Will Adam and Eve Get Their Wish?

[prisonchaplain]

I have come to understand and believe G-d will not judge us as many porport but rather we will judge as it is us that brings to G-d our own witness of what we would be or recieve of him - and that we do that in full knowledge and understanding at what is called the judgment of G-d. G-d does not condemn but grants to all a free gift having broken the bands and chains of sin so that all can choose for themself without misunderstanding because they have experience. Nothing else could be more merciful or just - think about it.

At this point, I will promise that I will indeed think about it. I've expressed the historic view, and understand that you are aware of it--and of just how much of a departure this understanding. Likewise, I recognize that your stance is profound and thoughtful. So, yes, I will think on it seriously.

This I see as a major problem - if the one sounding the trumpt gives a uncertain sound with ambiguity - even by faith. Who is to be responsible for that sound? What I believe is that Christ takes the responsibility in payment for all uncertain sounds. Thus I see our actions as being more credible than our doctrines - but you and I have already been down that road.

I view my ability to be at peace in the midst of uncertainty to be a sign of faith. You seem to view it as risky, in that if we do not know, we may reflect our ignorance. Suffice to say, I do not rest in my uncertainty, but I am willing to trust, even while I continue to seek out understanding. Much of faith is "on the job training."

With this note I understand we disagree. I see in the words of Eve the expression of the exact opposit - that she admits openly to G-d that she did not understand and was decieved. This could not happen if she had sufficient knowledge. But my biggest concern is that you - while holding Adam and Eve to account think that yourself has made made more foolish choices with better understanding but yet believe that in being given greater light can repent and be considered more innocent to G-d. I do not say this to be critical but to point ot what I see as a major disconnect in the doctrine of the fall and the doctrine of salvation that many call the free gift of G-d to people like themselves but not for someone else what-ever the reason be.

How often have we purchased a time share, bought a vehicle, or given in to a temptation, and then, upon reflection, proclaimed, "I was deceived?" In reality, we ignored the cautionary statements in order to get the immediate gratification we sought.

Again, I believe we understand each other well. I wonder if many of my fellow evangelicals, and many LDS, are aware of the very different interpretations we have of the Fall. I find this a profound and important distinction--so much more foundational than the silly arguments about polygamy, or Joseph's early "treasure hunting."

Yes - let us be clear and very specific. The Judeo-Christian traditions of which you speak would not exist today if it were not for the Pharisses and Scribes that plotted the execution and death of the very Christ.

I do not cutt off my past, simply because some of it is rotten. There is a sense in which all Christians are adopted, or grafted, into Abraham's line. Despite the failure of the rabbinic tradition to recognize the Messiah that has come, they did carry God's torch for 4000 years--by Father's choice.

To be honest my friend - it is not so much that I disagree but that in order to reconcile myself and believe that G-d is merciful and kind; even to one like me. I must understand and assume that likewise he is merciful and kind to all. That he will forgive me - would point that to be so merciful and kind, he must forgive all. Am I greater and more deserving than the apostles that asked, “L-rd is it I” . Have I never doubted Jesus less than Judas that when he realized how he had been beguiled, that he killed himself because he did realize that it was wrong what he did and that he regretted it. Have I regretted my sins more?

To understand G-d is just, merciful and kind that he will forgive me - I must believe that he has forgiven all. If he has paid for all and forgiven all - then the only conclusion I can justify as to why any sole will not abide eternally in Heaven in that society; is not because I am better or because G-d has made some allowance for me and not them but rather because they do not desire what I desire. And my desire is to understand all g-dlyness and worship G-d as a being in completeness in as to his complete understanding, knowledge and likeness - that even if I was his equal I can submit unto him and give him the glory. And I understand that others, thinking if something so great is possible - will have nothing of it. And that G-d grants to all their desire and thus is a G-d and the only G-d in which I can give my imperfect understanding and trust to - that when the time of important decision comes he will not allow me to choose foolishly but with grant unto me perfect truth as he promised to do in order to make me and all who desire, free.

The Traveler

I understand the line of reasoning that leads to universalism, or near-universalism. Recently there has been a tremendous controversy in evangelicalism, because Rev. Rob Bell, in Love Wins, suggested a possible universalism.

Has he broken the yoke of a long-held false doctrine of eternal damnation for the lost, or has he gone into tremendous heresy? The LDS view definitely appeals to a generation that finds hell unfathomable, and impossible to reconcile with love.

I'm just not convinced that the traditional teaching is wrong. Rather, I am indeed concerned that teachings that down-play God's judgment and expectations of holiness from us may lull people into a false sense of being acceptable in their sins.

Edited May 3, 2011 by prisonchaplain

[Traveler]

...

I understand the line of reasoning that leads to universalism, or near-universalism. Recently there has been a tremendous controversy in evangelicalism, because Rev. Rob Bell, in Love Wins, suggested a possible universalism.

Has he broken the yoke of a long-held false doctrine of eternal damnation for the lost, or has he gone into tremendous heresy? The LDS view definitely appeals to a generation that finds hell unfathomable, and impossible to reconcile with love.

I'm just not convinced that the traditional teaching is wrong. Rather, I am indeed concerned that teachings that down-play God's judgment and expectations of holiness from us may lull people into a false sense of being acceptable in their sins.

Some many years ago I worked on weapon systems for the USA military. One very important aspect that I dealt with was various explosive delivery systems. When our target is at long range it is not a question of right or wrong, or true or false. One can use a very right and true targeting system and be off by only the slightest and miss the target rendering the effort useless.

It is not that I believe our traditions to be wrong or false so much as they are just slightly off with slightly displaced emphasis. One of the points of much discussion in our tradition and even on this forum attempts to address the doctrinal uncertainty of the final judgment of G-d or the faith verses works arguments. The very argument attempts to separate the two as though they are in reality unrelated to some degree - and that is the flaw I see in our traditions.

When it is dark and we desire light we turn on a switch and there is light and if we desire darkness we turn off the switch and the light is gone. In truth I have yet to meet any man that truly understands electrons and electromagnetic theory (myself included) - yet even a child can have faith to turn the switch on or off. In essence I see that G-d provides the light bulb, the power and the switch. By our faith we turn the light on or off. Some may understand more of the process than others but in the end it is us that determines if we live in light or darkness. Thus there is agency there are all things promised in scripture - including G-d’s love, grace, forgiveness and justice. And there is our experience of light and darkness.

I realize that my paradigm is flawed and lacks full understanding of the final judgment. But I use it here to draw emphasis and focus as we exercise our agency before G-d at the final judgment. It can only be a final judgment if we realize there can be no “woops I chose something I really do not desire”. Only in this manner can our “final” reward be merciful, kind just and true. Many think of the judgment as the forcing what we deserve regardless of our individual desire. But how merciful and kind is G-d to force those he loves to live in a manner they hate and truly desire something else with all their heart?

The problem I see with the traditional point of view is the belief that those not “appointed” to live with G-d do still desire all that living with G-d entails and therefore will suffer and burn in eternal torments of hell because they will not get it. But I cannot make any sense of such a tradition concerning G-d. If there is wisdom (even G-d’s wisdom) in anyone not living with G-d, all will know - including the one drawing on that wisdom to desire something else. Put quite simply - I cannot believe that G-d will foster and encourage any degree of deception or ignorance at the final judgment. Thus it must be that we must know that we are where we belong doing what we most desire and that is the great free gift of G-d and the only reason I can justify faith in him.

I very much enjoy this discussion - especially knowing that there is a very real possibility that someone with a different and more “divine” opinion will help me find what flaws there must be.

The Traveler

Edited May 4, 2011 by Traveler

[bnaur]

The Adam and Eve story is so loaded and can have so many spins. I am constantly amazed at it and all the mysticism that accompanies it. It's symbolic and very representative all at the same time. Great posts!! I love our LDS views so much more than how other religions see it, many of which actually hate our first parents for sinning (how ridiculous). We are living Gods plan for us and it has a purpose. There is purpose in our suffering and understanding will result from even our sins. We will have knowledge of good and evil and hopefully all/most will accept the temple work and Christ will be victorious and we will all be as children of our God.... more like him. Its a truly amazing plan.

[prisonchaplain]

It can only be a final judgment if we realize there can be no “woops I chose something I really do not desire”. Only in this manner can our “final” reward be merciful, kind just and true. Many think of the judgment as the forcing what we deserve regardless of our individual desire. But how merciful and kind is G-d to force those he loves to live in a manner they hate and truly desire something else with all their heart?

If found the last post to be rich, gracious and compelling. The crux of our crossroads seems to be in the above excerpt. My understanding of the final judgment is that the condemned will indeed regret what they have done. Judgments are like that. Occasionally the courtroom will witness the defendent, once condemned, expressing bravado, and proclaiming, "I'd do it all again!" More often, there is remorse, shame, resignation.

I harken back to those impulsive purchases I mentioned. We even have a phrase for this--Buyer's Remorse. I guess I should have gotten the minivan, rather than the 4-seater sports car, for my family of seven! These maintenance fees on this time share I more than I suspected...etc.

So, can God be just and merciful if his punishment for rebellion is eternal, when the guilty are remorseful? You suggest this cannot be, that it does not comport with any possible definition of mercy and love. Me, I'm stuck with "the Bible tells me so."

[spamlds]

PrisonChaplain,

I mean no disrespect in this statement, but your intial question and subsequent comments are the kinds of nonsense that get tossed around in theological seminaries where people who don't believe in a "speaking God" spend their time parsing plain and simple phrases that simply mean what they mean. Just consider the meandering discussion that has taken place here and then multiply that by a few thousand years and it's easy to see why those religions who deny revelation end up so far afield from one another.

Kudos to Rameumptom who brought out the Book of Mormon instead of dealing in philosophical speculations. That's why we have it. We can also go to Alma chapter 12 for a great treatise on the fall, the probationary state of mortals, and the power of the atonement.

We can also examine Moroni chapter 8 in which the author discusses infant baptism and the notion that one must be accountable to commit sin. Therein is the distinction between whether Adam and Eve "rebelled" or whether they simply transgressed a law of God in their innocence. Since it was necessary for them to transgress to obtain a knowledge of good an evil, this means they were innocent, like children. Can children sin? No--because they are not accountable. They can transgress the law--a small child might steal a cookie for example--but they are not accountable yet. Likewise, Adam and Eve could not gain a knowledge of good and evil without transgressing first. Otherwise, they would have remained innocent, and therefore, unaccountable.

Protestant theology is all confused on this point, with original sin, predestination, and such. The Book of Mormon teaches these things with great clarity. I appeal to all the forum members to search the Book of Mormon for their answers to these questions before sounding off. Let's get it right from the best, most correct source, the very first time.

[rameumptom]

PC,

I think there still are differences. Christ offers to save all people from death and hell, on condition of repentance. They are not saved in their sins, but from their sins.

For the unrepentant, they will suffer even as Christ did, until the debt has been paid. If the person does not repent, then the debt is never paid, and the person ends up in Outer Darkness. For those who do repent, they still have a final judgment, where God's mercy will save them, but not in the fullness of his glory. There will be buyer's remorse for many at that time, yet they will also be grateful they are not rotting in hell.

Edited May 4, 2011 by rameumptom

[prisonchaplain]

PrisonChaplain,

I mean no disrespect in this statement, but your intial question and subsequent comments are the kinds of nonsense that get tossed around in theological seminaries where people who don't believe in a "speaking God" spend their time parsing plain and simple phrases that simply mean what they mean. Just consider the meandering discussion that has taken place here and then multiply that by a few thousand years and it's easy to see why those religions who deny revelation end up so far afield from one another.

I dare say this has the distinct aroma of anti-intellectualism. After all, I do believe in continuing revelation, so perhaps the above is not quite relevent to this conversation? And again, I would encourage any Christian to be cautious of tossing out the theological baby with the "bathwater" of error. God chose Judaism to carry his truth for 4000 years. He chose the twin churches--Catholic and Orthodox--to continue the torch baring for another 1400 years or so. Your prophets saw much truth in the Reformation, and some of the other Restoration churches of more recent history. I believe it was President Hinckley who encouraged all Christian to bring the good that they have from their traditions into the LDS faith. It just is not helpful to discard history because of its errors.

Kudos to Rameumptom who brought out the Book of Mormon instead of dealing in philosophical speculations. That's why we have it. We can also go to Alma chapter 12 for a great treatise on the fall, the probationary state of mortals, and the power of the atonement.

We can also examine Moroni chapter 8 in which the author discusses infant baptism and the notion that one must be accountable to commit sin. Therein is the distinction between whether Adam and Eve "rebelled" or whether they simply transgressed a law of God in their innocence. Since it was necessary for them to transgress to obtain a knowledge of good an evil, this means they were innocent, like children. Can children sin? No--because they are not accountable. They can transgress the law--a small child might steal a cookie for example--but they are not accountable yet. Likewise, Adam and Eve could not gain a knowledge of good and evil without transgressing first. Otherwise, they would have remained innocent, and therefore, unaccountable.

I'm sure that rigidly quoting LDS revelations is useful to LDS believers, but do you not suppose that such an approach is less useful when engaging evangelicals in conversation?

Protestant theology is all confused on this point, with original sin, predestination, and such. The Book of Mormon teaches these things with great clarity. I appeal to all the forum members to search the Book of Mormon for their answers to these questions before sounding off. Let's get it right from the best, most correct source, the very first time.

I suppose if you were teaching new converts, or a Gospel Principals class, this counsel would suffice. But again, when you engage the Other, you do better to use some of their material. Even the Apostle Paul did as much.

[Traveler]

...

So, can God be just and merciful if his punishment for rebellion is eternal, when the guilty are remorseful? You suggest this cannot be, that it does not comport with any possible definition of mercy and love. Me, I'm stuck with "the Bible tells me so."

I think I see where you are going. The problem lies with how we each see the concept of rebellion as eternal and the concept of remorseful.

First: There is no need to punish any more when rebellion has ended. The only way such would make sense is if the rebellion was eternal. Almost everyperson understand that punishment should never be more that what is "necessary". If it is greater then it is not just - likewise if the punishment is less then it is incomplete. One attribute of G-d is Holy which has in part of its meaning of being whole and complete - lacking nothing.

Second: is the concept of remorseful. If we have not understood the completness, or wholeness of something then we cannot be holy. Thus the only suitution for remorse is if we knew better or know the complete but acted only according to the part. This does not make sense to me and I have come to believe that is not what the scriptures speak of.

This may sound odd but I have come to believe that there would be more remorse in heaven (Eden) if all were forced there than there would be in hell (where we face death) if all were forced there. In general people are more unhappy that are given all things - none of which they have investment in than those that have lost everything because of their own accord yet they have better understanding of now; because of the loss. (the very epoch of Adam and Eve and the purpose of our lives in mortal confusion). Otherwise how could G-d allow it?

The Traveler

[prisonchaplain]

If I understand correctly, you really do not believe in a final judgment. Correct?

[rameumptom]

Yes, LDS do believe in a Final Judgment. The Final Judgment occurs after the Spirit World and Resurrection. In the Spirit World, people are given a final chance at hearing the gospel and choosing to repent and believe, or continue in rebellion.

The Final Judgment does not judge us solely on works and faith, but on who we have become. D&C 88 teaches that there is a celestial, a terrestrial and a telestial law. When a person lives according to the law of a kingdom, and becomes that type, they receive a fullness of that kingdom's glory.

For those who remain in rebellion, they will be cast out into Outer Darkness for eternity with the devil and his angels. It is a kingdom with no glory, only spiritual darkness (as the name implies).

So, yes, we do believe in a final judgment.

I appreciate PC noting that as a Christian, he believes in continuing revelation. I would note that this is personal inspiration given to each believer in Christ who accepts that inspiration. They just do not accept continuing scripture. LDS believe, as do Protestants, that there is a priesthood of all believers, in which all may receive inspiration from God to guide them in their own lives. We just also believe there is an additional prophetic/apostolic official line of priesthood, wherein revelation is received and may become binding doctrine.

I suppose from an LDS viewpoint, the priesthood of all believers can lead a person at least to a terrestrial glory in the heavens (which is a good thing, mind you, as they are the children of Christ), while the official priesthood/apostolic line can bring us into celestial glory.

[Traveler]

If I understand correctly, you really do not believe in a final judgment. Correct?

The word and term “final” is too definitive for me and conceptually I have a hard time thinking that this “final judgment” is the end of G-d’s input into our eternal existence; regardless of the outcome. In my efforts to make a point I may have gone overboard on our remorse and feelings of shame during this interview. Strange as this may sound the more righteous a person is - the more remorse and shame I believe they will experience but that a resolution of love, compassion and gratitude result.

Rather than an attitude of - Oh that sin? Repented of it, got it done - check. Next? Or Oh that sin? Yah that was bad, rats, I should have repented of it - sob, sob. Attitude -- I believe it will be more like. Oh that sin? To which G-d will respond “I have forgiven you”. And Jesus will respond, “I have suffered for you and paid all that is necessary for that; there is no reason to ever consider it again”. To which a person may respond, “Thank you - from now on I will take full responsibility for all my choices and deeds. I have a clear and full understanding of outcomes and consequences and I have complete knowledge what I am doing. Thank you again for allowing me to understand and chose.”

I reject the current tradition that is more what I believe is an outgrowth of pagan influences than revelation from scriptures - l do not believe the notion that man is met at golden gates by someone (G-d or St Peter) who says - Hmmmm. Let me see - Oh yes you are on the good list - you many enter heaven. Or, Hmmmm. Let me see - Oh you are on the bad list - you go to hell!

The Traveler

Edited May 5, 2011 by Traveler

[ferretrunner]

Adam and Eve were tempted by the Serpent. However, at first glance, he seemed to have little to offer. Our mother and father had eternal life, lived in a garden paradise, had meaningful labor, and communed daily with Heavenly Father. So...what could they possibly want?

"The knowledge of good and evil."

So, what strikes me is that at the end of the age, they will have gotten it--for all of us. We will know completely what evil brings. Thoughts?

I think Adam and Eve is more a teaching story than literal. What we gained: the ability to grow, being able to procreate, and free will.

[Traveler]

I think Adam and Eve is more a teaching story than literal. What we gained: the ability to grow, being able to procreate, and free will.

If someone else controls our destiny - that is not free will.

The Traveler