Was Eve wise or beguiled? and at which point?

[Traveler]

I think by calling it the "tree of knowledge of good and evil" (which is its proper name) it carries a connotation that that would be the reason to eat such a fruit and gives a suggestion that the attached result of eating such a fruit is unknown. That is not how Adam and Eve saw it though, they knew they "would surely die". So, let me challenge you to call it the "tree of death" for just a moment, that could still be its name and would properly be opposite the tree of life. So, now we have two choices, the tree of life or the tree of death. If you can look at it that way, then you will see that Eve chose death. And so, death is not a punishment, it is a choice. We all chose death by way of passing the first estate test. If death is something we all chose, how is that a punishment? .... God, punished us by giving us what we wanted and what He wanted? (that doesn't make sense to me)

I believe that the problem we have here is that your are trying to change the meaning of the term "punishment" in order to resolve what you want to believe rather than what is the reality of a covenant. There are two parts of a covenant - there is the blessing for being obedient to a particular covenant and there is a punishment affixed to every covenant for breaking the covenant. Death is the punishment part of the covenant - and per your example life is the blessing part of the covenant. There is no greater punishment than death - which can only come from sin. There is no other way to gain knowledge of evil except through sin. And there is no justice if the punishment is fixed upon an individual that did not break a covenant.

G-d does not want us to sin and break any covenant. That is the great paradox. It is better that we pass through sorrow that we might know the good from the evil but to do so (know evil) we must break a covenant by our own free will and choice. And we must understand the context that having broken our covenant that there is a means by which we can be bought - the term is "redeemed" - and this second part results in our obtaining the knowledge of good.

Once we have knowledge of both good and evil we may now choose one or the other. We may choose to offer ourselves in discipline as a sacrifice of redemption - which is good or we may choose eternal death which is the opposite of discipline and sacrifice or the indulgence and gratification of self according to our desires. The word desire as it relates to self over others has a most interesting play back on your comment above.

But - regardless - death comes only as punishment. If it were not for the atonement of Christ that punishment of death would be fixed forever upon all according to the justice of the covenant. Once you have a clear understanding of that - you will see why Satan was able to draw away a third part of heaven in rebellion. The means of obtaining knowledge of good and evil requires a broken covenant. But to oppose the obtaining of knowledge of good and evil or the agency to choose also results in a broken covenant.

The Traveler

Edited October 23, 2012 by Traveler

[Seminarysnoozer]

I believe that the problem we have here is that your are trying to change the meaning of the term "punishment" in order to resolve what you want to believe rather than what is the reality of a covenant. There are two parts of a covenant - there is the blessing for being obedient to a particular covenant and there is a punishment affixed to every covenant for breaking the covenant. Death is the punishment part of the covenant - and per your example life is the blessing part of the covenant. There is no greater punishment than death - which can only come from sin. There is no other way to gain knowledge of evil except through sin. And there is no justice if the punishment is fixed upon an individual that did not break a covenant.

G-d does not want us to sin and break any covenant. That is the great paradox. It is better that we pass through sorrow that we might know the good from the evil but to do so (know evil) we must break a covenant by our own free will and choice. And we must understand the context that having broken our covenant that there is a means by which we can be bought - the term is "redeemed" - and this second part results in our obtaining the knowledge of good.

Once we have knowledge of both good and evil we may now choose one or the other. We may choose to offer ourselves in discipline as a sacrifice of redemption - which is good or we may choose eternal death which is the opposite of discipline and sacrifice or the indulgence and gratification of self according to our desires. The word desire as it relates to self over others has a most interesting play back on your comment above.

But - regardless - death comes only as punishment. If it were not for the atonement of Christ that punishment of death would be fixed forever upon all according to the justice of the covenant. Once you have a clear understanding of that - you will see why Satan was able to draw away a third part of heaven in rebellion. The means of obtaining knowledge of good and evil requires a broken covenant. But to oppose the obtaining of knowledge of good and evil or the agency to choose also results in a broken covenant.

The Traveler

I think you are confusing death by being mortal with permanent death (permanent separation). We are not talking about permanent death, we are talking about temporary death which is mortality. The blessing for the covenant is not "life" but eternal joy and endless joy. Is there any other way to get to eternal life but by death? If not, then death is the pathway not a punishment.

I am not one to shout for joy over punishment, I doubt you are either, so I am assuming when we all heard about this life (life of death), the reason we shouted for joy was not because it was punishment but because we knew it was the path towards being like our Heavenly Father. I believe Eve shouted for joy too. Wahoooo! We get to die! (It is all in the perspective, which we should have now that we have the fullness of the gospel and a testimony that tells us how we should feel about this life - what a blessing, what a gift! - not punishment.)

One other question, did we have knowledge of good and evil when we chose to keep the first estate over not keeping it?

And since you are bringing up so many topics; What sorrow did the child who died at the age of one hour suffer? Do you remember being one hour old? The brain has limited capacity to experience "sorrow" at that age, so please reconsider your definition of knowledge of good and evil as a requirement - that is not true. A one hour old baby did not break a covenant nor sin.

I think you leave out one important skill of our Heavenly Father; He is a very good judge of character. He does not need to prove things as if it is a scientific experiment in which unknowns are discovered for the first time. All He has to do is judge our character. I think there is this perception that the final judgment is formulated on a algorithmic formula that one puts x,y,z in and it produces a,b,c. That is for God to judge, God doesn't need proof, just enough to judge one's character, that is all. He doesn't necessarily need an individual to reach a certain level to obtain the level he/she is reaching for. If that is what He required then there is no "gift" of Eternal Life, it is just earned. I think you should relax your rigidity on what is required by God; all that is required is His will is met for each of us, which is all different. For the baby that died in one hour, maybe that is all that God needed to judge that character and on she goes to the next life.

Edited October 23, 2012 by Seminarysnoozer

[Traveler]

I think you are confusing death by being mortal with permanent death (permanent separation). We are not talking about permanent death, we are talking about temporary death which is mortality. The blessing for the covenant is not "life" but eternal joy and endless joy. Is there any other way to get to eternal life but by death? If not, then death is the pathway not a punishment.

I am not one to shout for joy over punishment, I doubt you are either, so I am assuming when we all heard about this life (life of death), the reason we shouted for joy was not because it was punishment but because we knew it was the path towards being like our Heavenly Father. I believe Eve shouted for joy too. Wahoooo! We get to die! (It is all in the perspective, which we should have now that we have the fullness of the gospel and a testimony that tells us how we should feel about this life - what a blessing, what a gift! - not punishment.)

One other question, did we have knowledge of good and evil when we chose to keep the first estate over not keeping it?

And since you are bringing up so many topics; What sorrow did the child who died at the age of one hour suffer? Do you remember being one hour old? The brain has limited capacity to experience "sorrow" at that age, so please reconsider your definition of knowledge of good and evil as a requirement - that is not true. A one hour old baby did not break a covenant nor sin.

I think you leave out one important skill of our Heavenly Father; He is a very good judge of character. He does not need to prove things as if it is a scientific experiment in which unknowns are discovered for the first time. All He has to do is judge our character. I think there is this perception that the final judgment is formulated on a algorithmic formula that one puts x,y,z in and it produces a,b,c. That is for God to judge, God doesn't need proof, just enough to judge one's character, that is all. He doesn't necessarily need an individual to reach a certain level to obtain the level he/she is reaching for. If that is what He required then there is no "gift" of Eternal Life, it is just earned. I think you should relax your rigidity on what is required by God; all that is required is His will is met for each of us, which is all different. For the baby that died in one hour, maybe that is all that God needed to judge that character and on she goes to the next life.

I am not sure I have the time to respond to your questions - rather I would point you to your covenants concerning the fall and return to that place which is Celestial. There is a great deal of symbolism concerning these matters in the temple. I would submit that when we are brought to be "judged" before G-d that it will not be as some would suppose. For example - the standard of judgment will not be about condemning or punishments as it will be a preparation to "enter". Those that have prepared according to covenants will be ready and can enter - those that are not prepared will not enter.

Because of the fall there is new and everlasting covenants to overcome the fall. There are no blessing except by obedience - none. And all punishments come from disobedience - there are no exceptions. All G-d's blessings are eternal and all G-d's punishments are eternal. And we are talking about a very real death - not just a physical death but the death of the spirit being excommunicated from the Kingdom of G-d. The fall is very real - there is no pretending. We have no access to the Father except through a mediator and unless the law that was broken is paid in full - the punishment will remain forever and we have no power at all to change or pay the fixed punishment. And only through a new covenant through the Christ is it possible to change the fall. This is all as fixed and just and lawful as anything that G-d had spoken. Death is a punishment.

The Traveler

[Seminarysnoozer]

I am not sure I have the time to respond to your questions - rather I would point you to your covenants concerning the fall and return to that place which is Celestial. There is a great deal of symbolism concerning these matters in the temple. I would submit that when we are brought to be "judged" before G-d that it will not be as some would suppose. For example - the standard of judgment will not be about condemning or punishments as it will be a preparation to "enter". Those that have prepared according to covenants will be ready and can enter - those that are not prepared will not enter.

Because of the fall there is new and everlasting covenants to overcome the fall. There are no blessing except by obedience - none. And all punishments come from disobedience - there are no exceptions. All G-d's blessings are eternal and all G-d's punishments are eternal. And we are talking about a very real death - not just a physical death but the death of the spirit being excommunicated from the Kingdom of G-d. The fall is very real - there is no pretending. We have no access to the Father except through a mediator and unless the law that was broken is paid in full - the punishment will remain forever and we have no power at all to change or pay the fixed punishment. And only through a new covenant through the Christ is it possible to change the fall. This is all as fixed and just and lawful as anything that G-d had spoken. Death is a punishment.

The Traveler

I 100% agree with everything you say here but would add one small caveat which is that the purpose of the covenants is to facilitate or sometimes even cause the transformation of heart that is needed to be worthy of the promises of the covenant. In other words, the act of doing the covenant shouldn't be made more important than the purpose it serves which is to help us become more like God in character (heart). With that God does not just look at whether a covenant was done or not but where the heart is while meeting the demands of the covenant. Some souls are Christ-like enough, apparently, for God to know that they do not need to suffer or feel sorrow or the pains of sin and they can move on to the next phase. That part of it is not a hard requirement except for those that have to, which is all that live into the age of accountability and are capable of having that accountability. To say that suffering or punishment is required is to spin it in a way that puts the test itself above the purpose of the test, in my view. Do you think Christ saw His life as "punishment"?

[Marlin1]

The fall clearly was a punishment. Seminarysnoozer, I think you are getting hung up on viewing punishment as a bad thing. It can be a blessing or curse depending on how you react to it. I don't believe God punishes us to hurt us, rather to help us learn from our mistakes. Had Adam and Eve not humbled themselves and repented, it would not have led to salvation. In that case, the fall clearly would not have been considered a blessing to Adam and Eve. It would have been a missed opportunity with real eternal consequences.

Punishment and suffering are teachers. They teaches us what to avoid in life - like a hot stove. Punishment and suffering always hurt. So which is it, a blessing or a curse? Again, it depends on how you choose to react to it.

Edited October 24, 2012 by Marlin1

[Marlin1]

Temptation, to me, requires moral agency, which Eve did not have at the time. She did not yet know good or evil and therefore could not credibly choose between the two with any capacity for understanding which choice was good and which choice was bad. It was not therefore a moral or spiritual deception. It was to Eve an intellectual, and to her, reasonable decision based on the facts presented to her from both sides. The serpent’s words were more subtle and intellectually enticing and stimulating to Eve. I think beguiled is a perfect word.

Eve never listed "having children" as a reason for partaking of the fruit. She said it looks good, it's good for food, and makes one wise. Only after she partook did she realize that she couldn't have kids if she was kicked out of the garden and Adam remained. So, Adam ate to fulfill the first commandment. There was no knowledge beforehand that eating the fruit was the only way to have kids. That realization came after the fact. Eve did not eat the fruit to fulfill the first commandment, Adam did.

[Vort]

Temptation, to me, requires moral agency, which Eve did not have at the time. She did not yet know good or evil and therefore could not credibly choose between the two with any capacity for understanding which choice was good and which choice was bad. It was not therefore a moral or spiritual deception. It was to Eve an intellectual, and to her, reasonable decision based on the facts presented to her from both sides. The serpent’s words were more subtle and intellectually enticing and stimulating to Eve. I think beguiled is a perfect word.

Eve never listed "having children" as a reason for partaking of the fruit. She said it looks good, it's good for food, and makes one wise. Only after she partook did she realize that she couldn't have kids if she was kicked out of the garden and Adam remained. So, Adam ate to fulfill the first commandment. There was no knowledge beforehand that eating the fruit was the only way to have kids. That realization came after the fact. Eve did not eat the fruit to fulfill the first commandment, Adam did.

The ability to use verbal symbolic representations (i.e. language) presupposes a certain level of moral understanding. Eve clearly understood that the Father said, "Thou shalt not partake of it." There was no ambiguity there.

I am willing to believe that there are elements to the history that we simply do not have and that might change our perception of it. Indeed, I assume there are many such elements. But the way the history is presented in scripture and elsewhere leaves no doubt that Adam and Eve disobeyed the clear commandment of God, and in doing so, suffered the same fate as everyone else who disobeys God's commandments: Separation from God, aka spiritual death. This is the purpose of the Atonement, to mitigate the consequences of physical and spiritual death brought into the world by Adam's and Eve's actions.

I don't mind if people think Adam and Eve did not sin in disobeying God. I don't agree with them, but I concede they might in some sense be right, based on information we are not given. But I find it irritating when people ake the history given us and then somehow try to argue that up isn't really up and down isn't really down.

You also are left with the horrific conclusion that hearkening to the voice of Satan is PREFERABLE to obeying God. If you accept the Genesis history, there is no alternative to this conclusion when you insist that Adam and Eve were blameless in every sense.

[Marlin1]

I agree with you Vort, I never never insinuated that they were innocent. They were clearly guilty of disobeying God. Technically, however, they did not sin. They transgressed, apparently there is a difference.

[Seminarysnoozer]

The fall clearly was a punishment. Seminarysnoozer, I think you are getting hung up on viewing punishment as a bad thing. It can be a blessing or curse depending on how you react to it. I don't believe God punishes us to hurt us, rather to help us learn from our mistakes. Had Adam and Eve not humbled themselves and repented, it would not have led to salvation. In that case, the fall clearly would not have been considered a blessing to Adam and Eve. It would have been a missed opportunity with real eternal consequences.

Punishment and suffering are teachers. They teaches us what to avoid in life - like a hot stove. Punishment and suffering always hurt. So which is it, a blessing or a curse? Again, it depends on how you choose to react to it.

But because we use those terms interchangeably (as we do a lot of religious terms) this is why I was trying to clarify to Traveler that the "death" is temporary, the "punishment" is also temporary. I think this is why real "punishment" is clarified by the word "endless" sometimes as in endless torment or eternal as in eternal suffering or permanent death as with what happened to Satan and his followers. I agree with what you are saying, that "punishment" or learning by trial and error can be useful and allow a person to grow in ways they couldn't otherwise. But God always hopes that He doesn't have to use "punishment" as a tool, just like He doesn't have to use it on infants that die with only minutes in this world.

Humility is a blessing. Repentance is a blessing. I think Adam and Eve view those two things as blessings. It is all a matter of perspective. I think the opening post question was very smart in putting in the phrase "and at which point?" because that is the real question. At one point did they view it as "punishment"? Sure, just like when my child thinks that the time-out is punishment as opposed to pulling the child away from worse consequences. When one does not see the end of the path of the other path not taken as worse, then they may view it as "punishment". But, if one looks at the alternative as being a worse option, then this path is not "punishment". I think the trip up that a lot of people have is that they some how view staying in the Garden of Eden as a better choice. If one believes that then I can see how this life would be viewed as a "punishment" but we both know that staying in the Garden of Eden was not the better of the two choices as it is a limiting choice and is not on the path to Godhood.

Edited October 24, 2012 by Seminarysnoozer

[Vort]

I agree with you Vort, I never never insinuated that they were innocent. They were clearly guilty of disobeying God. Technically, however, they did not sin. They transgressed, apparently there is a difference.

I did not mean "you" as in you, personally, Marlin. I was using a larger generic meaning.

Many Church leaders have drawn a distinction between sin and transgression, especially with regards to Adam and Eve. However, I will point out that no such distinction exists in scripture. "Whosoever committeth sin transgresseth also the law: for sin is the transgression of the law." (1 John 3:4)

[Traveler]

But because we use those terms interchangeably (as we do a lot of religious terms) this is why I was trying to clarify to Traveler that the "death" is temporary, the "punishment" is also temporary. I think this is why real "punishment" is clarified by the word "endless" sometimes as in endless torment or eternal as in eternal suffering or permanent death as with what happened to Satan and his followers. I agree with what you are saying, that "punishment" or learning by trial and error can be useful and allow a person to grow in ways they couldn't otherwise. But God always hopes that He doesn't have to use "punishment" as a tool, just like He doesn't have to use it on infants that die with only minutes in this world.

Humility is a blessing. Repentance is a blessing. I think Adam and Eve view those two things as blessings. It is all a matter of perspective. I think the opening post question was very smart in putting in the phrase "and at which point?" because that is the real question. At one point did they view it as "punishment"? Sure, just like when my child thinks that the time-out is punishment as opposed to pulling the child away from worse consequences. When one does not see the end of the path of the other path not taken as worse, then they may view it as "punishment". But, if one looks at the alternative as being a worse option, then this path is not "punishment". I think the trip up that a lot of people have is that they some how view staying in the Garden of Eden as a better choice. If one believes that then I can see how this life would be viewed as a "punishment" but we both know that staying in the Garden of Eden was not the better of the two choices as it is a limiting choice and is not on the path to Godhood.

I find this discussion most interesting - how is a punishment just if it last longer or is of greater magnitude than the offense? If a person realizes that they have made a mistake and wishes to alter the consequence and results permanently - what justice is their in continuing the punishment permanently? Such an attitude turns punishment into vengeance and retaliation which has hatred at its core and lacks mercy and compassion.

The only reason to continue punishment is if innocent suffering is renewed because the offense continues. But I believe that this is why Satan was cast out forever - because his offenses continue by intent.

The reason a parent punishes their children with discipline is in hope to permanently modify their behavior. Just because discipline is temporary does not mean that it is not punishment - even if both the parent and child agreed on the punishment long before any infraction took place and that such punishment would be a good lesson learned.

The Traveler

[Marlin1]

I did not mean "you" as in you, personally, Marlin. I was using a larger generic meaning.

Many Church leaders have drawn a distinction between sin and transgression, especially with regards to Adam and Eve. However, I will point out that no such distinction exists in scripture. "Whosoever committeth sin transgresseth also the law: for sin is the transgression of the law." (1 John 3:4)

Ya, I see what you are saying. I have always had a hard time distinguishing between sin and transgression myself. It just occurred to me, however, that there is a distinction between sin and transgression in scripture. It is found in Moroni 8. It clearly distinguishes transgression from sin based on the level of understanding and accountability. For example: Is 1 John 3:4 true in regards to children? No, it's not applicable to children. Children can know the law and transgress it all they want and still not sin.

If there is some leeway with children and those without the law. I wonder if there would be any leeway with Adam and Eve considering their amoral understanding? In many ways they were like children, yet even children have the capacity to know and distinguish between good and evil. That's why church leaders distinguish the two, and I have to say, I agree with them. Adam and Eve are very unique.

Edited October 24, 2012 by Marlin1

[Vort]

It just occurred to me, however, that there is a distinction between sin and transgression in scripture. It is found in Moroni 8. It clearly distinguishes transgression from sin based on the level of understanding and accountability.

No, it does not. The word "transgression" is not even found in Moroni 8. That chapter simply teaches that little children cannot sin, which is equivalent to saying that they cannot transgress God's laws.

[Seminarysnoozer]

I find this discussion most interesting - how is a punishment just if it last longer or is of greater magnitude than the offense? If a person realizes that they have made a mistake and wishes to alter the consequence and results permanently - what justice is their in continuing the punishment permanently? Such an attitude turns punishment into vengeance and retaliation which has hatred at its core and lacks mercy and compassion.

The only reason to continue punishment is if innocent suffering is renewed because the offense continues. But I believe that this is why Satan was cast out forever - because his offenses continue by intent.

The reason a parent punishes their children with discipline is in hope to permanently modify their behavior. Just because discipline is temporary does not mean that it is not punishment - even if both the parent and child agreed on the punishment long before any infraction took place and that such punishment would be a good lesson learned.

The Traveler

Punishment requires a judgement. Why is there a "final judgement" if what you are saying is occurs on a continual basis? We would have already been judged at every turn, there would be nothing left to judge if the consequence of our action was immediate and based on some algorithmic formula that what we put in is calculated and results in what we get out. We know that this is not true during this life time. A person who studies and trains to be a gun for hire, a mercenary, who kills people for a living could do this for his whole life, make money and be successful in such a career (hypothetically). What punishment resulted from the action, hypothetically not much but immediate reward in exchange for giving up his future inheritance. When will the punishment occur for that individual? At the final judgement when there is no further opportunity to change.

So, your example of punishment used to modify behavior is not applicable to the behavior for such an individual, therefore they are permanently punished, or eternally punished in that it does not modify behavior. Not to say that they will suffer forever it is just that they will not have a chance to take the test over again. That is the difference between immediate consequences and the final judgement. It is the final tally that determines whether a punishment is eternal or temporary. And if it is temporary it is only for our benefit and so the sum is one that is positive not negative. I think this is a basic doctrine of our gospel that it is possible to build up earthly treasures without building treasures in Heaven. Is building up Earthly treasures a punishment? Not yet necessarily but it will be.

I think this is a bit of semantics. Maybe the word to use is not "punishment" but trials. I think you are more talking about trials. I really hope in the end I do not look back at this life as a "punishment" and say to myself, 'boy, I should have listened to Satan, I shouldn't have gone." I believe I will say to my Heavenly Father, "thank you" and in doing so, not look at this life as a punishment when I have the eternal perspective but look at this life as a necessary trials for my personal growth and refinement.

D&C 122:" 7 And if thou shouldst be cast into the pit, or into the hands of murderers, and the sentence of death passed upon thee; if thou be cast into the deep; if the billowing surge conspire against thee; if fierce winds become thine enemy; if the heavens gather blackness, and all the elements combine to hedge up the way; and above all, if the very jaws of hell shall gape open the mouth wide after thee, know thou, my son, that all these things shall give thee experience, and shall be for thy good.

8 The Son of Man hath descended below them all. Art thou greater than he?"

[dahlia]

There must be more important things to think about - especially when one may interpret 'wise or beguiled' as coming from an anti-female stance. If she was beguiled, do you want to say she was stupid or inferior in some way? Twenty million things going on right now in the world; it's hard to see where this question even gets serious consideration.

[Janadele]

Apostle James E. Talmage in his book Jesus The Christ gives us the answer:

Adam, the first man placed upon the earth in pursuance of the established plan, and Eve who was given unto him as companion and associate, indispensable to him in the appointed mission of peopling the earth, disobeyed the express commandment of God and so brought about the "fall of man", whereby the mortal state, of which death is an essential element, was inaugurated.

The woman was deceived, and in direct violation of counsel and commandment partook of the food that had been forbidden, as a result of which act her body became degenerate and subject to death. Adam realised the disparity that had been brought between him and his companion, and with some measure of understanding followed her course, thus becoming her partner in bodily degeneracy. Note in this matter the words of Paul the apostle: "Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression."

The man and the woman had now become mortal; through indulgence in food unsuited to their nature and condition and against which they had been specifically warned, and as the inevitable result of their disobeying the divine law and commandment, they became liable to the physical ailments and bodily frailties to which mankind has since been thenatural heir. Those bodies, which before the fall had been perfect in form and function, were now subjects for eventual dissolution or death. The arch-tempter through whose sophistries, half-truths and infamous falsehoods, Eve had been beguiled, was none other than Satan, or Lucifer, that rebellious and fallen "son of the morning", whose proposal involving the destruction of man's liberty had been rejected in the council of the heavens, and who had been "cast out into the earth", he and all his angels as unbodied spirits, never to be tabernacled in bodies of their own. As an act of diabolic reprisal following his rejection in the council, his defeat by Michael and the heavenly hosts, and his ignominious expulsion from heaven, Satan planned to destroy the bodies in which the faithful spirits--those who had kept their first estate--would be born; and his beguilement of Eve was but an early stage of that infernal scheme.

Death has come to be the universal heritage; it may claim its victim in infancy or youth, in the period of life's prime, or its summons may be deferred until the snows of age have gathered upon the hoary head; it may befall as the result of accident or disease, by violence, or as we say, through natural causes; but come it must, as Satan well knows; and in this knowledge is his present though but temporary triumph.

[Marlin1]

No, it does not. The word "transgression" is not even found in Moroni 8. That chapter simply teaches that little children cannot sin, which is equivalent to saying that they cannot transgress God's laws.

I'm having a hard time understanding why you think little children cannot transgress God's laws, they do it all the time.

[Vort]

I'm having a hard time understanding why you think little children cannot transgress God's laws, they do it all the time.

By definition, sin (aka transgressing the law) requires (a) understanding and (b) capacity to exercise agency.

[Traveler]

Punishment requires a judgement. Why is there a "final judgement" if what you are saying is occurs on a continual basis? We would have already been judged at every turn, there would be nothing left to judge if the consequence of our action was immediate and based on some algorithmic formula that what we put in is calculated and results in what we get out. We know that this is not true during this life time. A person who studies and trains to be a gun for hire, a mercenary, who kills people for a living could do this for his whole life, make money and be successful in such a career (hypothetically). What punishment resulted from the action, hypothetically not much but immediate reward in exchange for giving up his future inheritance. When will the punishment occur for that individual? At the final judgement when there is no further opportunity to change.

So, your example of punishment used to modify behavior is not applicable to the behavior for such an individual, therefore they are permanently punished, or eternally punished in that it does not modify behavior. Not to say that they will suffer forever it is just that they will not have a chance to take the test over again. That is the difference between immediate consequences and the final judgement. It is the final tally that determines whether a punishment is eternal or temporary. And if it is temporary it is only for our benefit and so the sum is one that is positive not negative. I think this is a basic doctrine of our gospel that it is possible to build up earthly treasures without building treasures in Heaven. Is building up Earthly treasures a punishment? Not yet necessarily but it will be.

I think this is a bit of semantics. Maybe the word to use is not "punishment" but trials. I think you are more talking about trials. I really hope in the end I do not look back at this life as a "punishment" and say to myself, 'boy, I should have listened to Satan, I shouldn't have gone." I believe I will say to my Heavenly Father, "thank you" and in doing so, not look at this life as a punishment when I have the eternal perspective but look at this life as a necessary trials for my personal growth and refinement.

D&C 122:" 7 And if thou shouldst be cast into the pit, or into the hands of murderers, and the sentence of death passed upon thee; if thou be cast into the deep; if the billowing surge conspire against thee; if fierce winds become thine enemy; if the heavens gather blackness, and all the elements combine to hedge up the way; and above all, if the very jaws of hell shall gape open the mouth wide after thee, know thou, my son, that all these things shall give thee experience, and shall be for thy good.

8 The Son of Man hath descended below them all. Art thou greater than he?"

We are not talking semantics we are talking about "DEATH"!!! There are two kinds of death - There is physical death and there is spiritual death. Both of those deaths came about because of the fall - I submit that being subject to death is a punishment. Not a blessing. Now I have very carefully defined punishment as the inevitable result of breaking a covenant. I have gone so far as to say that death is the punishment for a broken covenant that took place in the fall of mankind.

It appears to me that you are pointing everywhere else in the universe trying to divert from the truth. That truth is that blessings result from keeping covenants and being obedient to covenants. Punishments result from breaking covenants and being disobedient to covenants. I really do not know how to make it any more simple than that - and I have no idea what you are talking about because there are no exceptions. If there were exceptions that G-d would not be G-d. Having a trial is not a punishment but it is part of a covenant. It is the test - those that are obedient to their covenant through a trial receive blessings - those that are not obedient to their covenant through a trial receive a punishment. There can be no covenant without a trial. In the divine scheme of things death is the punishment, spiritual death being the ultimate punishment.

Life does not come from or result because of disobedience to covenants and death does not come from or result from obedience to covenants. Thus overcoming death (which is eternal life) is the blessing of the covenant of salvation and death is the punishment of the covenant of salvation.

The Traveler

[Marlin1]

By definition, sin (aka transgressing the law) requires (a) understanding and (b) capacity to exercise agency.

Good definition of sin, but we are discussing transgression. There is a difference. While all sin is transgression (as you point out in 1 John 3:4), I am arguing that not all transgression is sin. This type of reasoning doesn't hold up to scrutiny - "All apples are fruit, therefore, all fruit must be apples."

By definition transgression is "an act that goes against a law, rule, or code of conduct" (dictionary.com). No understanding or agency necessary. So, by definition kids transgress all the time without sinning.

Psalms 25:7 -> “Remember not the sins of my youth, nor my transgressions: according to thy mercy remember thou me for thy goodness’ sake, O Lord.” There is a clear distinction here.

Edited October 25, 2012 by Marlin1

[Anddenex]

By definition transgression is "an act that goes against a law, rule, or code of conduct" (dictionary.com). No understanding or agency necessary. So, by definition kids transgress all the time without sinning.

This statement would technically be incorrect. One must have agency in order to transgress any law, rule, or code of conduct. Without agency no one would be able to choose righteousness, or obeying the law, rule, or code of conduct, and no one would be able to choose to disobey.

[Seminarysnoozer]

I submit that being subject to death is a punishment. Not a blessing.

Then what exactly did we shout for joy about in the pre-mortal world upon learning that we would die?

Robert Millet; "The Latter-day Saint view of the events in Eden is remarkably optimistic. We believe that Adam and Eve went into the Garden of Eden to fall, that their actions helped “open the way of the world,” 7 and that the Fall was a part of the Father’s foreordained plan. “Adam did only what he had to do,” President Joseph Fielding Smith said. “He partook of that fruit for one good reason, and that was to open the door to bring you and me and everyone else into this world, for Adam and Eve could have remained in the Garden of Eden; they could have been there to this day, if Eve hadn’t done something.” 8

Because the Fall (like the Creation and the Atonement) is one of the three pillars of eternity, and because mortality, death, human experience, sin, and thus the need for redemption grow out of the Fall, we look upon what Adam and Eve did with great appreciation rather than with disdain. “The fall had a twofold direction—downward, yet forward. It brought man into the world and set his feet upon progression’s highway.” 9 As Enoch declared, “Because that Adam fell, we are” (Moses 6:48; see 2 Ne. 2:25)."

John 9: " 1 And as Jesus passed by, he saw a man which was blind from his birth.

2 And his disciples asked him, saying, Master, who did sin, this man, or his parents, that he was born blind?

3 Jesus answered, Neither hath this man sinned, nor his parents: but that the works of God should be made manifest in him."

Moses 6: " 48 And he said unto them: Because that Adam fell, we are; and by his fall came death; and we are made partakers of misery and woe.

49 Behold Satan hath come among the children of men, and tempteth them to worship him; and men have become carnal, sensual, and devilish, and are shut out from the presence of God."

As Jesus explained, nobody sinned to be born into this world with misery and woe and it's associated death. We are made partakers of the misery and woe so that works are manifest (not necessarily as punishment). What is the child who dies within one hour of life being "punished" for? Please explain. Is it possible for a person to experience more "punishment" in their life then they deserve? Does someone with Down's syndrome deserve that "punishment"?

[Marlin1]

Seminarysnoozer,

Would you also argue that spiritual death is a blessing?

[Seminarysnoozer]

Seminarysnoozer,

Would you also argue that spiritual death is a blessing?

No. .... why?

Arguing against what Traveler is saying; that this life is a punishment for everyone is not synonymous with saying it is a blessing for everyone. The only people in which this life becomes a source of punishment and not glory are those that do not receive a level of glory, by definition. That is pretty easy to figure out.

What is required to prove that this life is a punishment for everyone is to show that everyone who came here needed punishment (like the person born with blindness Jesus talked about); in other words, everyone who came here did something wrong before they were assigned to come here and over those that didn't come here. That is the opposite thinking to what we know happened in the premortal world. So, it is on his shoulders to prove that the baby who dies within one hour of life did something wrong to be "punished" by this death.

If we are not here because we did something "wrong" then it is simply trials (or "misery and woe" as explained in Moses) that we face, not "punishment". Traveler rejected that definition.

[Marlin1]

Wether spiritual or physical, death is death. It is eternal captivity (punishment). It was the first judgment (punishment) upon man. It is an "awful monster" as Nephi put it. Death is not the blessing, the resurrection and atonement is! Death is not the way, Christ is! 2 Nephi 9:7-12 explains the nature of death well. We did not rejoice in the spirit world that we would die, we rejoiced that we would live through Christ.

Traveler is not arguing (at least I don't think he is) that this life is punishment for everyone, he is arguing that death is.

If you are going to speak of death, Christ can have no part in it. Death is the enemy, Christ abolished death - 2 Tim 1:10. Death is the antithesis of Christ who proclaimed, " I am the way, the truth and the life." All blessings are found in Christ and Christ is not in death.

Death = punishment; Resurrection = blessing.

"...if the flesh should rise no more our spirits must become subject to that angel who fell from before the presence of the Eternal God, and became the devil, to rise no more." (2 Nephi 9:8) Death is everlasting punishment and hell. Without Christ, death is eternal, it is not a good thing!

One of your arguments is that death is necessary to return to God. It is the "way" as you put it. Not true, there have been many that have not experienced death. Examples: The whole city of Enoch, John, the 3 Nephites. If death is a blessing, why would God withhold such a blessing from the most righteous? Death is not necessary to return to God...life is.

Edited October 26, 2012 by Marlin1