Agency


Justice
 Share

Recommended Posts

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.

I think Satan is trying to convince Eve that she would not "die" in the sense of spiritual death (i.e. - separation from God). As is explained in Moses; "10 And the serpent said unto the woman: Ye shall not surely die;

11 For God doth know that in the day ye eat thereof, then your eyes shall be opened, and ye shall be as gods, knowing good and evil."

... in other words, he was not taking into consideration both deaths, just the spiritual death side of things but doing so in a deceitful way because it wouldn't be immediately that they would be like Gods, just the opportunity to one day be like Gods. He was trying to convince them that it would "pull back the curtain" so to speak and that they wouldn't have "spiritual death" (even though Satan probably wouldn't call it spiritual death).

"eyes shall be opened" is in reference to spiritual death and not physical death.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 165
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Justice? What you're asking is silly.

They had an option: Do not partake of the tree of life, or they would die. They partook of the tree of life, so they had to die.

A man cannot choose a consequence to an action, merely the action itself.

If Adam had've partaken of the fruit, then ran to the tree of life and partook of that, would that have ruined God's plan?

Yes. Was it possible? No, because God is omniscient. Trying to play a 'Gotcha!' game with that is like saying, 'Hey - I never had the option to blow up the universe. What good is agency if God removes one of two choices: Live in God's universe or blow the whole thing to heck and remove God's dominion?'

You are exactly the person who strains a gnat but swallows a camel.

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Let's focus on one of the basic foundations on which this discussion seems to be built, and also the original topic of this post: Agency.

My view of agency does not match yours (But Traveler seemed to have a view similar to mine. Where did he go?). I strongly disagree with those who say you must have a choice or someone has taken your agency. If the law or the church says one cannot "marry" someone of the same sex, they will say their agency has been taken away, or that the church/law is preventing them from exercising their agency. To me, this is not what scriptural agency is all about. This type of definition is built on a false definition of agency, in my opinion. Find the dictionary that says that. God said that he spoke in the revelations using the manner of his servants' language so they could come to understanding. So what was the definition of agency used in the 1830s?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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?

It only seems a problem if you erroneously believe Adam only had 2 choices, and God took one away from him. Adam had a variety of choices. Partaking of the fruit of the tree of life, just was not one of them. I can't partake of the tree of life's fruit right now, either, but my agency hasn't been limited in any way.

Adam's becoming mortal was a consequence of his choice to partake of the fruit of the tree of knowledge of good and evil. We choose with our agency what we will follow, but we do not choose the consequences. As Elder Oakes notes, when you pick up one end of the stick, you pick up the other end, as well. No agency lost, unless you think that in receiving the consequence, God removes agency? If so, then there is no agency whatsoever.

Adam's choice came into play when he became mortal: follow God or reject God. Repent or sin. Agency completely intact.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Originally Posted by Webster Posted Image

(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?)

I think you are limiting God and other celestial beings.

Here is a point made on the MADB list that references similar ideas regarding the celestial:

"Joseph Smith taught the doctrine that the infant child that was laid away in death would come up in the resurrection as a child; and, pointing to the mother of a lifeless child, he said to her: "you will have the joy, the pleasure, and satisfaction of nurturing this child, after its resurrection, until it reaches the full stature of it's spirit".

There is restitution, there is growth, there is development, after the resurrection from death."

This is taken from an article by Joseph F. Smith from the Improvement Era, Vol. 21, May 1918, p. 567-573. He had more to say on the subject; quite interesting. He discusses the number of people who heard Joseph declare these things at the funeral of his niece, Agnes and Don Carlos' little daughter who had died, as well as other church leaders who approved of the teaching. I found the reference to this in "Gospel Doctrine"--the sermons and teachings of President Joseph F. Smith.

Raising Children In The Millenium? - Mormon Apologetics & Discussion Board

And Ask Gramps notes similar concepts, but expands more on it at Raising Children after their Resurrection | Ask Gramps

If we can raise celestial children during the Millennium from infant to full grown adults, why would we think that resurrected beings are so different from the rest of us? They still need to be raised, trained up righteously, etc.

In the Millennium, righteous mortals will be translated (particularly at Christ's coming). These will be able to have children and raise them during that 1000 year period, as well. I don't see why resurrected celestial beings couldn't also have mortal children, albeit they would have some differences.

As for the telestial and terrestrial, they will not have the power to create spirit children. I do not believe their equipment will be removed, making them eunuchs in heaven. Many people in this life have the equipment, but it does not bring forth children. They just will not have the power in that state to engender children.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If Adam had've partaken of the fruit, then ran to the tree of life and partook of that, would that have ruined God's plan?

Yes. Was it possible? No, because God is omniscient. Trying to play a 'Gotcha!' game with that is like saying, 'Hey - I never had the option to blow up the universe. What good is agency if God removes one of two choices: Live in God's universe or blow the whole thing to heck and remove God's dominion?'

Except that Alma plays this game. And, by your analogy, I can see that you don't take it seriously, or you don't understand. Your analogy is nothing like the one Alma presents.

Someone else made a comment I think I can draw from, so more in a minute...

Edited by Justice
Link to comment
Share on other sites

It only seems a problem if you erroneously believe Adam only had 2 choices, and God took one away from him.

Precisely! I do believe at that moment in time Adam only had 1 choice between 2 options. However, you and people who believe Alma's presentation is pure imaginary, must believe Adam did not have a choice, because God prevented him from the other that went against His plan. (I did not say it, others did)

Adam had a variety of choices.

If he had more than 2 choices at that moment, I'd like to see what they were.

The way I understand it, after he ate the forbidden fruit, he had 1 choice between 2 options, either [1] remain in the Garden (which would be a natural consequence of eating the tree of life), or [2] to not partake and leave the Garden to enter mortality (or die, allowing the natural consequence of partaking of the forbidden fruit to come about). I see no other options.

What other choice or options did he have?

Partaking of the fruit of the tree of life, just was not one of them.

Well, that's what this whole discussion is about. To me, Alma makes it clear that it was an option. Whether God prevented him from eating it, or whether Adam chose not to eat it himself, it was an option... with prescribed consequences. To say God prevented him from making the choice is admitting that if God had not prevented him from doing it then Adam could have done it had he chose to.

But, I see no other options for Adam at this point, besides those 2. You'll need to fill me in.

I can't partake of the tree of life's fruit right now, either, but my agency hasn't been limited in any way.

No, because you have the option right now of choosing Christ and eternal life, or choosing Satan and eternal death. You have that option. You have agency. However...

If God prevented Adam from choosing Satan and eternal death, then He removed Adam's agency to choose it by removing the choice, or preventing him from making the choice. It would be no different than if God prevented you from choosing against His plan. Your agency to either choose Him or not Choose Him would be removed. You would only have 1 option remaining: to choose Him.

Yes, Adam had agency to choose to eat the forbidden fruit, because he had the option to NOT eat it.

His first choice: Stay in the Garden or eat the forbidden fruit.

His second choice: Leave the Garden or eat the tree of life.

If God removed the "eat the tree of life" possibility, it would look like this:

His first choice: Stay in the Garden or eat the forbidden fruit.

No second choice: Leave the Garden.

This is the scenario most of you have suggested. My question is if "Leave the Garden" was a natural consequence, why did God have to prevent Him from eating the tree of life?

Also, it's kind of silly for Alma to bring up something that was not a possibility, and spend many verses describing the consequences of something that was impossible.

Adam's becoming mortal was a consequence of his choice to partake of the fruit of the tree of knowledge of good and evil.

Yes, unless, he ate of the tree of life immediately after then he would remove that consequence, as stated by Alma, making God a liar. Had he done that, the consequences are clearly outlined in scripture. He would have became immortal, having had no time appointed for repentance and redemption. That's what this discussion is about.

Did God prevent Adam from eating from the tree of life as some have said? Or, was it a natural consequence? Well, it couldn't have been a natural consequence if God had to prevent him from eating it. (Again, I didn't say God prevented him, I'm just looking for an explanation)

We choose with our agency what we will follow, but we do not choose the consequences. As Elder Oakes notes, when you pick up one end of the stick, you pick up the other end, as well. No agency lost, unless you think that in receiving the consequence, God removes agency? If so, then there is no agency whatsoever.

Elder Oaks describes a "natural consequence." Again, if not partaking of the tree of life was a natural consequence of eating the forbiddem fruit, why did God have to intervene and prevent Adam from partaking of it?

Adam's choice came into play when he became mortal: follow God or reject God. Repent or sin. Agency completely intact.

Yes! But, ONLY because of Christ, and the plan of redemption that was laid before the earth was even created. If it weren't for the plan of redemption and Christ, mankind was lost and fallen forever, and agency was destroyed. That's an important key to understand about Adam not partaking of the tree of life and entering mortality.

Father's plan COULD NOT have been applied to man had Adam chose to eat the tree of life immediately after eating the forbidden fruit. That's the point of Alma's comments. And, they are true, there would have been no way to redeem man had Adam done so. Man would no longer have had the option to choose eternal life through the Savior (the agency of man would have been destroyed). To me, that perfectly describes what Satan wanted.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I strongly disagree with those who say you must have a choice or someone has taken your agency.

You are describing moral agency. I agree.

Agency is many things. Agency precludes choice. Without choice there is no agency. In order for one to have agency they must be able to ACT or CHOOSE. If they cannot act or choose then there is no agency. It's not the choice itself, but the ability to follow your own will.

Now, if you only have 2 options, you can exercise your agency.

If you only have 2 options and one is removed, you cannot exercise your agency.

If the law or the church says one cannot "marry" someone of the same sex, they will say their agency has been taken away, or that the church/law is preventing them from exercising their agency. To me, this is not what scriptural agency is all about. This type of definition is built on a false definition of agency, in my opinion. Find the dictionary that says that. God said that he spoke in the revelations using the manner of his servants' language so they could come to understanding. So what was the definition of agency used in the 1830s?

Agency is the abiltiy given to man (or the inherited abilty) to act for himself. Choices can be limited, but as long as there is a choice, man can exercise his agency or will.

You are using the example of touching a hot stove. There are millions of other options to touching a hot stove. However, the choice between God and Satan is limited. Agency is based on this eternal principal. Man, by his actions, or by exercising moral agency, can choose one or the other. We can follow our carnal desires, or we can put off the natural man and repent and serve God.

You use the example of a slave. A slave can choose to disobey. He does not have to obey... he always has options. But, still, this slave can either choose to obey his master or disobey, but the choices he makes to either seve God or serve Satan are what define him and his eternal potential. Even though a slave, while choosing to obey or disobey his master, he can exercise his agency to choose God or Satan.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Was that your official definition of Agency? Is that what I've been waiting all this time for?

Agency precludes choice.

"Preclude" means to make impossible, to exclude, prevent, prohibit, etc. Like I might say that partaking of the tree of knowledge precluded partaking of the tree of life.

Without choice there is no agency.

I would say that this is actually moral agency you are talking about here, but only when the choice is a moral choice.

In order for one to have agency they must be able to ACT or CHOOSE.

Dictionaries agree wholeheartedly about the ACT part, but they say nothing about CHOOSE, so I'm glad you at least got half of it. That's why I said that choice is not needed for Agency to exist. It's funny you said that I was describing moral agency, when it's moral agency that requires a choice between good and evil, hence it's called MORAL agency. (The word Moral pertains to things that are good or evil.)

Here is Webster's 1828 Dictionary so we can get a better idea of what Agency meant at the time of the revelations:

A'GENCY, n. [L. agens. See Act.]

1. The quality of moving or of exerting power; the state of being in action; action; operation; instrumentality; as, the agency of providence in the natural world.

2. The office of an agent, or factor; business of an agent entrusted with the concerns of another; as, the principal pays the charges of agency.

A'GENT, a. Acting; opposed to patient, or sustaining action; as, the body agent. [Little used.] Bacon.

A'GENT, n. An actor; one that exerts power, or has the power to act; as, a moral agent.

2. An active power or cause; that which has the power to produce an effect; as, heat is a powerful agent.

3. A substitute, deputy, or factor; one entrusted with the business of another; an attorney; a minister.

A'GENTSHIP, n. The office of an agent. [Not used.] We now use agency.

Now, if you only have 2 options, you can exercise your agency.

If you only have 2 options and one is removed, you cannot exercise your agency.

I believe in several places you've basically said that removing the option to partake of the tree of life would remove or take away Adam's agency (which I disagree with). In the above you are saying that options are needed to EXERCISE your agency. So, I'm glad you agree that it does not remove agency, only the ability to exercise it (but you still have it).

Agency is the abiltiy given to man (or the inherited abilty) to act for himself. Choices can be limited, but as long as there is a choice, man can exercise his agency or will.

I actually like the first sentence, but where you equate agency with the will is one of those 'many things' you say agency is, even though that's not supported by the dictionary. It's some of the philosophical baggage that entered Mormonism after we started talking about 'free agency'. I think it's too bad that we're using the philosophical definition of 'free agency', rather than the actual definition of the word the Lord chose to use.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

One more point I failed to make. The most that preventing Adam from partaking of the tree of life could do to Adam's agency would be to limit his ability to exercise it in a very specific area (partaking of that tree). It would do nothing to take away his agency. He would still be accountable as an agent for those actions which he performed in his own behalf.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The most that preventing Adam from partaking of the tree of life could do to Adam's agency would be to limit his ability to exercise it in a very specific area (partaking of that tree). It would do nothing to take away his agency. He would still be accountable as an agent for those actions which he performed in his own behalf.

Yes, I agree with this. That's what I am talking about. His agency was limited. He had 2 options, then he only had 1. With just 1 option, it is impossible to exercise agency.

Bruce R. McConkie stated it this way: Agency is the ability and freedom to choose good or evil.

(as quoted in the Aaronic Priesthood Lesson Manual 3, lesson 4, page 11)

Ability

and Freedom.

Play along for just a minute. Let's suppose what Alma said was real. Suppose Adam was able to partake of the tree of life after eating the forbidden fruit.

He would have the ability to choose between 2 things (to eat or not eat).

However, if God removed one of the options, he would no longer have the freedom to choose it. God limited it from 2 options to 1.

Agency requires both. So, since 1 of his 2 options was taken, he did not have the freedom to exercise his agency to partake of the tree of life, even though he retained the ability. Not having the freedom offsets his ability to exercise. Being free to choose is just as important as being able to choose.

This has been my point. We see the consequences of what would have happened if Adam had partaken of the tree of life (this is all assuming after he ate the forbidden fruit). This would have been devastating to God's plan. Some seem to think that since it was the "evil" choice that God removed it is somehow OK.

IF that is what happened, then Adam was no longer an agent unto himself in that choice, because even though he had the ability to choose it, he did not have the freedom to choose it.

I do NOT think that's what happened. I am not arguing that. I have said all along that I do not believe God would remove Adam's agency, or limit it to only His option.

I think Adam simply chose not to eat it, and chose God's plan for him to leave the Garden and enter mortality. It's that simple. The Book of Mormon words it the way it does because Adam was the 2nd greatest spirit child of Father in Heaven and led the task to remove Lucifer from heaven. It was not possible that Adam would have chose against God's plan, just as it was not possible that the Savior would not have performed the atonement. He says "If it be possible, remove this cup." It was possible, but it was not possible to remove it and still bring about Father's plan. His statement did not mean it was impossible, it just meant there was no other way for success.

He limited His agency by choice, not because Father forced Him to endure it.

Adam limited his agency by choice, not because the Father prevented him from it.

Unless someone can show me where not being able to partake of the tree of life was a natural consequence of partaking of the forbidden fruit... but then, even if it had, there would have been no need for Father to prevent it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Speaking for myself, I understand your point, but I still don't believe what you believe. Sorry, that's just the way it is.

One way I see being expelled from Eden and the tree of life as a 'natural consequence' is that when Adam partook, he became subject to death (according to God's word); He became mortal and of a fallen, telestial nature. The Garden of Eden is a Terrestrial world, and as such I believe eternal law and the justice of God could not allow him to remain in Eden.

I know you'll likely argue that the way I use certain words cannot make sense, but I'm not particularly fond of some of your logic either, so we're even.

Regardless of what happened in Eden, why do you think God placed the cherubim? Can anyone show me the person who has ever found the Garden of Eden and tried to get at the tree of life? Has anyone been prevented from getting at the tree of life because of the cherubim?

I would assume that God placed them there to teach men that they could not go backward. Alma teaches that even if we could go back, we would still not be fully redeemed. To me, Alma teaches that the way is forward, through the Atonement, and in that way alone can we be fully redeemed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You're being absurd, Justice. You still are hung up on the idea that he should have been able to eat the fruit of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil and then eat of the tree of life.

The choice was actually:

His first choice: Eat the fruit of the tree of life or eat the forbidden fruit.

His second choice: Plant some crops, go make babies, take a swim, do crossword puzzles, starve to death.

God tells him his choice right off the bat. Right off the bat, he says 'If you eat the forbidden fruit, you will die.'

This is natural consequence, Justice. Complaining about it is akin to complaining, "God takes away agency. Bob, my next door neighbour had a choice: Put a shotgun to his head and pull the trigger, or go make a sandwich. After he pulled the trigger, God removed his agency by preventing him from going and making the sandwich!"

Alma could have just as easily made the argument, "If people chose not to die and stay in their corrupted bodies, then God's plan would be made naught, for no death would have occurred and God's word would be made a lie."

If you honestly believe what you're saying, then you clearly don't understand Alma's words or you don't take them seriously.

His first choice: Stay in the Garden or eat the forbidden fruit.

His second choice: Leave the Garden or eat the tree of life.

If God removed the "eat the tree of life" possibility, it would look like this:

His first choice: Stay in the Garden or eat the forbidden fruit.

No second choice: Leave the Garden.

This is the scenario most of you have suggested. My question is if "Leave the Garden" was a natural consequence, why did God have to prevent Him from eating the tree of life?

Also, it's kind of silly for Alma to bring up something that was not a possibility, and spend many verses describing the consequences of something that was impossible.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Unless someone can show me where not being able to partake of the tree of life was a natural consequence of partaking of the forbidden fruit... but then, even if it had, there would have been no need for Father to prevent it.

Our choices impact our ability and freedom to choose, for sure. With each choice we make we are either increasing our ability and freedom to choose, or we are decreasing it: 2 Ne. 2: 27, 29 27 Wherefore, men are free according to the flesh; and all things are given them which are expedient unto man. And they are free to choose liberty and eternal life, through the great Mediator of all men, or to choose captivity and death, according to the captivity and power of the devil; for he seeketh that all men might be miserable like unto himself. • • • 29 And not choose eternal death, according to the will of the flesh and the evil which is therein, which giveth the spirit of the devil power to captivate, to bring you down to hell, that he may reign over you in his own kingdom. Free to choose: liberty and eternal life, through the great Mediator of all men or captivity and death, according to the captivity and power of the devil # Alma 42: 3, 5 3 Now, we see that the man had become as God, knowing good and evil; and lest he should put forth his hand, and take also of the tree of life, and eat and live forever, the Lord God placed cherubim and the flaming sword, that he should not partake of the fruit— • • • 5 For behold, if Adam had put forth his hand immediately, and partaken of the tree of life, he would have lived forever, according to the word of God, having no space for repentance; yea, and also the word of God would have been void, and the great plan of salvation would have been frustrated. God directly prevented Adam from partaking of the Tree of Life after having partaken of the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil. I guess you could call it a "natural consequence" of the choice Adam made. I think this all goes deeper than what we read on the surface here. We need to remember that The Plan of Salvation was worked-out long before Adam set foot on planet earth. The Fall was a choice Adam and Eve made. So, whether God directly forbade and prevented Adam from eating of the Tree of Life is not as big a deal as the fact that even if he could have, Adam would not have partaken of the fruit at that time anyway. Adam partook of the fruit so that "man might be". He was not about to undo the Plan of Salvation by partaking of the Tree of Life. Adam would have found that choice to be a foolish choice, I think. Moses 5 10 And in that day Adam blessed God and was filled, and began to prophesy concerning all the families of the earth, saying: Blessed be the name of God, for because of my transgression my eyes are opened, and in this life I shall have joy, and again in the flesh I shall see God. 11 And Eve, his wife, heard all these things and was glad, saying: Were it not for our transgression we never should have had seed, and never should have known good and evil, and the joy of our redemption, and the eternal life which God giveth unto all the obedient. Clearly Adam had no intention of trying to short circuit the Plan of Salvation. He understood that the Fall was necessary, and that God would (and did) provide a Savior. Someone who could offer us terms we could live by, extending mercy sufficient to satisfy the demands of Justice. Is any of this helping? I guess I am saying that, for us, here, today, NOW -- it doesn't matter what Adam could or could not have done after partaking of the forbidden fruit. He did, and by so doing, chose the consequences for himself, and by extension, for all mankind. But Christ evened things out. He requires of us a broken heart and contrite spirit. AFTER Adam partook of the forbidden fruit...God did not allow him to partake of the fruit of the Tree of Life. That much is clear. God says that if Adam had (somehow!) been able to partake of the Tree of Life, he would have lived forever IN HIS SINS. Unable to repent. Unable to die and be resurrected in a BODY OF GLORY to match the degree of glory he was worthy of.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

So, whether God directly forbade and prevented Adam from eating of the Tree of Life is not as big a deal as the fact that even if he could have, Adam would not have partaken of the fruit at that time anyway. Adam partook of the fruit so that "man might be". He was not about to undo the Plan of Salvation by partaking of the Tree of Life. Adam would have found that choice to be a foolish choice, I think.

Thank you, Tom. This is the way I feel. You've always had a way with words, and I missed you.

I have been addressing the point that was made that Father "prevented" it from happening, yet it was a [natural] consequence. I'm just trying to explain that Father could have prevented it, but that means it was not a natural consequence. The scriptures say God placed a cherubim and flamming sword to keep the way of the tree of life, but never really says it was placed to prevent Adam from eating it "immediately." Because, the guard was placed after he left the Garden, meaning he very well could have had access to it before the guard was up, and before he hid from God in the Garden and had that discussion.

When people say, no it had to be this way, without really looking at what's being said makes me, well, sad really. Especially since the idea it is so prominent in Alma's writings (and other places).

Clearly Adam had no intention of trying to short circuit the Plan of Salvation. He understood that the Fall was necessary, and that God would (and did) provide a Savior. Someone who could offer us terms we could live by, extending mercy sufficient to satisfy the demands of Justice. Is any of this helping? I guess I am saying that, for us, here, today, NOW -- it doesn't matter what Adam could or could not have done after partaking of the forbidden fruit. He did, and by so doing, chose the consequences for himself, and by extension, for all mankind. But Christ evened things out. He requires of us a broken heart and contrite spirit. AFTER Adam partook of the forbidden fruit...God did not allow him to partake of the fruit of the Tree of Life. That much is clear. God says that if Adam had (somehow!) been able to partake of the Tree of Life, he would have lived forever IN HIS SINS. Unable to repent. Unable to die and be resurrected in a BODY OF GLORY to match the degree of glory he was worthy of.

Again, if God did not allow him to partake of it, and Alma is being anything more than hypothetical, then God limited, removed, or circumvented Adam's agency (by removing the choice) to eat it if he wanted to.

I'm with you. I don't think God needed to. I don't think that's what the words say. Adam would NOT have chose it. We have been told that Adam was not deceived. God did not have to prevent him from eating it, he simply would not. That is why it is worded the way it is, in my opinion, "if it were possible." It was not possible; no more possible than it was for Christ to refuse the atonement... "Father, if it be possible..." It means if it be possible to fulfill Thy plan another way. The scriptures don't say that, but based on what we know, I think it's OK to assume that.

It "reads" as if the guard was for "man," meaning all men who were not part of the fall, but born into the conditions of the fall by no choice of their own. Since we did not choose the condition, we are not limited by being prevented from a choice we do not have. And, I wonder how much of that is symbolism for why the tree of life was removed after Adam left the Garden. It was no longer available; no other man would have that choice. Adam was chosen to make that choice for all mankid.

What we can choose is Christ.

Thank you, Tom.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I didn't want to get into this, but here it goes.

How were the tree of life and the tree of the knowledge of good and evil in opposition to each other for Adam?

Have you ever really thought about it?

He was not given any specific command (that we know of, nor does it seem there would need to be one) in relation to eating or not eating the tree of life depending on whether or not he ate the forbidden fruit before he actually ate it.

Have you ever noticed that? We have nothing on whether Adam could or could not eat the tree of life before he ate of the forbidden fruit. Many have speculated, but we have nothing. It would seem if the tree of life is what presented Adam opposition before he ate the forbidden fruit then it would have been mentioned AS the opposition. It would have been too central to the story to just omit it by accident or mistake.

The opposition for Adam was the command to multiply and replenish the earth, with not having the knowledge of how to do it. Gaining that knowledge went through the forbidden fruit.

So, the opposition was to eat of the fruit and do as God first commanded (multiply and replenish the earth) or not eat of the forbidden fruit. I don't see where the tree of life is even related [yet] to the opposition.

Once Adam chose to eat of the forbidden fruit, THEN the tree of life presented opposition to him. That thought makes Alma's comments seem a bit easier to believe as more than hypothetical. And, if that IS how the tree of life and tree of knowledge of good an evil were in opposition to each other, that explains why it would affect Adam's agency to remove the tree of life as an option.

Anyway, just more food for thought.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I actually subscribe more to Webster's strict definition of "agency", but leaving that aside for a moment and using the more conventional application:

Is it agency per se that needs to be preserved? Or only sufficient agency to let us achieve the aims of the Plan of Salvation?

If the latter--I think we're back to what Rameumptom said about Adam having other options even with the Tree of Life blocked. Adam cannot go partake of the fruit of the tree of life--but he can accept the covenant offered by Elohim and Jehovah; or he can reject it and become an enemy to God for the remainder of his mortal existence. Adam still has enough agency to damn himself, if he so chooses. One could even suggest that with the very obvious and visible elimination of Option C (Stay immortal), Adam now more fully appreciates the consequences of Options A (become mortal, accept covenant) and B (become mortal, reject covenant) and he is therefore more fully able to make an informed decision; therefore, his agency is actually greater than it was before--within certain parameters.

What he does not have, with the way to the Tree of Life blocked, is the ability to reject the covenant and rebel against God while retaining the body God made for him and thus (potentially) setting himself up as a more powerful contender for God's throne than Lucifer ever was. Even if Adam would never do so himself, one gets the impression from the temple ceremony that Satan might still be able to somehow claim dominion over Adam's body. We also see that Satan wanted bodies for his followers. An immortal, fallen Adam and Eve could have provided those bodies indefinitely.

Is "agency", as a principle, really so sacrosanct that God is willing to risk utter revolution to maintain it?

Edited by Just_A_Guy
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Ahh, the proverbial TK Smoothie

Now there is an interesting discussion.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Even if Adam would never do so himself, one gets the impression from the temple ceremony that Satan might still be able to somehow claim dominion over Adam's body. We also see that Satan wanted bodies for his followers. An immortal, fallen Adam and Eve could have provided those bodies indefinitely.

Is "agency", as a principle, really so sacrosanct that God is willing to risk utter revolution to maintain it?

Risk is all part of the plan. The Gospel, or good news, of Jesus Christ comes with bad news... the chance at failure. There is a punishment affixed opposite to eternal life that has to be as eternal as the life of the soul (summarized).

Had Adam partaken of the tree of life immediately after eating the forbidden fruit (which was Satan's plan according to me) it would have accomplished Satan's purpose for having bodies. However, some say partaking of the tree of life would have rendered him incapable of having children again. I don't believe that, but it has been suggested.

You bet God is willing to risk revolution, and even failure, in order that we can retain our agency. It is how God Himself attained perfection, and the only way we can. Agency is really centered in mortality and Jesus Christ. It is here (in mortality) where we are free to exercise our agency to choose Jesus or Satan. We willingly give it up as we surrender to one or the other. Though we will always have the ability, one day we will become as Adam and Jesus where we will be people of integrity.

Elder Bednar defined integrity:

"Personal integrity implies such trustworthiness and incorruptibility that we are incapable of being false to a trust or covenant.”

Like the description of Captain Moroni... if all men had the integrity of Jesus or even Adam, this whole earth experience would be very different.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

We have nothing on whether Adam could or could not eat the tree of life before he ate of the forbidden fruit.

Moses 3

16 And I, the Lord God, commanded the man, saying: Of every tree of the garden thou mayest freely eat,

17 But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it, nevertheless, thou mayest choose for thyself, for it is given unto thee; but, remember that I forbid it, for in the day thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die.

God said that he could. That's good enough for me.

It would seem if the tree of life is what presented Adam opposition before he ate the forbidden fruit then it would have been mentioned AS the opposition.

2 Nephi 2

15 And to bring about his eternal purposes in the end of man, after he had created our first parents, and the beasts of the field and the fowls of the air, and in fine, all things which are created, it must needs be that there was an opposition; even the forbidden fruit in opposition to the tree of life; the one being sweet and the other bitter.

Lehi said that it was. That's good enough for me.

I imagine you'll focus on the word 'before' in your comments, saying that those statements of God and Lehi may have only applied to the time after Adam partook. I'm sorry the scriptures were not fool-proofed for you.

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