Agency


Justice
 Share

Recommended Posts

If my Dad was a rich millionaire (which he isn't, bummer) and I wanted to be as successful as my dad in the same way he was I would ask him how he did it. He would say, I worked hard and went to school, and worked hard some more. I might ask myself, well I could either sit around and enjoy all he has or I can go out and earn it on my own, which would be better? Then I make a decision to earn it on my own, to really be like my dad. So, I go off to college. As I get settled I might get some assistance from him (i.e - garden of Eden) but then once I get started with college he tells me; "okay, if you really want to do this on your own, I am cutting you off from what I have so you can push yourself and grow." Then I would respond. "Okay, I understand" Then he would say, "if you do well, you will have everything but it will really mean something because you earned it."

Either we choose to earn it or we choose to get it for free. We can't have it both ways. Adam knew that in the garden of Eden. Besides he already decided in the pre-existence that he didn't want to do it that way. All those that chose to get it for free were cast out and miserable. If Adam chooses to work out his own salvation by being put to the test then God is going to say great, I will cut you off for a period of time so you can work out your own salvation.

I think the difficulty is magnified by those who think Adam made a decision about what tree he was going to pick based only on experiences and knowledge while in the garden. I think the decision was made long before that, that's why he was the man for the job. I think Adam had a choice but it was kinda back in the pre-existence that the choice was made, just like the rest of us. And this is why the story of the garden of Eden experience is pertinent to all of us.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 165
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

No, but I will say that men can have just kings, and have had. :)

This is a good example of how you look at things. The hypothetical continues on until the word "then". You choose to see what you want.

Keep reading the verse: "...if this could always be the case then it would be expedient that ye should always have kings to rule over you." But because it cannot always be the case, the Nephites left the system of Kings for Judges. It shows that they did not believe that they could always have just men as kings.

Edited by Webster
Link to comment
Share on other sites

If Satan had Adam and Eve partake of the Tree of Life after having become mortal (according to your scenario), God's plan would not have been frustrated (following your own 'logic').

You've said that God wouldn't take away Adam's agency. It just wouldn't happen! Therefore, Adam (or any of his hypothetical posterity for that matter) would still retain the ability to partake of the Tree of Knowledge. God could not prevent this unless He removed Adam's agency! All Adam has to do is eat the fruit of the Tree of Knowledge, and he will again be subject unto death according to God's word which does not change.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Adam was prohibited from partaking of the tree of life at that time. Since then, he has properly partaken of it, and has received Life Eternal. To prematurely receive a gift, is no gift at all. We keep our children from driving cars (hopefully) until they are mature and capable enough to manage it. Imagine the risks of having 10 year olds driving our highways!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If Satan had Adam and Eve partake of the Tree of Life after having become mortal (according to your scenario), God's plan would not have been frustrated (following your own 'logic').

I'm just going by what consequences are described in Alma 12 and 42. It clearly says that had Adam partaken of the tree of life after partaking of the tree of knowledge of good and evil, God's plan would have been frustrated, and man would have become immortal, or never tasting death or mortality. So, you're going to have to speak directly to what Alma 12 and 42 describe.

You've said that God wouldn't take away Adam's agency. It just wouldn't happen! Therefore, Adam (or any of his hypothetical posterity for that matter) would still retain the ability to partake of the Tree of Knowledge. God could not prevent this unless He removed Adam's agency! All Adam has to do is eat the fruit of the Tree of Knowledge, and he will again be subject unto death according to God's word which does not change.

Speaking of hypothetical...

Yes, I believe God would not take away man's agency. I believe He has shown that beyond a shadow of a doubt in scripture. Severe consequences have come to His children as a result of their mis-use of their agency. All He had to do was remove the evil choice (as some say He did for Adam) and He could have spared all men those consequences.

Are you saying had Adam re-partaken of the forbidden fruit after eating the tree of life that he would have become mortal again? You're insinuating that it was something in the fruit that caused the fall and not the choice itself. That's not scriptural, nor is it what the General Authorities teach. I don't believe that. I believe Adam had gained the knowledge of good and evil. I don't believe it can be removed, and therefore would not need to be restored. It would no longer be a commandment for him not to eat the tree of knowledge of good and evil because he had already gained the knowledge. Eating of it again would accomplished nothing, and certainly would not cause another fall. Because he ate of the forbidden fruit, then ate of the tree of life, he would have remained in that state forever... frustrating God's plan (as described in Alma).

Edited by Justice
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Adam was prohibited from partaking of the tree of life at that time.

Then you say God removed his agency. As long as you understand that. I believed that for a very long time.

To prematurely receive a gift, is no gift at all. We keep our children from driving cars (hopefully) until they are mature and capable enough to manage it. Imagine the risks of having 10 year olds driving our highways!

That's not always the case. You can prematurely receive a gift and use and appreciate it all the same. My oldest son got a car before he could drive it. We drove it places with him in it, and he drove it when he got his permit, then when he got his license he was better prepared to drive it because of the time he spent in it getting used to it.

I agree with what you say, but I don't think it's a good comparison to what happened in Eden. There are a lot of options other than letting a child drive at 10. It's more like a 10 year old riding with his dad down the road and his dad passes out while the car is moving. Technically, it's illegal for the 10 year old to drive. But, that doesn't mean his choice is removed. He can either follow the law and sit in the car and (probably) die, or he can take the wheel and try to save him and his dad. That's the kind of limiting choice I'm talking about.

There wasn't a plethora of choices laid before Adam. There was one choice involving two options. By saying God removed one of those options, you're saying you believe God forced Adam to follow His plan... because He removed the other choice.

I just don't believe God has ever shown that He would do that. I don't think His plan could work if He did that. If it could then He could (and therefore most certainly would) do it for others.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm just going by what consequences are described in Alma 12 and 42. It clearly says that had Adam partaken of the tree of life after partaking of the tree of knowledge of good and evil, God's plan would have been frustrated, and man would have become immortal, or never tasting death or mortality. So, you're going to have to speak directly to what Alma 12 and 42 describe.

Speaking of hypothetical...

Yes, I believe God would not take away man's agency. I believe He has shown that beyond a shadow of a doubt in scripture. Severe consequences have come to His children as a result of their mis-use of their agency. All He had to do was remove the evil choice (as some say He did for Adam) and He could have spared all men those consequences.

Are you saying had Adam re-partaken of the forbidden fruit after eating the tree of life that he would have become mortal again? You're insinuating that it was something in the fruit that caused the fall and not the choice itself. That's not scriptural, nor is it what the General Authorities teach. I don't believe that. I believe Adam had gained the knowledge of good and evil. I don't believe it can be removed, and therefore would not need to be restored. It would no longer be a commandment for him not to eat the tree of knowledge of good and evil because he had already gained the knowledge. Eating of it again would accomplished nothing, and certainly would not cause another fall. Because he ate of the forbidden fruit, then ate of the tree of life, he would have remained in that state forever... frustrating God's plan (as described in Alma).

It seems, but maybe I am interpreting what you are saying wrong, that you think Adam partaking of the fruit of the tree of knowledge of good and evil was not a choice. To me, Adam partaking of that fruit was a choice. And by making that choice his agency was limited. I don't look at it as God taking away Adam's agency as much as Adam making a choice between two things and then by choosing the fruit of death he has to "live" with the consequences. I can see how this whole thing would be confusing though if one thinks that Adam's choice to eat of the fruit of death was not really a choice.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yeah, I don't know where we went wrong.

Adam had the choice to eat of the forbidden fruit or to not eat of it. He had a choice between 2 things. Without a choice between at least 2 things, there is no agency.

When he partook of the forbidden fruit, that left a choice between 2 things. He could, again, eat of the tree of life and remain in the Garden, or he could not eat of it, meaning he would be expelled from the Garden and enter mortality.

Alma explains that had he partaken of the tree of life then, he would have remained in the Garden and God's plan would have been frustrated because the agency of man would have been destroyed, because mortality would have been by-passed.

Some propose God prevented Adam from eating of the tree of life, only leaving him one option... to follow His plan and enter mortality. They claim since if Adam had partaken of the tree of life he would have brought on himself, and all of man, devastating consequences. That, since there were consequences of this nature, that made it OK for God to remove man's agency for a moment and force him to follow His plan.

I wonder why Alma even describes something that wasn't possible. I believe it was possible, but Adam would not have chosen it, not that he could not. Just as Christ could have brought devastating consequences to all of man by not enduring the atonement. Everyone agrees Christ had a choice, and that it had to be voluntary, but they don't seem to see how Adam's choice had to be voluntary as well. The choice he made to eat the forbiden fruit was before his eyes were open and he understood the consequences. Naturtally, he had to make the choice while having full understanding of death, and what both sides proposed.

Anyway, that sums up what I've said, and how I interpret what others have said. They agree God removed Adam's agency, but they feel it was OK since it was evil, or bad for man, to make the other choice.

Sorry, I thought we were all on the same page.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yeah, I don't know where we went wrong.

(It kind of sounds like everyone else does.)

Anyway, that sums up what I've said, and how I interpret what others have said. They agree God removed Adam's agency, but they feel it was OK since it was evil, or bad for man, to make the other choice.

I think you interpret what others have said about as well as I believe you interpret Alma's words. I haven't seen anyone agree that God removed Adam's agency. I've only seen you TRY to say that we've agreed. No one ever said it was evil, we said it was a consequence.

I for one have seen MANY things that you state as fact that I find highly questionable, but as I've said, I don't like to type as much as it would take to address all of those issues. I'll talk to you on the phone, real time, but I'm not going to type it all, especially when it won't do any good.

Several of us have stated CLEARLY that we believed what happened to Adam and Eve after they partook of the forbidden fruit was a CONSEQUENCE, including not being allowed to partake of the Tree of Life.

So please don't try to state what I believe, because you haven't been very accurate so far. If I don't challenge you on the many things I disagree with, you may not take that to mean I agree with you.

Just for fun, I'll include a few beliefs that you might find surprising:

I don't believe that Adam was given his agency (in the way the scriptures use the term) until AFTER he partook of the forbidden fruit.

I don't believe immortal beings of any type can have children unless they are celestial in nature and married. This would exclude Adam and Eve in an immortal, fallen state from having children (again, one of those pesky consequences I believe in). It would also exclude all resurrected beings that do not reach exaltation from having children (can you imagine the population explosion in the telestial kingdom with all the adulterers running around?)

I believe Adam being prevented from partaking of the Tree of Life was a natural consequence, the same as being burned when you touch fire. An innocent child does not get to choose not to be burned because it didn't know better.

I believe it was eternal Justice (kind of ironic, eh Justice) that prevented Adam from partaking of the Tree of Life, and that God (who does not rob Justice [see Alma]) wouldn't allow that, so Adam was sent forth from Eden. Also, Adam was telestial after the fall and Eden was terrestrial, and that really doesn't work either, so he kind of had to leave.

I believe the Book of Mormon is not written in the most beautiful English, but it is more clear the way it stands than the proposed reading that you've provided.

I believe you should read Moses 4:28-31 and you might notice that what God did "lest he put forth his hand" (v.28) was "send him forth" (v.29), the cherubim were done later (v.31).

While you're at it, read the dictionary and find where Agency says anything about choosing. And it was not written by Nephites, so don't provide your own explanation to make it fit your liking, that would be wresting the dictionary.

Sorry, I thought we were all on the same page.

I find that truly amazing, yet strangely, not surprising.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Are you saying had Adam re-partaken of the forbidden fruit after eating the tree of life that he would have become mortal again?

Sure, why not? God said He would "surely die". Do you not believe in God's word?

You're insinuating that it was something in the fruit that caused the fall and not the choice itself.

Wrong again. I'm saying that I believe in God's word. You eat, you die. Look beyond the mark all you want, I'm simply looking at what God said.

That's not scriptural, nor is it what the General Authorities teach.

Wow! Look who's talking!

I don't believe that.

Not surprising. But it's certainly possible if we're playing the game of "what if" and take the next step.

I believe Adam had gained the knowledge of good and evil.

Me too.

I don't believe it can be removed, and therefore would not need to be restored.

You're missing the mark again. I'm not talking about restoring knowledge. I'm only saying that if Adam eats, he dies. That's God's word.

It would no longer be a commandment for him not to eat the tree of knowledge of good and evil because he had already gained the knowledge.

So when you break a commandment, it's no longer a commandment? Is that the foundation you want to build your argument on?

Eating of it again would accomplished nothing, and certainly would not cause another fall.

Then that would be the second time that Adam had partaken of the Tree of Knowledge without surely dying.

Because he ate of the forbidden fruit, then ate of the tree of life, he would have remained in that state forever... frustrating God's plan (as described in Alma).

I actually think this is a good point, but it's easy to counteract:

If Adam could partake of the Tree of Life and live forever despite what God said (thou shalt surely die), then he should be able to partake of the Tree of Knowledge again and surely die despite what God said (that he would live forever).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yeah, I don't know where we went wrong.

Adam had the choice to eat of the forbidden fruit or to not eat of it. He had a choice between 2 things. Without a choice between at least 2 things, there is no agency.

.

Thanks for the clarification.

I think to back up one step though is important in that if you think Adam had agency to choose between the 2 trees in the first place then you have to say that He would suffer the consequences of that choice. Agency also requires accountability. If he could partake of the fruit of Life immediately after eating the fruit of Death then the original choice would not contain any accountability and therefore was not a choice using agency. That was my point ... That the only way the scenario you are saying would be possible; that he could immediately eat the fruit of the tree of Life after eating from the tree of Death is if he didn't have any agency in that first choice, so that's why I thought you might be saying that.

That is just a fact of agency, is that if one chooses wrong then our options are limited or our choices might narrow the pathway and only make them available later or through a different means. That is why it had to be guarded, because Adam is made accountable for his agency of picking a tree in the first place.

There are many scriptures of hypothetical situations that are not possible. What about the whole section of 'there needs to be opposition in all things' description. There are many "if there wasn't opposition" this would happen, impossible scenarios presented.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Webster, many of those things you comment on in your posts are comments I made that weren't even directed at you, or your beliefs. I can understand if you want to bow out since you seem to be getting upset about this topic.

In an effort to keep it simple and focused, I only want to address your comments that are focused on my concern. I have changed the order of your comments to make my point more clear.

Several of us have stated CLEARLY that we believed what happened to Adam and Eve after they partook of the forbidden fruit was a CONSEQUENCE, including not being allowed to partake of the Tree of Life.

Show me where not being able to partake of the tree of life was a consequence (natural or otherwise) of eating the forbidden fruit. I agree that it meant Adam could not partake of it at that time and gain eternal life. THAT was a natural consequence. But, show me specifically where you have seen scriptures say not eating the tree of life at that moment was a consequence of eating the forbidden fruit.

I believe Adam being prevented from partaking of the Tree of Life was a natural consequence, the same as being burned when you touch fire. An innocent child does not get to choose not to be burned because it didn't know better.

"Prevented" and "natural consequence" are not the same things. A punishment or restriction can be a consequence enforced as a punishement by preventing someone from doing something, but a natural consequences is more like what you describe by being burned with fire.

If God had to step in and guard the tree, or prevent Adam in any way from partaking, then it was a "consequence" as a result of punishment, not a natural occurance. That's all I'm saying.

If you argue it is a God-generated consequence, and not a natural one, then I say that means God removed Adam's agency to choose it. If you say it was a natural consequence (which I didn't realize anyone was arguing because it was claimed God prevented it from happening) then we'd have to have a different discussion.

I haven't seen anyone agree that God removed Adam's agency. I've only seen you TRY to say that we've agreed. No one ever said it was evil, we said it was a consequence.

So, here I am trying to understand that if it was a God-generated (God prevented) consequence, then how did God not also remove Adam's agency?

Or, if it was a natural consequence, then why did God have to interfere with eating the tree of life at all?

Bottom line: I'm having a hard time understanding that if God prevented Adam from partaking of the tree of life at that moment (as was stated) then how can that not also mean that God removed Adam's agency since He's the One who prevented him from eating it?

I'm just after an explanation. Feel free to PM me your phone number if you'd rather discuss it live (or send me a PM and ask for my phone number if you'd prefer).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That is just a fact of agency, is that if one chooses wrong then our options are limited or our choices might narrow the pathway and only make them available later or through a different means. That is why it had to be guarded, because Adam is made accountable for his agency of picking a tree in the first place.

Again, I understand this. I understand consequence (meaning here natural consequence). But, if God had to prevent it, how can that be a consequence (unless it was a punishment) and if it was a punishment, then how is that not removing agency just like all other punishments that restrict?

There are many scriptures of hypothetical situations that are not possible. What about the whole section of 'there needs to be opposition in all things' description. There are many "if there wasn't opposition" this would happen, impossible scenarios presented.

I actually believe this is playing off the same topic. I believe had Adam partaken of the tree of life immediately after it would have destroyed the agency of man because it would have been impossible for Christ to be born to a mortal mother. The only choice left would have been to remain in the Garden, never having the opportunity to gain mortality and then eternal life. There would have been no opposition to Satan's plan. I don't believe that scenario was impossible. Just as I don't believe Christ "had to" fulfill the Father's purpose for Him in the atonement. I believe it was Jesus' choice.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

(It kind of sounds like everyone else does.)

I don't believe immortal beings of any type can have children unless they are celestial in nature and married. This would exclude Adam and Eve in an immortal, fallen state from having children (again, one of those pesky consequences I believe in). It would also exclude all resurrected beings that do not reach exaltation from having children (can you imagine the population explosion in the telestial kingdom with all the adulterers running around?)

Cool! I thought for a while I was the only one who thought that way. I would even take it a step further and say they didn't even have the parts for it. And this is why they suddenly felt like they needed to cover up and not run around "naked", almost embarrassed by their appearance after they experienced a change in their bodies. But, of course, that is speculation. This is why I've discussed in other threads the difference between the types of bodies that are found in the Celestial kingdom versus the others, for in the Celestial there is one body, the Terrestiral there is one and of the Telestial there are many as the stars differ one from another.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Then you say God removed his agency. As long as you understand that. I believed that for a very long time.

God did not remove Adam's agency anymore than he has removed my agency by making me forget the premortal existence or establishing natural law so that I cannot fly, etc.

Being kept/prohibited from partaking of the tree of life by a flaming sword and cherubim did not remove Adam's agency. It simply meant he physically could not do a certain action at that point. But physical action has nothing to do with agency. Agency has everything to do with choice between good and evil, opposites.

Adam could still choose between good and evil without partaking of the tree of life. There was no curbing of agency, whatsoever.

The prisoner of war who is kept manacled and gagged all the time, does he have agency or not? I submit that he still has full and complete agency. His physical movements may be restricted, but agency cannot be removed so easily, as it is an eternal principle.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Being kept/prohibited from partaking of the tree of life by a flaming sword and cherubim did not remove Adam's agency. It simply meant he physically could not do a certain action at that point. But physical action has nothing to do with agency. Agency has everything to do with choice between good and evil, opposites.

Let me see if I understand.

Being prevented from 1 of 2 options available (the option of choosing against Father's plan) does not remove agency. However, you must have opposition, or a choice between both good and evil, in order to have agency.

Do you see the contradiction I am struggling to understand with your belief?

After partaking of the forbidden fruit, Adam had 1 option, with no opposition, and that was to follow Father's plan and enter mortality.

However, in order for there to be agency, there has to be opposition.

See?

When you said agency has nothing to do with physical action I assume you mean actually making the choice, which I agree with. But, it has everything to do with having a choice between good and evil. Hmmm.

Please go slow and follow me, I feel like I'm just not getting my point across.

If Father prevented Adam from not choosing His plan, or if He removed, as a result of consequence or punishment, Adam's abilty to partake of the tree of life and remain in the Garden forever (which was what Satan wanted, according to Alma), didn't He also remove Adam's agecny?

You just said:

Agency has everything to do with choice between good and evil, opposites.

If Father removed the option that would destroyed the agency of man and bypass mortality, didn't that remove opposition to His plan?

Again, if He can remove opposition to His plan and STILL exalt (thank you Seminary) man, why does He not remove opposition for all men? Why does He not prevent man from making an evil choice because it has undesirable consequences?

I AM listening. I know it seems like I'm being hard-headed. All I can say is my question remains. You all keep stating what scripture says, and how you interpret it. However, I am claiming that you have to stay with what you know in order to interpret scripture properly.

Ram, you know this:

Agency has everything to do with choice between good and evil, opposites.

Stay with that thought because it is true... and tell me, if Father removed the choice that was in opposition to His plan (the one described by Alma), how Adam could have retained his agency at that moment (for that choice) to choose against God's plan... if there was no opposition, or no other choice, since Father removed it.

There was only one option for Adam and that was to follow Father's plan and enter mortality. There was no choice; no opposition, therefore there was no agency to choose against Father's plan, right?

That's all I want to know.

The only way Adam could have had the ability to choose against Father's plan (or exercise his agency to not choose God's plan) was if there was another option. But, the claim was made that God prevented Adam from choosing the only thing that stood in opposition to His plan, as mentioned by Alma. How does Adam retain his agency to choose against Father's plan if he was prevented from making the other choice?

Edited by Justice
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Justice, I'm actually a bit surprised by where this thread has gone.

I have spent a day quilting and I'm exhausted. I'll try to get my thoughts squared away and reply more fully another day.

I would like to make one comment though. I believe that Adam had choice and opposition in all things. Adam made the choice to partake of the fruit or not. After that its about consequences. Removing the tree of life from the choices was not restricting agency but enforcing consequences. We get to choose, but we don't get to decide what the consequences of our action will be. I understand how you could see that as restricting agency, but in fact its not.

I'll try to be back soon with a more indepth post. Forgive me if it takes time. My daughter is getting married in 3 weeks and I'm exhausted and busy and harrassed and tired.

I love reading your posts and usually agree with your line of reasoning. This time I have to disagree.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think your view about Satan's plan is an interesting way to see things, but the way you frame things is highly problematic. For instance, "...Adam's abilty to partake of the tree of life and remain in the Garden forever (which was what Satan wanted, according to Alma)..." Did Alma say that's what Satan wanted, or is that your idea being stated as fact? You've said several times that Satan tempted Eve to partake of the Tree of Life. When did that happen? In the scriptures, or in the way you view them?

I don't have a problem with all your ideas so much as I have with the way you state them as fact. You say to read Alma and it's all there in black and white. The problem is, most people are reading the black, and you're reading into the white. It seems you've worked this all out in your head for so long that you think more is actually said in Alma than is clearly there, and you expect us all to have the same frame of reference as you. It shows up in many of the statements that are foundational to your point of view, but which others end up scratching their heads at. I think one of the problems with this discussion is that you assume A, B, and C are true, therefore D, but everyone else is still questioning how you got A, B, and C.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Justice, (I left you a PM by the way).

I'm sorry about the post where I was getting upset, but you did make a factually untrue statement when you said:

"They [i take this to mean the others involved in this discussion, of which I am one] agree God removed Adam's agency, but they feel it was OK since it was evil, or bad for man, to make the other choice. * * * Sorry, I thought we were all ['all' sounds like it includes me again] on the same page."

It sounded to me like you were taking your opinions about others' beliefs (including mine) and stating that opinion as fact. As I stated before, I don't think others would agree with your assessment. That was my problem.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not a problem, Webster. I understand this is a frustrating discussion. I am very analytical, and I am looking for an answer that no one seems willing to address.

Removing the tree of life from the choices was not restricting agency but enforcing consequences.

Then show me where not eating of the tree of life was to be a consequence of eating the forbidden fruit?

Is it because God guarded it? That's not definitive.

I propose that had it been a natural consequence then God would not have needed to intervene. Natural consequences happen just as a result, with no interference.

So, that can only mean it was possible, and not a natural consequence, but a forced consequence, or punishment.

God punished Adam by forcing him to mortality and to the only way he could gain eternal life?!

That doesn't sound like a negative consequence to me.

I'm still waiting for someone to decipher how if God prevented Adam from choosing something other than His plan, how that is not removing Adam's agency.

Also, don't you find Satan's words to Eve interesting when he tempted her?

Gen. 3:

4 And the serpent said unto the woman, Ye shall not surely die:

Moses 4:

10 And the serpent said unto the woman: Ye shall not surely die;

Did Satan think he could convince Eve that God was wrong?

Moses 4:

8 And the woman said unto the serpent: We may eat of the fruit of the trees of the garden;

9 But of the fruit of the tree which thou beholdest in the midst of the garden, God hath said—Ye shall not eat of it, neither shall ye touch it, lest ye die.

Hmmm. How is he going to convince her that she wouldn't die? Would calling God a liar, or trying to convince her that God was wrong work?

That doesn't seem very likely to me.

But, plug Alma's words in here and it makes sense.

"You shall not surely die, because all you have to do is eat of the tree of life immediately after you eat the forbidden fruit..."

Now, that would make a good argument, possibly even sound believable; enough so to beguile her. Possibly?

Without it? There's no chance. Eve would not believe God would lie, nor that He could be wrong. She showed she KNEW God said they would die if they ate it.

Again, Alma's "hypothetical situation" makes the whole story more believable.

In any case, I'm off topic again.

Explain to me how God can enforce consequences by preventing Adam from going against His plan and not remove his agency. If you say God prevented Adam from eating the tree of life, even if as a consequence or punishment, you have to also say God removed Adam's agency to choose against His plan. They are synonymous statements; you can't believe one and not the other.

Prevented = Removed

eating the tree of life = choosing against God's plan

Synonymous.

(According to Alma, anyway)

Edited by Justice
Link to comment
Share on other sites

So Eve doesn't think God can lie, and she KNEW God said they would die, yet Satan can tell her something that would make God a liar, and she believes it. Whatever.

By the way, there is still so much you say that I disagree with. You state 'facts' and then ask a question based on those 'facts', but much of what you claim as 'fact' is in dispute amount most (if not all) others who have replied to this post.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share