Agency


Justice
 Share

Recommended Posts

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.

Yes, I did word my comments poorly (edited them poorly as well). In fact, I was just looking at those 2 scriptures before I made my post.

You are correct. The scripture does say Adam could eat of any other tree, which included the tree of life. However, according to this logic, then ALL other trees would be in opposition to the forbidden fruit.

I MEANT that the use of the tree of life was not directly tied to the use of the forbidden fruit. The command was not one of the other, but simply "don't eat the one."

Your second comment I already commented on. I said where I thought the opposition was, but once again, other than quoting the scripture, you failed to say how they were in opposition (other than "the scriptures said so"). I believe I made a sound argument as to how the tree of life and tree of knowledge of good and evil were NOT in opposition UNTIL Adam ate the fruit.

So, yes, I will throw in the "after" comment.

I'd like to hear you explain how they were in opposition before he ate the forbidden fruit.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 165
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Sure he would. Adam still had the 'agency' to damn all men . . . simply refuse to have children. No children, no mortal probation, no Savior, no plan.

That's a very good point.

Except, if it was "impossible" (given his agency) that Adam would eat of the tree of life after, it was equally impossible that he would not fulfill God's command for having seed. Afterall, that was his entire purpose for eating the forbidden fruit. It is clear that Adam's mind was set on keeping God's commandments.

And, also, the only flaw to that is that there could have been another couple sent to have seed after Adam and Eve passed from mortality. The spirits in the pre-mortal world were not "damned" until they came to earth.

The plan was not totally destroyed, as Alma describes, until exactly what he describes took place... if Adam ate the tree of life immediately after eating the forbidden fruit.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And, also, the only flaw to that is that there could have been another couple sent to have seed after Adam and Eve passed from mortality. The spirits in the pre-mortal world were not "damned" until they came to earth.

Thank you. I was hoping you'd bring up the other couple scenario.

You claim that if Adam had partaken of the tree of life after taking of the tree of knowledge, that God's plan would have been frustrated. Really? To quote you, "...the only flaw to that is that there could have been another couple sent...."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks, Justice. Just to make sure I'm on the same page as you: do you read Alma as saying Adam should have had that kind of agency, but didn't because the angel was there? Or as saying that Adam did have that agency?

I believe Adam did have that agency. If he did not have the ability and freedom to choose then he could not exercise his agency to follow God's plan because it would have been the only option.

I proposed a question about whether or not God would prevent Adam from not choosing his plan and eating from the tree of life. On the surface, the scriptures certainly make it sound as if God blocked it from him, but with a closer look, and understanding that God will not remove man's agency, even at peril of failure... then you see my point.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thank you. I was hoping you'd bring up the other couple scenario.

You claim that if Adam had partaken of the tree of life after taking of the tree of knowledge, that God's plan would have been frustrated. Really? To quote you, "...the only flaw to that is that there could have been another couple sent...."

I didn't claim it, Alma did.

The only difference I see between your suggestion above and Alma's is that with Alma's Adam would have been immortal, incapable of dying... no way to leave the earth. With yours, he would have died.

That might be a difference.

Edited by Justice
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Webster, I'd like to see you get to this when you can.

Please use all the scripture you can find.

I have provided you with scripture in the past, but then when I don't interpret it according to your liking, you discount it. Apparently you are the only one who can tell us what the scriptures say, and when I point out holes in your theory, you simply ignore them. I'm growing tired of playing with a boy who holds all the toys and tells me how I'm allowed to play with them.

I've said what I've said, and I'll let anyone who reads this post decide between what I've said and what you've said. So far it seems like you haven't won many over to your theory (although I suspect you would disagree).

To wrap this up, however, I need to cover two things:

1) I could talk on Sunday after 3:30pm MDT if you're still interested. If so, send me a PM, but if the phone call would be like this post, then don't bother.

2) In your original post (where you asked, "What is agency, exactly?") you said:

First I'll post 5 of the scriptures that directly use the word agency ...

* * * [Then you listed them] * * *

The one I left out really doesn't pertain to this discussion as it was directed at one individual.

I later included the verse you left out:

I wish Justice had included the sixth reference to agency from the scriptures:

D&C 64:

18 And now, verily I say that it is expedient in me that my servant Sidney Gilbert, after a few weeks, shall return upon his business, and to his agency in the land of Zion;

To which you replied:

I was getting to it. :)

So, I would appreciate it if you could address that sixth verse before you forget. Since this post began with a question about agency, please tell me what significance (if any) D&C 64:18 holds for the subject of agency.

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.

I have to keep reminding myself that EVERYTHING had to be done by choice. Adam's agency could not be TAKEN from him, but it could be influenced by one or the other so that he could make a choice. Fortunately he made the right one. :)

6 And Satan put it into the heart of the serpent, (for he had drawn away many after him,) and he sought also to beguile Eve, for he knew not the mind of God, wherefore he sought to destroy the world.

Whatever Satan was doing, apparently it was done with the intent to destroy the Plan of Salvation.

Which baffles me.

Satan was THERE!!!!! He knew the Plan of Salvation. He knew Adam and Eve's role in the Plan. He knew that they were supposed to Fall and leave God's presence, repent (turn back to God) and receive exaltation through the mediation of Christ.

If Satan had wanted to destroy the Plan, he should have just left Eve alone! He should have JOINED with God...warning Eve against partaking of the forbidden fruit!

Now, God warned Adam and Eve not to partake because [[[ technically ]]] it meant leaving God's presence....which God could not let happen without saying something. But God also knew it was only temporary.

Satan would have done this just to keep Adam and Eve in their innocent state, unable to have children, thus frustrating the Plan.

Tom

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have provided you with scripture in the past, but then when I don't interpret it according to your liking, you discount it.

I apologize. I haven't tried to do that, and I certainly haven't tried to upset you. Sometimes I can be stubborn. But, I'm usually pretty reasonable.

Apparently you are the only one who can tell us what the scriptures say, and when I point out holes in your theory, you simply ignore them. I'm growing tired of playing with a boy who holds all the toys and tells me how I'm allowed to play with them.

I apologize if I come across that way. I only post here to see ideas I haven't considered and see what others have learned that I have missed. I don't try to ignore anything. I know that when I post I try to keep it as simple as possible and only address a few things at once. Maybe I'm leaving things out that you didn't want me to. But, I don't ignore them intentionally. I really don't know what to say but I'm sorry. I really am looking for answers to those questions. If you have answered them I have not seen it. I'll go back and re-read the thread and see what I missed.

So, I would appreciate it if you could address that sixth verse before you forget. Since this post began with a question about agency, please tell me what significance (if any) D&C 64:18 holds for the subject of agency.

After those comments, and other sarcastic ones you have made, I'm surprised you're still asking me anything at all. It doesn't sound like anyone wants to hear anything I have to say anyway, least of all you.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think these events are recorded the way they are to teach us, not (necessarily) to confuse us.

"Adam fell that men might be..."

He knew what he was doing. With all that this implies.

I guess what I am trying to express is that what God undertakes to do...He accomplishes it.

I hesitate to suggest that God's Plan REALLY could have been frustrated:

12 And when the woman saw that the tree was good for food, and that it became pleasant to the eyes, and a tree to be desired to make her wise, she took of the fruit thereof, and did eat, and also gave unto her husband with her, and he did eat.

I've always misread this. It was the TREE that became "pleasant to the eyes" (seemingly suggesting that at first it was NOT pleasant to the eyes?). It was the TREE that appeared able to make her wise (not sure how a TREE can seem to be able to do this. I could spend hours looking at a tree and it would not appear to be able to impart any wisdom! LOL).

She saw the TREE as pleasant and wisdom bestowing, and then ate the fruit in the expectation of obtaining the attributes of the TREE.

Interestingly......this seems to be a backwards approach to how the Gospel works in our lives.

This is not what Alma described in Alma 32:

41 But if ye will nourish the word, yea, nourish the tree as it beginneth to grow, by your faith with great diligence, and with patience, looking forward to the fruit thereof, it shall take root; and behold it shall be a tree springing up unto everlasting life.

43 Then, my brethren, ye shall reap the rewards of your faith, and your diligence, and patience, and long-suffering, waiting for the tree to bring forth fruit unto you.

The TREE is not obtained by merely plucking the end result.

The TREE is obtained by a gradual maturation process. Nourishing the tree daily. Then, through process of time, the TREE is fully mature and bears fruit, that fruit being eternal life (ours and our numberless children).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If Satan had wanted to destroy the Plan, he should have just left Eve alone! He should have JOINED with God...warning Eve against partaking of the forbidden fruit!

Satan would have done this just to keep Adam and Eve in their innocent state, unable to have children, thus frustrating the Plan.

That's exactly some of the reasoning that led me to study this a little deeper.

Why did Satan tempt Eve at all?

I really believe Alma 12 and 42 hold the key. Satan was trying to bring about his own plan, which also included Eve eating the forbidden fruit... but after that, she was to eat the tree of life and not die... following Satan and not God.

After reading the consequences that would have brought about, why is that so outrageous to believe? The consequences listed by Alma are exactly what Satan wanted, including destroying the agency of man.

As far as God knowing it was only temporary, that's only because he knew Adam would make the right choices, not because He thought or knew He could remove choices and force obedience.

As far as why Alma didn't address God sending another Adam and Eve if the first failed, I don't have any idea.

Edited by Justice
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Justice, like you, I feel there is more to the story...a LOT more.

I feel it inside...but I have great difficulty expressing words sufficient to communicate what I sense and what I feel.

I am not sure they were even actual TREES or FRUIT.

I think the references to TREE and FRUIT are for our benefit and are perhaps not literal. TREES and FRUIT are terms very readily identified and recognized by every living person. I think that may be why they are used as SYMBOLS. Something else is being described here .... in the creation story .......... and it is not LITERALLY a TREE or FRUIT....it is being symbolized by TREE and FRUIT.

I don't know this for a fact.

Something that helps me see this whole thing differently is thinking about what FUNDAMENTALLY are we??????

We are LIGHT.

We are Beings of LIGHT.

The entire universe works this way. That which is LIGHT...if it chooses to receive more LIGHT....and continues in that LIGHT....is able to receive even MORE LIGHT....and increases in LIGHT until the perfect day, when a fullness is received.

That which begins as LIGHT...if it elects NOT to receive the LIGHT...and continues in not receiving that LIGHT....grows dim...grows dark...and becomes INCREASINGLY DARK...until there is NO LIGHT found in it. Such is the fate of Satan and EVERYONE who chooses to follow Him.

Everything becomes an allegory of this. Either the pursuit of LIGHT or the rejection of LIGHT.

46 And the Spirit giveth light to every man that cometh into the world; and the Spirit enlighteneth every man through the world, that hearkeneth to the voice of the Spirit.

47 And every one that hearkeneth to the voice of the Spirit cometh unto God, even the Father.

48 And the Father teacheth him of the covenant which he has renewed and confirmed upon you, which is confirmed upon you for your sakes, and not for your sakes only, but for the sake of the whole world.

49 And the whole world lieth in sin, and groaneth under darkness and under the bondage of sin.

50 And by this you may know they are under the bondage of sin, because they come not unto me.

51 For whoso cometh not unto me is under the bondage of sin.

52 And whoso receiveth not my voice is not acquainted with my voice, and is not of me.

53 And by this you may know the righteous from the wicked, and that the whole world groaneth under sin and darkness even now.

54 And your minds in times past have been darkened because of unbelief, and because you have treated lightly the things you have received—

55 Which vanity and unbelief have brought the whole church under condemnation.

56 And this condemnation resteth upon the children of Zion, even all.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I will study your post more later, but off to bed for now.

However, one thing I wanted to say before I logged off was that I believe they were actual trees. Those trees were certainly symbols, just like the staff with the brazen serpent Moses held up was real, but a symbol of something else. Both Lehi and Nephi saw the trees. They even ate the fruit. I realize all of that could be allegory as well, but right now, I believe there were actual trees with fruit.

Now, what the trees represented, or were symbols of, is where the REAL discussion is.

Have a great night... and it's great to see you again.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'd like to hear you explain how they were in opposition before he ate the forbidden fruit.

One was an "Exit Only" door, and the other was an "Enter only" door. Imagine these doors only have handles on one side and they open away from the handle side. Their very properties are what make them opposites. [reading between the lines here] "Of every tree thou mayest freely eat" includes the Tree of Life, but because they are already in the Garden, partaking yields a no-op (they were immortal before, they remain immortal). After Adam eats the fruit of the Tree of Knowledge ofG&E, he can continue to eat from that tree and it is a no-op (they were mortal before, they remain mortal).

Now, why can't Adam just go over to the opposing Tree (of Life) and partake and re-enter the Garden? Because God promised "thou shalt surely die"! Adam must die before he eats of that fruit and re-enters the Garden. To enforce this law (which God decreed), God places angels to guard the way. Their orders are not to prevent Adam from eating the fruit. Their orders are to keep sin-stained Adam from eating the fruit.

Here's the parallel with our lives. Once we sin, we cannot just re-enter God presence. We (like Adam) have to be purged of our sins either by accepting the atonement or by suffering for them. Like us, Adam had already proven to God that he will not be sinful in His presence. 1/3 part took that route, but Adam was not among them. So if God allowed Adam to eat from the Tree of Life before he was cleansed of sin, he would be condemning him to the same fate as the 1/3 part - he/we would be devils - because he chose to be sin-stained in the presence of God.

My argument is that God did NOT remove Adam's agency. Adam was still supposed to choose to eat from the Tree of Life, but that choice meant learning the passwords that the cherubim were listening for.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thank you mordorbund. You have presented a lot of interesting ideas.

One was an "Exit Only" door, and the other was an "Enter only" door. Imagine these doors only have handles on one side and they open away from the handle side. Their very properties are what make them opposites. [reading between the lines here] "Of every tree thou mayest freely eat" includes the Tree of Life, but because they are already in the Garden, partaking yields a no-op (they were immortal before, they remain immortal). After Adam eats the fruit of the Tree of Knowledge ofG&E, he can continue to eat from that tree and it is a no-op (they were mortal before, they remain mortal).

Before I comment, I want to stress that anywhere that I disagree is just that. I do not think my thoughts are higher, my ways are necessarily more right, or that you are ignorant because you disagree with me. Sometimes I come across as critical, when in fact I'm just seeking to understand. I often do it poorly and people think I'm being difficult. So, I want you to know I respect your ideas, and I respect your right to believe them.

My first thought would be that the real opposition was the commandment to have children against the fact that Adam could not (for whatever reason). As I said before, IF the tree of life was in opposition to the tree of the knowledge of g&e (I like your abbreviation) then so were all the other trees he was told he could eat of. Yes? No?

I do like your reasoning about how if they ate one and not the other they presented no opposition, which makes sense, and is kind of my point. As long as Adam did not eat of the forbidden fruit, the tree of life *seemed* to present no opposition.

Now, why can't Adam just go over to the opposing Tree (of Life) and partake and re-enter the Garden? Because God promised "thou shalt surely die"!

I'd like to key on Alma's use of the word immediately. This is why it had to happen fast, according to him. Adam would not be able to re-enter the Garden, but needed to partake before he left. It seems, if you follow the story, that it was available up until they met God walking in the Garden. There's no specifics of how much time elapsed, but it stands to reason that they could have made it to the tree of life before that conversation, and before they were removed from the Garden, and before the guard was up. It's just speculation that seems to fit the events mentioned.

Adam must die before he eats of that fruit and re-enters the Garden. To enforce this law (which God decreed), God places angels to guard the way. Their orders are not to prevent Adam from eating the fruit. Their orders are to keep sin-stained Adam from eating the fruit.

I like the difference you draw between "when" Adam might be able to partake of the tree of life. It seems that in the end, though, both statements may be the same thing. To "keep" that Adam (fallen) from eating from the tree of life if he wanted to (and bringing about the consequences described by Alma) God would have to remove the option to not choose His plan.

Here's the parallel with our lives. Once we sin, we cannot just re-enter God presence. We (like Adam) have to be purged of our sins either by accepting the atonement or by suffering for them. Like us, Adam had already proven to God that he will not be sinful in His presence. 1/3 part took that route, but Adam was not among them. So if God allowed Adam to eat from the Tree of Life before he was cleansed of sin, he would be condemning him to the same fate as the 1/3 part - he/we would be devils - because he chose to be sin-stained in the presence of God.

Yes, Alma makes this part of it clear. But, my question regarding this is that why "prevent" Adam and not prevent the 1/3 or anyone else who attempts to choose against God's plan? If it is possible for God to do so and still exalt His children, it seems His plan could have saved everyone.

My argument is that God did NOT remove Adam's agency. Adam was still supposed to choose to eat from the Tree of Life, but that choice meant learning the passwords that the cherubim were listening for.

I do not disagree that it's what Adam was supposed to do, and what Adam was going to do. What I question is that since God knew that Adam was going to eat the forbidden fruit and then leave the Garden, why did He have to prevent him from doing what God knew he wasn't going to do?

I think the guard was placed for another reason. I just think most people don't think about it. I don't know why.

Thank you very much for your insights.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thank you mordorbund. You have presented a lot of interesting ideas.

Before I comment, I want to stress that anywhere that I disagree is just that. I do not think my thoughts are higher, my ways are necessarily more right, or that you are ignorant because you disagree with me. Sometimes I come across as critical, when in fact I'm just seeking to understand. I often do it poorly and people think I'm being difficult. So, I want you to know I respect your ideas, and I respect your right to believe them.

I have also enjoyed this discussion and some of your thoughts. I don't subscribe to your views on the subject, but I don't view them as heresies either :).

My first thought would be that the real opposition was the commandment to have children against the fact that Adam could not (for whatever reason). As I said before, IF the tree of life was in opposition to the tree of the knowledge of g&e (I like your abbreviation) then so were all the other trees he was told he could eat of. Yes? No?

No. The two specified trees are indeed opposites. As I stated before, one is an entrance and one is an exit. Their opposition is in that specific property. It is true that their functionality is mutually exclusive (exactly one is "active" at any time, never both), but that doesn't preclude them from serving as opposites.

I do like your reasoning about how if they ate one and not the other they presented no opposition, which makes sense, and is kind of my point. As long as Adam did not eat of the forbidden fruit, the tree of life *seemed* to present no opposition.

Almost. What I'm trying to point out is that there is indeed opposition, even though one tree is "functional" and the other is "non-functional". Similar to a birth and death motif.

I'd like to key on Alma's use of the word immediately. This is why it had to happen fast, according to him. Adam would not be able to re-enter the Garden, but needed to partake before he left. It seems, if you follow the story, that it was available up until they met God walking in the Garden. There's no specifics of how much time elapsed, but it stands to reason that they could have made it to the tree of life before that conversation, and before they were removed from the Garden, and before the guard was up. It's just speculation that seems to fit the events mentioned.

Not going to argue on this point. You've stated your opinions on this, and I've mentioned that I'm still closer to the orthodoxy side on this. The specific topic I wanted to address was how the trees were still in opposition to each other, and how Adam could still have his Agency with cherubim guarding the Tree of Life.

Do you see how the two trees can stand in opposition to each other in the manner I've stated?

I like the difference you draw between "when" Adam might be able to partake of the tree of life. It seems that in the end, though, both statements may be the same thing. To "keep" that Adam (fallen) from eating from the tree of life if he wanted to (and bringing about the consequences described by Alma) God would have to remove the option to not choose His plan.

I don't have a solid answer for this, but for now I'll go with what others have posted. Adam had the Universal option (meaning, the one that affected both him and his posterity) in the Garden and chose to follow Father's plan "that man may be" when he ate the fruit of the Tree of Knowledge of G&E. On a personal/individual basis, Adam was presented with the option to follow Father's plan in the premortal existence, and again throughout his life.

Yes, Alma makes this part of it clear. But, my question regarding this is that why "prevent" Adam and not prevent the 1/3 or anyone else who attempts to choose against God's plan? If it is possible for God to do so and still exalt His children, it seems His plan could have saved everyone.

The reason why the 1/3 weren't prevented is because their choice was made with full knowledge and understanding. In the premortal existence, there was no veil between them and God. They were in outright rebellion. They denied God in the presence of God.

Mortal (fallen) Adam was in a different circumstance from the 1/3. He had already chosen God's plan (in the premortal realm (individual), and now by his Fall(universal)). That wasn't in question. What was in question was how he and his children would choose when placed behind a veil, in a fallen world. Beacause of the veil the 2/3 are given some slack so that reqardles of what they choose, they will not be devils (excepting those that choose against God after being accepted back into the Lord's presence).

I know there's some debate as to whether Adam was subject to the Veil in the Garden. If he was, then the above arguments are that much stronger. If not, it still answers the second half of your question.

I do not disagree that it's what Adam was supposed to do, and what Adam was going to do. What I question is that since God knew that Adam was going to eat the forbidden fruit and then leave the Garden, why did He have to prevent him from doing what God knew he wasn't going to do?

I think the guard was placed for another reason. I just think most people don't think about it. I don't know why.

Thank you very much for your insights.

My argument is that although the guards were preventative (they keep all sin-stained individuals out), they were also specifically punitive against Adam. Adam was God-promised (which cannot be broken) that if he ate the fruit, he would surely die. Dives was very penitent and desired to enter Abraham's bosom, but it was too late. After an agent acts, the agent is acted upon by the consequences. Cherubim are not a natural consequence, but they are a certain consequence nonetheless.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

...The specific topic I wanted to address was how the trees were still in opposition to each other, and how Adam could still have his Agency with cherubim guarding the Tree of Life.

Do you see how the two trees can stand in opposition to each other in the manner I've stated?

I appreciated your specific response, and patience. I've always believed there was, but never understood how. I've just kind of taken it for granted, since the Book of Mormon states there was. I'm not saying they weren't; I'm saying they are/were. I'm just not certain they were before Adam ate the forbidden fruit.

I guess I'm just not catching how they can be before they ate the forbidden fruit. The commandments were to multiply and replenish the earth and to not eat the forbidden fruit, neither having anything directly to do with the tree of life. Maybe I'm concentrating on the specific commands too much, or maybe you aren't looking at them enough. I don't know.

The reason why the 1/3 weren't prevented is because their choice was made with full knowledge and understanding. In the premortal existence, there was no veil between them and God. They were in outright rebellion. They denied God in the presence of God.

This is another thing I'm trying to understand. My brain seems to understand by comparison. So, I'm trying to compare the difference between our state in the pre-mortal existence, and Adam and Eve in the Garden before the fall.

I see more similarities than differences. Other than some obvious differences, neither had the knowledge of good and evil, but both had agency. It seems Adam and Eve were told to exercise their Agency, where we see no such thing in the pre-earth life. Adam and Eve walked and talked with God and had full knowledge of God just as well as our state in the pre-mortal existence. So, I don't think that's a difference. I don't think Adam and Eve were in out right rebellion, but I can't really say why, outside of the fact that even though they were given commandments, they were given permission to use their agency, while in the pre-mortal existence we have no evidence that they were. "Thou mayest choose for thyself" seems to be the primary difference.

Maybe help me understand how you see the similarities and differences?

Edited by Justice
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I guess I'm just not catching how they can be before they ate the forbidden fruit. The commandments were to multiply and replenish the earth and to not eat the forbidden fruit, neither having anything directly to do with the tree of life. Maybe I'm concentrating on the specific commands too much, or maybe you aren't looking at them enough. I don't know.

First off, thanks for asking about how the two trees could be opposites. I probably wouldn't have thought about it otherwise.

Let's go ahead and ignore the commandments for the moment and just talk about opposites. In the world of opposites, there are some that are displayed clearly with xor choices (if you don't know xor, don't worry about it too much).

You can cry or you can laugh

Speak now or forever hold your peace

Do something radical or maintain the status quo

All of these opposites are like bookends - they sit apart from each other, but both are presented to you simultaneously. Other opposites are more transitional in nature.

Exit; Entrance

Freeway offramp; Freeway onramp

Death; Birth

Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil; Tree of Life

For what it's worth, many (though not all) of the opposites listed in Ecclesiastes 3 are transitional opposites. What makes these opposites different from the more conventional type is that you don't have a choice between the two. "You may take either the onramp or the offramp for the freeway." "You may either enter or exit the auditorium." These don't make sense. But what does make sense is if you are inside the auditorium you may be commanded, "Exit the auditorium." Or if you are outside you may be commanded, "Enter the auditorium." Similarly, Adam was told, "You may choose for yourself whether you will exit or not." And once he left, he was given commandments to get him back in if he so chose.

This is another thing I'm trying to understand. My brain seems to understand by comparison. So, I'm trying to compare the difference between our state in the pre-mortal existence, and Adam and Eve in the Garden before the fall.

I see more similarities than differences. Other than some obvious differences, neither had the knowledge of good and evil, but both had agency. It seems Adam and Eve were told to exercise their Agency, where we see no such thing in the pre-earth life. Adam and Eve walked and talked with God and had full knowledge of God just as well as our state in the pre-mortal existence. So, I don't think that's a difference. I don't think Adam and Eve were in out right rebellion, but I can't really say why, outside of the fact that even though they were given commandments, they were given permission to use their agency, while in the pre-mortal existence we have no evidence that they were. "Thou mayest choose for thyself" seems to be the primary difference.

Maybe help me understand how you see the similarities and differences?

I also see the Garden of Eden as a type for the premortal existence. But I also recognize that it is not a perfect type, much like David is the Messiah-figure, but we all know there are some strong differences that shouldn't be carried over. (If you want, I can provide references for these in another post.)

Similarities

Adam was in the presence of God the Father.

Adam lacked experiential knowledge of good and evil.

Eden's paradise was patterned after the premortal world.

Adam made a conscious choice to enter mortality.

Satan (Lucifer) tempted Adam to disobey God.

Adam was innocent (? not too sure where to place this one, it depends on the possibility of premortal sin without getting cast out ??)

Differences

Adam had a physical body.

Adam transgressed a commandment.

Eve does not recognize Satan (Lucifer) for who he is.

Adam has forgotten all.

Those last two statements make me think that there was some sort of a veil placed over Adam and Eve, so whatever choice they made in the Garden wouldn't be the same as making it in the premortal world.

Edited by mordorbund
Link to comment
Share on other sites

You said one tree was an exit (tree of the knowledge of g&e) and one was an entrance (tree of life).

I very much see how the one was an exit, and am in complete agreement. What I don't see is how the tree of life was an entrance before Adam ate the forbidden fruit. Once he ate the forbidden fruit I very much see how it was an entrance.

It would be great if you could explain how the tree of life served as an "entrance" before he ate the forbidden fruit (that would make it in opposition to an exit).

As far as the similarities you've listed, that's about like what I see as well. As far as the differences, I was referring to the state they were in before they ate the fruit, so we'll leave out the transgression. We would need to compare that to the state Lucifer is in now after his rebellion.

Eve not recognizing Lucifer for who he was is interesting. I'm not certain of this one. We recognize Satan and what he wants us to do, but that doesn't mean we don't choose it from time to time. Is there a scripture or quote that makes you think Eve did not know who he was? I'm not doubting, I'm just looking for evidence.

Exactly when Adam forgot all is in question, even in this thread. I'm of the opinion that his immortal body served as some kind of veil, like ours. Being that his was immortal (terrestrial not telestial) it may not have been as much of a veil... I don't know. I believe he was also veiled when he became mortal, so it may have been in 2 stages for him, while just one for us.

In any case, you seem to have reached the same conclusion that I have, that there were more similarities than differences. This is why I have been pondering over why Lucifer's consequences were so much different than Adam's. Every road I take leads me back to the fact that Adam had a physical body, and Lucifer did not. It seems like a trite difference, and not enough to eternally change the consequences... but the more I read, the more that that's exactly what I believe.

Adam was placed in a physical body for the soul purpose that it would fall, and blood would begin to flow as a physical form of life to keep him alive long enough to repent, learn to serve God, and improve his state. Even still, that was meaningless without redemption. This fallen state, or mortality, is the key to gaining eternal life. It has been stated over and over by many prophets and in many scriptures. Yet, I still wonder if we emphasize it enough.

To me, it seems simple that if Lucifer could remove mortalilty then he could do everything he wanted to do, include destroying man's agency to choose good (Christ) and evil (Satan). See Moroni 7 for specifics on how everything that is good is of Christ, and anything that does not teach us to serve Christ is of the devil.

I have read many theories by GA's, present and past, about Satan's plan, and have compiled a list of possibilities. From everything I've seen, I've arrived at the conclusion that Lucifer needed man to gain the knowledge of good and evil also. So, My logical deduction is that whatever Lucifer wanted to change in Father's plan was after that point in time. Again, this goes back to what Alma describes.

It seems every avenue for Satan's plan to work leads to man being redeemed physically before he is redeemed spiritually. Once that happens there is no hope for that man. Mortality is the separator. Adam's physical body was the primary, if not only difference. It allowed for him to be redeemed spiritually before he returned to God's presence (symbolized by the Garden of Eden). Since the 1/3 did not have a physical body (were not intended to be part of the physical creation) they had no "safety net" to allow them more time to repent, and they had no Savior, who was born mortal, to atone for them. It was a blood ordinance to apply to those who were, or were to be, part of the blood fall.

And, that also leads back to Alma's comments about eating the tree of life immediately after the forbidden fruit.

It seems no matter where I go with this scenario it ends up in the same place.

Edited by Justice
Link to comment
Share on other sites

My argument is that although the guards were preventative (they keep all sin-stained individuals out), they were also specifically punitive against Adam. Adam was God-promised (which cannot be broken) that if he ate the fruit, he would surely die.

Also, I have been pondering this.

Was Adam sin-stained at that point? After he ate the forbidden fruit, which is termed a transgression (because he did not have the knowledge of good and evil when he made the choice) was he in the same state as Lucifer who actually rebelled in God's presence? Adam chose to eat the fruit so he could fulfill a command of God, to multiply and replenish the earth.

This is tough to discern. From one perspective he was, because man was lost and fallen forever, with no hope. But, from the other perspective he wasn't, because they could be redeemed. So, Adam could still choose good or evil, while Satan had no choice.

Adam is the ultimate example of what happens when man sides with God and chooses salvation through Christ.

Lucifer is the ultimate example of what happens when man rejects God and chooses salvation any other way.

I find it ironic that Adam trusted God and chose to die (enter mortality) in order to gain this salvation offered, while Lucifer chose to not die (not enter mortality) to remove the need for the salvation offered. Could that be a good example or simile for us?

Dives was very penitent and desired to enter Abraham's bosom, but it was too late. After an agent acts, the agent is acted upon by the consequences. Cherubim are not a natural consequence, but they are a certain consequence nonetheless.

So, it was not a natural consequence that Adam could not partake of the tree of life? That seems logical since God placed them there. If it was a natural consequence then God would not have to intervene.

My thought is whether or not they were actually there to guard Adam specifically. I don't believe the scripture say so. It seems they were placed there after he left. I know that seems like such a small detail to everyone here, but this could be evidence for what I'm suggesting... that it was Adam's choice not to eat of it, and therefore he chose God's plan for him to enter mortality and die, or let the natural consequence happen.

That removes the question of whether or not God prevented Adam from eating the tree of life, and whether or not God interfered with Adam's agency to do so. I do not believe He would have. However, if He placed the guard there to prevent Adam from eating it, there is no other conclusion to draw than God interfered with Adam's agency.

The only other option is that if it was a natural consequence, but I think you see why it could not have been. If it were, there would have been no way to stop it. Alma describes a way it could have been stopped... hence this discussion.

Edited by Justice
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