate the forbidden fruit (that would make it in opposition to an exit).
It wasn't an entrance from the premortal world to the Garden (it may have been, but I couldn't support that argument). It was an entrance from the uninhabited, unused, lone and dreary world into the Garden.
[qutoe]Eve not recognizing Lucifer for who he was is interesting. I'm not certain of this one. We recognize Satan and what he wants us to do, but that doesn't mean we don't choose it from time to time. Is there a scripture or quote that makes you think Eve did not know who he was? I'm not doubting, I'm just looking for evidence.
I'll pull a page from the Old Testament student manual (3-6) and simply say that we learn from modern revelation that Eve did not recognize her tempter. It is the same specific revelation referenced in the manual.
You'll hear no disagreement from me.Exactly when Adam forgot all is in question, even in this thread. I'm of the opinion that his immortal body served as some kind of veil, like ours. Being that his was immortal (terrestrial not telestial) it may not have been as much of a veil... I don't know. I believe he was also veiled when he became mortal, so it may have been in 2 stages for him, while just one for us.
And also the presence of a veil, which means decisions are not made with full knowledge. Admittedly, the physical body may be what causes the veil. but the veil changes the inputs, and so the output is different.In any case, you seem to have reached the same conclusion that I have, that there were more similarities than differences. This is why I have been pondering over why Lucifer's consequences were so much different than Adam's. Every road I take leads me back to the fact that Adam had a physical body, and Lucifer did not. It seems like a trite difference, and not enough to eternally change the consequences... but the more I read, the more that that's exactly what I believe.
Satan's plan is interesting to me. I find the standard "communism=satan's plan" or "satan's plan was built on compulsion" uncreative and not generally well-thought out. I posted earlier in this thread an outline of general principles that Satan could advance that would destroy Agency (in theory - I'm still not sold that Agency can be removed). I also included a quote from John Taylor with his speculation. Would you mind sending me a pm of the theories you've read?I have read many theories by GA's, present and past, about Satan's plan, and have compiled a list of possibilities. From everything I've seen, I've arrived at the conclusion that Lucifer needed man to gain the knowledge of good and evil also. -
Thanks for your response.
That is all that I was trying to explain with jayana, is that there is a difference between a vision or knowledge of what would happen in a given situation versus experiencing it. If there is such a thing as time travel, that would be the equivalent to experiencing it. And the value of such could be experienced over and over again. This doesn't fit with our understanding of Eternal Increase.
Think about the moment in time that you became a spirit child of God, which I think we can agree would be a moment in time that God had "increase" as part of His Eternal Increase. Now think about a time before that event, before it happened, if He could see that event in the future via time travel, in other words jump forward to that time and live the moment in which He had something added to His "Eternal Increase" He would have the same exact experience that He would have had if He didn't jump forward in time. So, the value of a time traveled experience would be the same as the time in which it was lived and therefore the "increase" experienced would also hold the same value for both times. If that is true then He could simply jump back in time, having perfect memory of everything and relive the experience thousands of times over and multiply His "increase" simply by living the experience over and over again.
And I think this is where things are getting confusing. I don't know that the premortal life had the same notion of time that we experience today. I don't know that if there was time, that it was linear and sequential. Nor do I know that the notion of days, weeks, years, millenia, etc have any meaning in the life before this or the life after. These things are in this life.
A better illustration would be the moment in time that the flood occured. Let's say that God had to enter our world and time to flip a switch releasing the waters of the deep causing the flood (this makes it an experience and not just an observation or a pondered event). He is extremely sorrowful of their wickedness that broght this on themselves. From here, God exits our time and re-enters at the time of Enoch to tell him about the flood. "Do not weep" says Enoch. God is here crying over a past memory/experience (from his perspective). From Enoch's perspective, God is crying over a future event that has not yet been experienced.
What's more, God could perhaps relive the experience afresh if he decides to reenter the time of the flood and visit Noah even while God was releasing the waters of the deep. So yes, you are correct in asserting that this model allows God to have the same experience (really it's a similar experience, not exactly the same) over and over again. (re)Living that experience isn't what gives God his glory. It is the whole experience from beginning to end (our world and our time) that gives God his glory.
-
I think you are missing my point too. All I am asking is if there is a difference between living a moment versus somehow, whatever way you want to call it, seeing it or knowing about a future event that hasn't yet happened? Is there a difference between the value of those two things?
There is and there isn't. There is a difference between knowing physics and standing at the edge of an arc confident that the massive pendulum won't break every bone in your body. Everybody flinches the first time because they haven't yet obtained the experience. That's why we entered mortality.
But then take the case of President Kimball (you can find this story in your Kimball manual, lesson 2). 50 years after his mother died he got to thinking about it and felt as though he should start sobbing like a little child. Some emotions/experiences are so powerful that they transcend time.
In the case of God, I agree with you that he is "bring[ing] to pass the immortality and eternal life of man", which means that in our timeline there are some things that have yet to be done. But I also think it's plausible that he has "[brought] to pass the immortality and eternal life of man" in his timeline. Meaning, he has already felt the joy over this earth and received the glory for this earth and moved on to the next in his timeline, but for us in our timeline such work is not yet completed (and so we're only aware of his pre-completion joy and glory).
The bottom line is that what Jayanna and I have both presented are models that conform to the required qualities attributed to God. He is omniscient, omnipotent, and omnipresent. We've even shown that within these models God has the additional qualities of Joy and Glory. In addition to this, these models also explain how some of these attributes work - specifically omniscience.
Some other models I've heard presented on this thread are the probability model (God fills in the game theory matrices and optimizes it for the results he wants), which means that God doesn't really know what you'll do but he has a pretty good idea (and he's already stacked the deck in his favor). Another is the parallel earths model (God has several versions of this earth running, and the one that ends up the way he wants it will be called good (I guess he scraps the failed ones? - proponents of this idea should flesh it out better for us)), which means that God doesn't know what you'll do before you do it but like the probability model knows the big picture and where everyone fits. And then there's the prior knowledge model (probably closest to what you've been describing - God has had a premortal eternity to get to know us and so has gained perfect predictablity skill), which means that God does know exactly what we'll do before we do it. And the multiple times model (God exists outside of our time, meaning he can freely move backwards and forwards in it), which also means that God does know what we'll do before we do it.
I like this model because it more closely fits in with the "one eternal now" statement that's been thrown around. It also describes a God with more power than the other models do. You don't seem to think that God needs to travel in time, and I can respect that - but calling it "made up" is really quite unfair. All of the models listed above can be called made up - including yours. What we know about God is what he has revealed to us and the rest (as to how it all comes together) is left open.
-
I guess I'm just not catching how they can be before they ate the forbidden fruit. The commandments were to multiply and replenish the earth and to not eat the forbidden fruit, neither having anything directly to do with the tree of life. Maybe I'm concentrating on the specific commands too much, or maybe you aren't looking at them enough. I don't know.
First off, thanks for asking about how the two trees could be opposites. I probably wouldn't have thought about it otherwise.
Let's go ahead and ignore the commandments for the moment and just talk about opposites. In the world of opposites, there are some that are displayed clearly with xor choices (if you don't know xor, don't worry about it too much).
You can cry or you can laugh
Speak now or forever hold your peace
Do something radical or maintain the status quo
All of these opposites are like bookends - they sit apart from each other, but both are presented to you simultaneously. Other opposites are more transitional in nature.Exit; Entrance
Freeway offramp; Freeway onramp
Death; Birth
Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil; Tree of Life
For what it's worth, many (though not all) of the opposites listed in Ecclesiastes 3 are transitional opposites. What makes these opposites different from the more conventional type is that you don't have a choice between the two. "You may take either the onramp or the offramp for the freeway." "You may either enter or exit the auditorium." These don't make sense. But what does make sense is if you are inside the auditorium you may be commanded, "Exit the auditorium." Or if you are outside you may be commanded, "Enter the auditorium." Similarly, Adam was told, "You may choose for yourself whether you will exit or not." And once he left, he was given commandments to get him back in if he so chose.
This is another thing I'm trying to understand. My brain seems to understand by comparison. So, I'm trying to compare the difference between our state in the pre-mortal existence, and Adam and Eve in the Garden before the fall.
I see more similarities than differences. Other than some obvious differences, neither had the knowledge of good and evil, but both had agency. It seems Adam and Eve were told to exercise their Agency, where we see no such thing in the pre-earth life. Adam and Eve walked and talked with God and had full knowledge of God just as well as our state in the pre-mortal existence. So, I don't think that's a difference. I don't think Adam and Eve were in out right rebellion, but I can't really say why, outside of the fact that even though they were given commandments, they were given permission to use their agency, while in the pre-mortal existence we have no evidence that they were. "Thou mayest choose for thyself" seems to be the primary difference.
Maybe help me understand how you see the similarities and differences?
I also see the Garden of Eden as a type for the premortal existence. But I also recognize that it is not a perfect type, much like David is the Messiah-figure, but we all know there are some strong differences that shouldn't be carried over. (If you want, I can provide references for these in another post.)
Similarities
Adam was in the presence of God the Father.
Adam lacked experiential knowledge of good and evil.
Eden's paradise was patterned after the premortal world.
Adam made a conscious choice to enter mortality.
Satan (Lucifer) tempted Adam to disobey God.
Adam was innocent (? not too sure where to place this one, it depends on the possibility of premortal sin without getting cast out ??)
Differences
Adam had a physical body.
Adam transgressed a commandment.
Eve does not recognize Satan (Lucifer) for who he is.
Adam has forgotten all.
Those last two statements make me think that there was some sort of a veil placed over Adam and Eve, so whatever choice they made in the Garden wouldn't be the same as making it in the premortal world.
-
Thank you mordorbund. You have presented a lot of interesting ideas.
Before I comment, I want to stress that anywhere that I disagree is just that. I do not think my thoughts are higher, my ways are necessarily more right, or that you are ignorant because you disagree with me. Sometimes I come across as critical, when in fact I'm just seeking to understand. I often do it poorly and people think I'm being difficult. So, I want you to know I respect your ideas, and I respect your right to believe them.
I have also enjoyed this discussion and some of your thoughts. I don't subscribe to your views on the subject, but I don't view them as heresies either :).
My first thought would be that the real opposition was the commandment to have children against the fact that Adam could not (for whatever reason). As I said before, IF the tree of life was in opposition to the tree of the knowledge of g&e (I like your abbreviation) then so were all the other trees he was told he could eat of. Yes? No?
No. The two specified trees are indeed opposites. As I stated before, one is an entrance and one is an exit. Their opposition is in that specific property. It is true that their functionality is mutually exclusive (exactly one is "active" at any time, never both), but that doesn't preclude them from serving as opposites.
I do like your reasoning about how if they ate one and not the other they presented no opposition, which makes sense, and is kind of my point. As long as Adam did not eat of the forbidden fruit, the tree of life *seemed* to present no opposition.
Almost. What I'm trying to point out is that there is indeed opposition, even though one tree is "functional" and the other is "non-functional". Similar to a birth and death motif.
I'd like to key on Alma's use of the word immediately. This is why it had to happen fast, according to him. Adam would not be able to re-enter the Garden, but needed to partake before he left. It seems, if you follow the story, that it was available up until they met God walking in the Garden. There's no specifics of how much time elapsed, but it stands to reason that they could have made it to the tree of life before that conversation, and before they were removed from the Garden, and before the guard was up. It's just speculation that seems to fit the events mentioned.
Not going to argue on this point. You've stated your opinions on this, and I've mentioned that I'm still closer to the orthodoxy side on this. The specific topic I wanted to address was how the trees were still in opposition to each other, and how Adam could still have his Agency with cherubim guarding the Tree of Life.
Do you see how the two trees can stand in opposition to each other in the manner I've stated?
I like the difference you draw between "when" Adam might be able to partake of the tree of life. It seems that in the end, though, both statements may be the same thing. To "keep" that Adam (fallen) from eating from the tree of life if he wanted to (and bringing about the consequences described by Alma) God would have to remove the option to not choose His plan.
I don't have a solid answer for this, but for now I'll go with what others have posted. Adam had the Universal option (meaning, the one that affected both him and his posterity) in the Garden and chose to follow Father's plan "that man may be" when he ate the fruit of the Tree of Knowledge of G&E. On a personal/individual basis, Adam was presented with the option to follow Father's plan in the premortal existence, and again throughout his life.
Yes, Alma makes this part of it clear. But, my question regarding this is that why "prevent" Adam and not prevent the 1/3 or anyone else who attempts to choose against God's plan? If it is possible for God to do so and still exalt His children, it seems His plan could have saved everyone.
The reason why the 1/3 weren't prevented is because their choice was made with full knowledge and understanding. In the premortal existence, there was no veil between them and God. They were in outright rebellion. They denied God in the presence of God.
Mortal (fallen) Adam was in a different circumstance from the 1/3. He had already chosen God's plan (in the premortal realm (individual), and now by his Fall(universal)). That wasn't in question. What was in question was how he and his children would choose when placed behind a veil, in a fallen world. Beacause of the veil the 2/3 are given some slack so that reqardles of what they choose, they will not be devils (excepting those that choose against God after being accepted back into the Lord's presence).
I know there's some debate as to whether Adam was subject to the Veil in the Garden. If he was, then the above arguments are that much stronger. If not, it still answers the second half of your question.
I do not disagree that it's what Adam was supposed to do, and what Adam was going to do. What I question is that since God knew that Adam was going to eat the forbidden fruit and then leave the Garden, why did He have to prevent him from doing what God knew he wasn't going to do?
I think the guard was placed for another reason. I just think most people don't think about it. I don't know why.
Thank you very much for your insights.
My argument is that although the guards were preventative (they keep all sin-stained individuals out), they were also specifically punitive against Adam. Adam was God-promised (which cannot be broken) that if he ate the fruit, he would surely die. Dives was very penitent and desired to enter Abraham's bosom, but it was too late. After an agent acts, the agent is acted upon by the consequences. Cherubim are not a natural consequence, but they are a certain consequence nonetheless.
Gaining a testimony
in LDS Gospel Discussion
Posted
From Elder Oaks April 2008 conference address on Testimony:
What do we mean when we testify and say that we know the gospel is true? Contrast that kind of knowledge with “I know it is cold outside” or “I know I love my wife.” These are three different kinds of knowledge, each learned in a different way. Knowledge of outside temperature can be verified by scientific proof. Knowledge that we love our spouse is personal and subjective. While not capable of scientific proof, it is still important.