Agency


Justice
 Share

Recommended Posts

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

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

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

It wasn't an entrance from the premortal world to the Garden (it may have been, but I couldn't support that argument). It was an entrance from the uninhabited, unused, lone and dreary world into the Garden.

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

I'll pull a page from the Old Testament student manual (3-6) and simply say that we learn from modern revelation that Eve did not recognize her tempter. It is the same specific revelation referenced in the manual.

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.
You'll hear no disagreement from me.
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.
And also the presence of a veil, which means decisions are not made with full knowledge. Admittedly, the physical body may be what causes the veil. but the veil changes the inputs, and so the output is different.
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.
Satan's plan is interesting to me. I find the standard "communism=satan's plan" or "satan's plan was built on compulsion" uncreative and not generally well-thought out. I posted earlier in this thread an outline of general principles that Satan could advance that would destroy Agency (in theory - I'm still not sold that Agency can be removed). I also included a quote from John Taylor with his speculation. Would you mind sending me a pm of the theories you've read?
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 165
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

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

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

I'm sidestepping the first part of your post (about Adam's status vs Satan's) because for me it comes down to the things I posted above.

Whether or not the cherubim interfered with Adam's agency. This reminds me of a Monkey Math word problem. 3 ladies go to a hotel and share a $30 room. They split it evenly $10 a piece. They head up to the room and the fellow that checked them in realizes that he's made a mistake and it's really a $25 room. So he sends the bell hop up with $5 to return to the ladies. The bell hop, knowing that the 3 ladies wanted to split the bill evenly, decides to give them each $1 and keep $2 as a tip. So in the end the ladies each paid $9, for a total of $27 between the 3 of them. Add the $2 tip, and you've got $29. What happened to the last dollar?

The monkey math is in the question. And the difficulty is, once you've heard the question, you have a hard time correcting it into what it should be. The question should not be (3x9)+2=29 != 30. It should be 3x9=25+2 : they paid a total of $27 and $25 went to the room and $2 went to a tip. Or it could similarly be 3x10=25+2+(3x1) : they paid a total of $30 up front and $25 went to a room, $2 to a tip, and $1 each came back to them.

I feel like you keep harping on "the cherubim remove a choice and interfere with Adam's agency" (where's the other dollar? WHERE'S THE OTHER DOLLAR??). But we've been trying to tell you, it's not really a valid question. There are actions and consequences; acting and acted upon. Natural or artificial, a consequence is a consequence. Angels guarding the Tree of Life is a consequence, Adam didn't have a say in it anyway.

Adam is shown the lesson of Alma 34 - you cannot suddenly say "No fair! I chose this path, and now that the consequences are upon me I want to take another." When the consequences are upon us, it is too late.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

OK. Fair enough.

Maybe I need to be shown that not eating from the tree of life was a consequence of eating the forbidden fruit.

I've based this on a claim others have made, and not what I think. Others said "God prevented Adam from eating the tree of life..." My only comment has been if God prevented Adam, then God had to remove the choice affecting Adam's agency.

I don't agree that He did, I'm just looking for an explantion how He can prevent it yet not affect Adam's choice.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

From everything I've gathered from scripture I do not believe God would or could exalt His children if He were to interfere with their agency to choose Him. That's my driving principle behind why I think what I do.

If God would not prevent someone from choosing, or even if we can say "could not," and perfect His children that that causes you to look at the staement God "prevented" Adam from eating the tree of life.

One of the arguments that is most common is that it was a natural consequence. I can buy that. But, if it was, then God would not have to prevent Him from eating it. Natural consequences can't be avoided or prevented. They just happen.

That causes me deeper reflection on Alma's words that discuss the Garden story.

So, it's not me that is arguing God prevented anything. I do not believe He would.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Maybe calling the tree of knowledge of good and evil the "tree of death" instead would make the consequences more obvious. Because really that is what it is. Do you want to choose the tree of death or the tree of life? Do you want to stick around in my presence or be separated from my presence? If you stick around you can't learn responsibility and accountability, you have to remain innocent of anything you do and therefore will not advance or you can choose the tree of death, death meaning a separation from God for a period of time with an opportunity to one day eat of the tree of life but only through the redeemer.

Maybe too, it is important to come to the conclusion that Adam wanted the tree of death. And God could see that Adam wanted the tree of death and if that is what he wanted then God couldn't give him the tree of life immediately because that would take away from Adam what he wanted. Adam couldn't learn responsibility and accountability by remaining in the presence of God forever. If God allowed him to eat of the tree of life after he already chose the tree of death He would be taking away Adams agency, the consequences of his first choice. ... then we would be having the reverse conversation. Actually we wouldn't be conversing at all.

You have to also see that as a consequence of Adam taking the tree of death there were a lot of things that happened. Not only could he not partake of the tree of life but also his body changed, the whole world changed and he was kicked out of the garden. So, what about all those things, doesn't that also change Adam's agency? Now he has to work by the sweat of his brow and he has to deal with the harsh world and aging and death. The changing of the world is not a "natural" consequence of Adam eating the fruit of death. God had to do something for that to happen too.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think part of the confusion on Adam being somehow "prevented" from partaking of the fruit of the Tree of Life after his expulsion from the Garden and his descent into a mortal state (instead of amortal [since technically Adam was not immortal]) is that we live in a world of cause and effect, and we are assuming God is like that as well.

When God placed cherubim and a flaming sword to guard the way of the Tree of Life, this was not a knee-jerk reaction to Adam having partaken of the forbidden fruit. It was simply the natural result...PRE planned response...to what God ALREADY KNEW Adam would do. And Adam had agreed to participate in the Plan of Salvation before coming to earth. So Adam had already agreed (or already understood) that when the time came that he would initiate the Fall....God would respond by keeping him and Eve from partaking. This was not inhibiting their agency because they (and the rest of us) had already agreed to follow the Plan as outlined (even with the risk that some of us would not make it back to Father's presence!).

When you look at it this way....it kills the moral dilemma...because there no longer is one.

Nothing God has done, is doing, or will do is in RESPONSE TO something He didn't know about. He already knows we are going to do something. He has it covered. There is no way to surprise Him by our behavior, or come up with some contingency He hadn't thought of, or somehow change how much He loves us. By wondering this we are giving ourselves far too much credit, and God not enough!!

Elohim...the creator of the UNIVERSE...worlds without end. He has watched this scene play out perhaps a million times...maybe a trillion times!!!!

Remember, He is all about letting us wield our agency, for good or bad. But as much as it pains Him....He cannot save us from the consequences. Even the Atonement does not do THAT! What the Atonement does is apply Mercy AFTER the effects of Justice have had their claim! The Atonement does not prevent JUSTICE...it overpowers it....thus only the penitent are saved:

16 Now, repentance could not come unto men except there were a punishment, which also was eternal as the life of the soul should be, affixed opposite to the plan of happiness, which was as eternal also as the life of the soul.

17 Now, how could a man repent except he should sin? How could he sin if there was no law? How could there be a law save there was a punishment?

18 Now, there was a punishment affixed, and a just law given, which brought remorse of conscience unto man.

19 Now, if there was no law given—if a man murdered he should die—would he be afraid he would die if he should murder?

20 And also, if there was no law given against sin men would not be afraid to sin.

21 And if there was no law given, if men sinned what could justice do, or mercy either, for they would have no claim upon the creature?

22 But there is a law given, and a punishment affixed, and a repentance granted; which repentance, mercy claimeth; otherwise, justice claimeth the creature and executeth the law, and the law inflicteth the punishment; if not so, the works of justice would be destroyed, and God would cease to be God.

23 But God ceaseth not to be God, and mercy claimeth the penitent, and mercy cometh because of the atonement; and the atonement bringeth to pass the resurrection of the dead; and the resurrection of the dead bringeth back men into the presence of God; and thus they are restored into his presence, to be judged according to their works, according to the law and justice.

24 For behold, justice exerciseth all his demands, and also mercy claimeth all which is her own; and thus, none but the truly penitent are saved.

25 What, do ye suppose that mercy can rob justice? I say unto you, Nay; not one whit. If so, God would cease to be God.

"If so, God would cease to be God"

Is God being literal? Could He cease to be God? As Latter-day Saints we NEED TO KNOW the answer to this question....for everything hinges upon it...the Fall...the Atonement....Agency....Exaltation....EVERYTHING.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Do you see it?

God is describing what happens to MORTAL MAN, here, now, in this fallen world:

22 But there is a law given, and a punishment affixed, and a repentance granted; which repentance, mercy claimeth; otherwise, justice claimeth the creature and executeth the law, and the law inflicteth the punishment; if not so, the works of justice would be destroyed, and God would cease to be God.

1) A JUST LAW IS GIVEN

2) A PUNISHMENT IS AFFIXED

This has always been true. Always!! Which means it did not all of a sudden begin to be this way after Adam fell!!

3) A REPENTANCE IS GRANTED

4) WHICH REPENTANCE MERCY CLAIMETH

OTHERWISE

5) JUSTICE CLAIMS US (this still happens both before and after the Atonement was made)

6) THE LAW IS EXECUTED (we suffer the consequences)

7) THE LAW INFLICTS THE PUNISHMENT (this STILL HAPPENS even with the Atonement active in our daily lives!!!!!)

NOW, WATCH WHAT GOD SAYS NEXT:

if not so, the works of justice would be destroyed, and God would cease to be God.

God Himself is telling us that if things DID NOT WORK THIS WAY....if God chose to interfere with our agency in ANY WAY...or interfere with the DEMANDS OF JUSTICE in ANY WAY....He would cease to be God.

So no.......God was not interfering with Adam's agency when he blocked the way of the Tree of Life. God was doing what had to be done to both uphold JUSTICE while at the same time extending MERCY unto Adam (by giving him and Eve time to repent).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Maybe calling the tree of knowledge of good and evil the "tree of death" instead would make the consequences more obvious. Because really that is what it is. Do you want to choose the tree of death or the tree of life?

The odd thing here is that Adam had to eat of "death" in order to really live.

If God allowed him to eat of the tree of life after he already chose the tree of death He would be taking away Adams agency, the consequences of his first choice. ... then we would be having the reverse conversation.

But, if our decisions are based on what God will and will not allow then we may have the ability to choose, but not the freedom.

I don't know if you threw this out to try to show me how silly you think I'm being or if you're serious.

You have to also see that as a consequence of Adam taking the tree of death there were a lot of things that happened. Not only could he not partake of the tree of life...

Did you find where the scriptures say this was indeed a consequence? I'd like to see it if you did.

but also his body changed, the whole world changed and he was kicked out of the garden. So, what about all those things, doesn't that also change Adam's agency? Now he has to work by the sweat of his brow and he has to deal with the harsh world and aging and death. The changing of the world is not a "natural" consequence of Adam eating the fruit of death. God had to do something for that to happen too.

I'm not sure if God had to do anything more than withdraw His presence for the fall to happen. The scriptures really aren't very clear on cause and effect here. I do know that it was not something in the fruit. It was brought about by their transgression, which transression was eating the fruit, but the fruit itself did not cause the fall.

This is very difficult to comment on because we all have to be on the same page as far as what agency really means. The agency I'm referring to is that man always has the ability and freedom to choose between God and Satan. I'm not referring to having just any choice or choices. Having options available is part of agency, but not in and of itself.

Those things you mention as consequences are not the same thing I'm asking... or at least I don't think they are.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

God Himself is telling us that if things DID NOT WORK THIS WAY....if God chose to interfere with our agency in ANY WAY...or interfere with the DEMANDS OF JUSTICE in ANY WAY....He would cease to be God.

So no.......God was not interfering with Adam's agency when he blocked the way of the Tree of Life. God was doing what had to be done to both uphold JUSTICE while at the same time extending MERCY unto Adam (by giving him and Eve time to repent).

I'm going to have to think about how both of these comments can be true at the same time.

After Adam ate the forbidden fruit he had consequences coming. Those were told to him before, and explained in more depth after. I never see anything mentioned about not being able to eat of the tree of life as a consequence. If it was, then it wasn't mentioned.

At this point, immediately after Adam ate the forbidden fruit, what options did he have? Was not eating from the tree of life a natural consequence of eating the forbidden fruit? Let's see some scripture.

Something to keep in mind: I have a hard time seeing that if God had to place a guard to prevent Adam from eating from the tree of life (again, I don't believe He did, it's just a belief that was presented) then I do not see how it could have been a natural consequence. You don't have to do anything to bring about or prevent natural consequences. By definition those are things that happen as a result of something else. If it can be prevented it is not a natural consequence. If he had to be prevented then it would not be called a natural consequence, it would be something else.

So, what were the natural consequences of Adam eating the forbidden fruit?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm going to have to think about how both of these comments can be true at the same time.

After Adam ate the forbidden fruit he had consequences coming. Those were told to him before, and explained in more depth after. I never see anything mentioned about not being able to eat of the tree of life as a consequence. If it was, then it wasn't mentioned.

At this point, immediately after Adam ate the forbidden fruit, what options did he have? Was not eating from the tree of life a natural consequence of eating the forbidden fruit? Let's see some scripture.

Something to keep in mind: I have a hard time seeing that if God had to place a guard to prevent Adam from eating from the tree of life (again, I don't believe He did, it's just a belief that was presented) then I do not see how it could have been a natural consequence. You don't have to do anything to bring about or prevent natural consequences. By definition those are things that happen as a result of something else. If it can be prevented it is not a natural consequence. If he had to be prevented then it would not be called a natural consequence, it would be something else.

So, what were the natural consequences of Adam eating the forbidden fruit?

Adam knew the Plan in the pre-existence, including the fact that God would bar the way to the Tree of Life after Adam fell.

Everything that happens during mortality we at least tacitly agreed to. We had to, or else we could not have come down and participated of our own free will. The fact that the veil is in place just means we don't remember agreeing to all of it. But we did.

In other words, here was the conversation between God and Adam in the pre-existence:

God: "Adam (or I guess it was Michael back then) when you go down to earth one of the choices you will make will allow your brothers and sisters to also come down and take-up physical bodies."

Adam: "Okay"

God: "Once you do this, I will block your access to the Tree of Life, so that you cannot partake of it and live forever in your sins."

Adam: "Okay...that makes sense"

Then, Adam went through the veil, and forgot that he had agreed to all of this.

But, since Adam agreed to having access to the Tree of Life taken from him, this agreement meant that God could ban access to the Tree of Life WITHOUT interfering with Adam's agency...because Adam had AGREED to it!

Also, we don't know what God and Adam talked about before the Fall. We don't know what was explained to Adam. Perhaps Adam was warned that if he partook, then the Tree of Life would no longer be available to him. Which means Adam knew what would happen if he made that choice. We don't know that Adam did not know the Tree of Life would be banned after he fell. We assume Adam didn't know this would happen.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The odd thing here is that Adam had to eat of "death" in order to really live.

But, if our decisions are based on what God will and will not allow then we may have the ability to choose, but not the freedom.

I don't know if you threw this out to try to show me how silly you think I'm being or if you're serious.

Did you find where the scriptures say this was indeed a consequence? I'd like to see it if you did.

I'm not sure if God had to do anything more than withdraw His presence for the fall to happen. The scriptures really aren't very clear on cause and effect here. I do know that it was not something in the fruit. It was brought about by their transgression, which transression was eating the fruit, but the fruit itself did not cause the fall.

This is very difficult to comment on because we all have to be on the same page as far as what agency really means. The agency I'm referring to is that man always has the ability and freedom to choose between God and Satan. I'm not referring to having just any choice or choices. Having options available is part of agency, but not in and of itself.

Those things you mention as consequences are not the same thing I'm asking... or at least I don't think they are.

I'm pretty much always serious on this forum, I wasn't trying to be silly or accuse you of anything. If anything, you have brought this issue to mind more than I would have ever thought of it on my own, so I thank you for that.

I guess, I don't see the choice between the two trees as a choice between God and Satan. In part, that is why it was just a transgression not a sin.

Maybe another metaphor is imagine the Garden of Eden as an airport terminal. Two planes pull up to the terminal. One could sit in the terminal and do nothing or one can choose to board the plane. If one chooses to board the plane, the plane door is locked and it goes down the runway, you can't jump out of the plane and then choose the other plane. And even if you were able to do that, you can't choose both planes. They go in different directions.

The things that happened after eating the tree of death aren't even consequences, they are requirements of making the tree of death do what it does. Adam can't die if he is to live. It is impossible to have both.

One other comment is that the tree of knowledge of good and evil does not bestow all knowledge of good and evil immediately. It is simply a doorway, or like the example I gave above, a plane that takes one in a particular direction. In fact, that was the biggest deception of Satan was to give the impression that they would immediately have all knowledge of good and evil. Sure, there was some enlightenment but most of the "knowledge" comes from living a corrupted life that ends with death requiring a savior. So even if Adam could ride both planes at the same time, it would be because he didn't really go anywhere with the first. The only way to "ride both planes" is to finish the trip on one and come back to the second.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I guess, I don't see the choice between the two trees as a choice between God and Satan. In part, that is why it was just a transgression not a sin.

Not until after he ate the forbidden fruit. After he ate the forbidden fruit, then had he ate the tree of life it would have brought about the consequences Satan wanted. Before he did, then I agree with you.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The things that happened after eating the tree of death aren't even consequences, they are requirements of making the tree of death do what it does. Adam can't die if he is to live. It is impossible to have both.

Why do you suppose Alma addressed it so much in multiple places, like here in 42?

Alma 42:

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Adam knew the Plan in the pre-existence, including the fact that God would bar the way to the Tree of Life after Adam fell.

Tom, it appears to me that God barred the tree after Adam left the Garden.

Alma 42:

2 Now behold, my son, I will explain this thing unto thee. For behold, after the Lord God sent our first parents forth from the garden of Eden, to till the ground, from whence they were taken—yea, he drew out the man, and he placed at the east end of the garden of Eden, cherubim, and a flaming sword which turned every way, to keep the tree of life—

This is verified in the Pearl of Great Price and Bible accounts of the Garden itself.

Isn't it odd the guard wasn't placed until after they left if it was placed for him?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hi Justice,

Well, my point in all of this is that I try not to think of God placing "cherubim and a flaming sword" to keep the Tree of Life as a REACTION.

Yes, it happened AFTER Adam was placed outside the Garden. But only because that was part of the Plan -- not in RESPONSE to what Adam had done.

Are you seeing the distinction I am making.

With one way it God simply fulfilling part of the plan, nothing personal, and not really due to anything having happened. It was simply to prevent Adam, Eve or ANYONE from partaking and living forever in their sins. Why? Because it was the Plan right from the beginning.

The other way it makes it sound like God is somehow punishing Adam for having partaking of the forbidden fruit, which Adam was SUPPOSED to do!

The only scripture references I can think of that support this (in my mind) are the following passages:

Alma 12:

21 What does the scripture mean, which saith that God placed cherubim and a flaming sword on the east of the garden of Eden, lest our first parents should enter and partake of the fruit of the tree of life, and live forever? And thus we see that there was no possible chance that they should live forever.

22 Now Alma said unto him: This is the thing which I was about to explain. Now we see that Adam did fall by the partaking of the forbidden fruit, according to the word of God; and thus we see, that by his fall, all mankind became a lost and fallen people.

23 And now behold, I say unto you that if it had been possible for Adam to have partaken of the fruit of the tree of life at that time, there would have been no death, and the word would have been void, making God a liar, for he said: If thou eat thou shalt surely die.

24 And we see that death comes upon mankind, yea, the death which has been spoken of by Amulek, which is the temporal death; nevertheless there was a space granted unto man in which he might repent; therefore this life became a probationary state; a time to prepare to meet God; a time to prepare for that endless state which has been spoken of by us, which is after the resurrection of the dead.

25 Now, if it had not been for the plan of redemption, which was laid from the foundation of the world, there could have been no resurrection of the dead; but there was a plan of redemption laid, which shall bring to pass the resurrection of the dead, of which has been spoken.

26 And now behold, if it were possible that our first parents could have gone forth and partaken of the tree of life they would have been forever miserable, having no preparatory state; and thus the plan of redemption would have been frustrated, and the word of God would have been void, taking none effect.

27 But behold, it was not so; but it was appointed unto men that they must die; and after death, they must come to judgment, even that same judgment of which we have spoken, which is the end.

Adam was, essentially, ordained to Fall and Die.

Just as Christ was ordained to Rise and Live.

God was just fulfilling his word. It was not about Adam reaping a consequence. Both Adam and God ALREADY KNEW that as soon as Adam partook of the forbidden fruit..that he and Eve would be expelled. Adam and God ALSO KNEW that after their expulsion, the Tree of Life would no longer be available for Adam and Eve to nosh on.

Here is the other passage:

Alma 42:

2 Now behold, my son, I will explain this thing unto thee. For behold, after the Lord God sent our first parents forth from the garden of Eden, to till the ground, from whence they were taken—yea, he drew out the man, and he placed at the east end of the garden of Eden, cherubim, and a flaming sword which turned every way, to keep the tree of life— 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—

4 And thus we see, that there was a time granted unto man to repent, yea, a probationary time, a time to repent and serve God.

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.

6 But behold, it was appointed unto man to die—therefore, as they were cut off from the tree of life they should be cut off from the face of the earth—and man became lost forever, yea, they became fallen man.

7 And now, ye see by this that our first parents were cut off both temporally and spiritually from the presence of the Lord; and thus we see they became subjects to follow after their own will.

8 Now behold, it was not expedient that man should be reclaimed from this temporal death, for that would destroy the great plan of happiness.

it was not expedient that man should be reclaimed from this temporal death AND I WOULD ADD "immediately after partaking of the forbidden fruit"

Moses 4:

28 And I, the Lord God, said unto mine Only Begotten: Behold, the man is become as one of us to know good and evil; and now lest he put forth his hand and partake also of the tree of life, and eat and live forever,

29 Therefore I, the Lord God, will send him forth from the Garden of Eden, to till the ground from whence he was taken;

30 For as I, the Lord God, liveth, even so my words cannot return void, for as they go forth out of my mouth they must be fulfilled.

31 So I drove out the man, and I placed at the east of the Garden of Eden, cherubim and a flaming sword, which turned every way to keep the way of the tree of life.

If anything, access to the Tree of Life was as much GOD ensuring that his word did not return void as it was some sort of consequence of Adam's having partaken of the forbidden fruit.

The more interesting question to me is -- WHY? WHY is God beholden to ensure His word does not return void?

WHO stands to strip His power away if God lies?

The answer is contained here:

  • D&C 29: 36

    36 And it came to pass that Adam, being tempted of the devil—for, behold, the devil was before Adam, for he rebelled against me, saying, Give me thine honor, which is my power; and also a third part of the hosts of heaven turned he away from me because of their agency;

God equates his having honor with power. That it is the source of His power. Honor is the source of His power.

WHY?

HONOR WITH WHAT?

  • D&C 93: 29

    29 Man was also in the beginning with God. Intelligence, or the light of truth, was not created or made, neither indeed can be.

Intelligence...was not created or made.

Watch the language here:

  • Abr. 4: 21, 25

    21 And the Gods prepared the waters that they might bring forth great whales, and every living creature that moveth, which the waters were to bring forth abundantly after their kind; and every winged fowl after their kind. And the Gods saw that they would be obeyed, and that their plan was good.

    • • •

    25 And the Gods organized the earth to bring forth the beasts after their kind, and cattle after their kind, and every thing that creepeth upon the earth after its kind; and the Gods saw they wouldobey.

There is so much given to us....in plain sight........and we just can't see it. :)

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