Question about free agency

[SteveVH]

I believe he forbade them to eat of the tree until they were ready to move on. God gives us commandments for future steps in our lives, to give us the bigger picture. He commanded us to be perfect. Matt. 5:48: “Be ye therefore perfect, even as your Father which is in heaven is perfect.” Do you think God was giving us a commandment that we cannot keep here? This is the same type of question you are asking about Adam and Eve.

In my earlier posts that you dismissed I tried to explain to you that, like a young adult ready to move on with his life, God wants Adam and Eve to move onto the next level of training and have this experience, after all it is His plan. But to do that, they have to choose it. And if they choose it, they will die, they will be separated from God and have mortal bodies. If, on the other hand, they choose to stay in the garden then He would forbid them to eat of the tree of death, the tree of knowledge of good and evil because if they chose that then they couldn't remain in his presence. That is a part of choosing that plan, not because it is a punishment but because in order to learn the things we have to learn, faith and responsibility we need that separation. Just like a young adult needs to do things on their own to learn responsibility. This life is also a test to prove how spiritually minded we are in this kind of setting which determine what school (Kingdom) we end up in the next life.

I think it is similar to telling a young adult child, 'you can live here as long as you want but while you are here and under my responsibility then you have to live with our rules ... I forbid you to be out past 10 O'clock, etc. Now if you want to stay out past 10 O'clock and have your own responsibilities and personal successes then you will have to move out to do that, to really get credit for the results of your choices, both successes and failures. While you are under my watch, you won't have failures but at the same time you won't have any personal responsibilities and therefore no personal successes."

If one wants to be a pilot that person will have to eventually take a chance and get in the plane and fly it. They wouldn't know how without doing it, they couldn't just read about it. And just handing a pilots license to a person that doesn't know how to fly does not make them a pilot. Likewise, to be perfect like our Heavenly Father is perfect we have to learn how to do it, we have to take part in this part of our training. Adam and Eve knew that probably better than we know it now as they walked and talked with God in the garden.

If I did not respond to one of your earlier posts it was not that I dismissed it, was because I just missed it. Sorry for that. I've had a lot of posts to answer and have done my best to address each of them.

I don't believe that God ever desired that we be seperated from him. Scripture tells us that his desire is that we become one with him. As I mentioned in the post above, I think it is time to put this to rest. Emotions are beginning to take over the conversation with some folks here which is a sign to me that it is time to let it go.

[james12]

The scriptures are very clear: "Of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it". This is a commandment, using essentially the same wording as was used with the ten commandments. Of course Adam and Eve could choose for themselves, as is the case with all of God's commandments. But look at God's follow-up to the declaration of free choice: "but remember that I forbid it".

Vort,

Is it really that clear? If the Lord said, "You will not kill, but you can choose for yourself" is it more obvious what I should do or less? Is the emotional impact the same? Of course in all commandments there is an implied option to choose, but the fact of the matter is in this case it was specifically stated. Why don't all commandments have stated qualifiers? Also, do you disagree with Joseph Fielding Smith in this instance?

[JudoMinja]

Emotions are beginning to take over the conversation with some folks here which is a sign to me that it is time to let it go.

I've had some time to sit and stew over this topic away from the computer, and I think the reason emotions are starting to get in the way is because we are at a point where our understandings are so contradictory that we are talking past one another. We, from the LDS background, are misunderstanding your position and making false inferences about your beliefs, and you, from the Catholic background, are misunderstanding our position and making false inferences about our beliefs. We are trying to communicate clearly with each other to clear up that misunderstanding, but there is such a divide in our backgrounds that we are failing to do so.

I think, though, that it is still possible to come to an understanding if we can clarify our differences and similarities. First, let me outline what I believe is your understanding- and you can feel free to correct it:

When God made Adam and Eve it was a "fresh" start- He made them body and spirit in that moment and they did not exist before the Garden. In the Garden, they were living a "perfect" life in the presence of God, and if they had not disobeyed his command to not eat the fruit could have remained in His presence indefinitely. We could all have been born into a "Garden" state and enjoyed perfection in the presence of God. We were capable of choosing righteousness and perfection without a Savior. Though we were capable of this option, the "Original Sin" of Adam and Eve negated this possibility and made a Savior necessary. While God did not want us to sin and leave His presence, He knew that we would and had already planned the intercession of a Savior for our benefit. This intercession makes it possible for us to return to God's presence and enjoy the state of perfection we had in the Garden of Eden and could have continued to enjoy without needing said intercession if the Fall had never taken place.

Here is our understanding, and in the basic outline there are some very obvious differences that are causing us to talk past one another:

We were all in the presence of God in spirit before the creation. However, we were incomplete and therefore imperfect. To be able to become perfect, we needed to gain bodies (like God). We would also have to learn to master our bodies, and the process of this mastery would be so difficult that we would not be able to do so without making mistakes or sins. While God did not want us to sin, He knew that to obtain perfection we would have to go through this probationary state of mortality and make our own choices. We would have to experience opposition, to come to know both good and evil under unbiased circumstances- or in a temporary time away from God. When God made Adam and Eve, He made their bodies and placed their already existing spirits (which chose to go through the mortal state) in those bodies. The Garden was the first test of their ability to use their agency and choose good or evil- however, they did not understand good and evil as their was no opposition. Only once tempted by Satan and they were presented with two options was their any real opposition. God knew that their lack of understanding would cause them to be fooled and choose to disobey him, but because they did not understand it, it was not a "sin". It was a transgression (like a child touching a hot stove). Even so, they had to experience the consequence of their decision, which was to Fall from the presence of God. Even if they had chosen not to partake of the fruit, they would have eventually Fallen through some other decision they did not fully comprehend. It was God's plan (and our plan since we sat in counsel with God and agreed to it) from the beginning for man to Fall as this experience was necessary for us to grow into perfection. While God does not want us to sin, He does want us to be perfect. While we were in His presence in the pre-existence, we were not perfect, and this Plan provided an opportunity for us to obtain both- to return to His presence and to gain perfection.

Ok, sorry for the longwinded paragraph, but now I want to pull from these two explanations to highlight the differences:

1. Perfection vs. Imperfection in the Beginning. In your explanation we were "perfect" before the Fall. In our explanation we were not.

2. What if? In your explanation if Adam and Eve had chosen not to partake of the fruit, they would not have needed a Savior, as they would have chosen correctly and continued to be perfect. In our explanation if Adam and Eve had chosen not to partake of the fruit, they would still have needed a Savior, as they still would have been unable to be completely obedient and would still have been imperfect.

3. Knowledge- In your explanation, Adam and Eve would have obtained the "knowledge of good and evil" without eating the fruit. In our explanation, the fruit was the only way to obtain the knowledge of good and evil.

4. The Fall- In your explanation, the Fall did not have to happen. In our explanation, it did.

Those are the biggest, most obvious, and most important differences that I can find between our explanations. Note that in both explanations, the desires of God are the same. 1. God does not want us to sin. 2. God wants us to be perfect. In your explanation, both of these desires could have been met had Adam and Eve chosen righteously and continued to live in the Garden of Eden. In our explanation, the only way we could have gained perfection was by progressing into it. This meant that we would inevitably sin, even though God would prefer it if we did not sin at all.

This leads to our conflict- being cast out of God's presence. You believe he wanted us to always remain in His presence and that we potentially could have. We believe that he wanted us to temporarily leave His presence so that we could return to Him better than we were before.

Now, it is possible I have miscontrued something of your beliefs though I have tried my best not to. Again, feel free to correct anything. At this point, I want to point out the problem I have with the Catholic explanation:

If God did not want us to leave his presence at all, but knew that we would sin (which He did not want) and would have to be cast out of His presence through the Fall, why bother creating us at all? The typical responses I get for this are that it was for his glory and/or to express his love.... but how does creating a being that will make imperfect decisions glorify a perfect being, and how does creating someone he knows he will have to punish express love? If he wanted us to remain in his presence always, why not create us so that this would be so? If the only thing we gain through the grace of the Savior is the ability to return to a state of perfection we already had before the Fall, what is the point? There is no growth, no learning, no progression. We do not gain anything we didn't have before. And the necessity of a Savior is negated. By your definition there was a possibility that we could have lived without a need for a Savior.

Per the LDS explanation, it is possible to come to understand God's Plan through the observation of families and parenting. The "likenesses" and "similitudes" in our everyday lives are countless. "The Family" is God's Plan, and God's Family is the perfect family. The pattern that He uses in raising His "family" is the pattern we should seek to follow in raising our own. His Way is perfect, and if we strive to follow His Way in parenting, we will get as close to the perfect family as we can acheive in this life.

In striving to perfect our own parenting, we can see that allowing our children to make mistakes and learn from the consequences while both those mistakes and the consequences will be small is an important part of teaching responsibility, so that our children will learn to make better choices in adulthood. While we do not necessarily want our children to make mistakes and get hurt by the consequences, we understand that this is an important part of learning- and if we strive to perfect our understanding of parenting we will see that small hurts now are far better than big hurts later. This is how God works. In this life, we are all His children, and our experiences in this life include small mistakes and consequences compared to what will be expected of us in "adulthood" or "heaven". We are given a small responsibility over our bodies, with agency to make decisions in mortality on this earth, as a preparation for the responsibilities that can be entrusted to us should we prove ourselves capable and worthy.

Whoo. Sorry that was so long. Hope it clears things up.

[Seminarysnoozer]

I don't believe that God ever desired that we be seperated from him.

If He didn't want it, He wouldn't allow for it. Don't confuse the ends with the means. If you believe in an all powerful God, which I am assuming you do, what possible reason then do you have to explain why this all powerful God even gave them the option for such a thing, to be separated from Him? In your opinion, why would He put that tree in the Garden in the first place?

By the way, spiritual matters are emotional by nature, this isn't a secular discussion of the material to most of us. Don't be afraid of your emotions getting in the way of your judgment as far as this goes, it might enhance one's judgement.

[Seminarysnoozer]

3. Knowledge- In your explanation, Adam and Eve would have obtained the "knowledge of good and evil" without eating the fruit. In our explanation, the fruit was the only way to obtain the knowledge of good and evil.

Good points! And the thing that he is not understanding is that fruit = separation. The knowledge of good and evil cannot take place without separation from God. That is just a fact that he is not appreciating or understanding. God cannot produce evil only allow for it by way of the consequence of choice when that individual takes responsibility for their own choice. The responsible choice to be introduced to evil results in separation from God, one cannot have both, knowledge of evil and stay with God until one has been sanctified through a Savior, a redeemer to return to God, to redeem one's previous status.

[Traveler]

What "excuses" have I made?

That G-d is kind, just, compassionate and merciful despite that every human child is born into hurtful, harmful and spiritually damaged conditions they did not choose.

How is it unexplainable? Adam and Eve's disobedience affetced all of creation, including mankind. The scriptural quotes I provided, as well as our own experience provide more than ample evidence of this. Do you deny this?

And you insist that it is just and right? That you should treat the children of others that you personally object to in the same condemning manner regardless of what they (the children) say, try, believe or do?

Please show me the gross inconsistenty and contradition in my statements. Through the disobedience of Adam and Eve, sin and death entered the world. That is just a fact. God did not desire this, as seems to the Mormon view. Nor did He come to condemn us, but rather to save us. After the first sin was commited, I see no indication that God said "well done my children, you have chosen correctly". Just the opposite. He said "Cursed be the ground because of you." Does that sound like God thought they did the right thing?

The concept of agency means we have a choice. It means that conditions and circumstances (initial parameters) are not forced upon us but that we choose each and every one of them. If we really have choice why must we be saved? How is the condition and circumstance of needing to be saved not forced upon the children of Adam and Eve and as children having not made any choice according to Traditional Christian Doctrine. It is a gross contradiction to say we have agency but are “FORDED” to be born into a fallen state - when we know from scripture that G-d can create mankind in a non-fallen state. I understand the fall - what I do not understand is that you believe G-d to be just, compassionate all knowing, wise and merciful - yet he cannot create conditions where we can choose and not have a fallen state forced upon us by the actions of someone else we personally have never even met.

You have created your own scenario here and have put words in my mouth that have never been uttered by me so that you have an argument. Please show me where I have answered in the manner you have described?

Your post #141:

Well, I'm not sure what I missed. I think it is critical that we not try to understand God's plan from a human perspective. It is quite necessary for humans to have a backup plan because we have no way of determining what the future holds and what might hinder our original plan. God, on the other hand, incorporates all of history, past, present and future into his perfect plan and has no need to change anything. Every decision we will make, every possibility, is incorporated into God's plan and we will never fully understand it until we are united with him in heaven. Because he knows what we will do does not mean he approves of it and certainly does not mean that he caused it. Out of his great love for us he saves us from ourselves. And you are correct, he can transform evil into good; witness the killing of his Son, the worst crime in human history, which was transformed into the greatest good that has ever been known. His plan will prevail, regardless of the unfaithfulness of his children.

please see bolded underlined statement.

Now you have completely lost me, probably because your statment is based upon a false premise.

I will not even comment on this diatribe. The fact that you must build a straw man in order to having something to tear down tells me all I need to know. You continue to misrepresent what I believe. It is obvious that you harbor a great deal of animosity toward either me or my faith or both and cannot deal with the evidence on its own merits. I don't really care whether or not you agree with me. But if you disagree, then disagree with what I really believe and stop misrepresenting my beliefs. Thank you.

Your welcome.

The Traveler

[Traveler]

I have no idea if you are correct because I dont understand your question: "So according to Genesis, G-d commanded (forbid) the man Adam to pursue any knowledge of good?" Maybe you could rephrase it.

Do you not believe that God forbid them to eat of the Tree?

Knowledge of both good and evil could only come from partaking of the fruit of the tree of knowledge of good and evil. It does appear that G-d did indeed forbid the pursuit of knowledge of good as well as evil? Perusing evil is very understandable but why forbid the understanding and learning of anything good?

I believe that what has been preserved in scripture (Genesis) is missing some very critical and important information - either by unintended error or deliberate exclusion.

Otherwise we are left to wonder if and why G-d changes his commands (or that which he forbids). Do you believe that mankind is still forbidden by G-d to pursue understanding things that are good and how that differs from things that are evil? The fall out ripples through so many things - like why are we having a religious discussion?

The Traveler

[SteveVH]

I've had some time to sit and stew over this topic away from the computer, and I think the reason emotions are starting to get in the way is because we are at a point where our understandings are so contradictory that we are talking past one another. We, from the LDS background, are misunderstanding your position and making false inferences about your beliefs, and you, from the Catholic background, are misunderstanding our position and making false inferences about our beliefs. We are trying to communicate clearly with each other to clear up that misunderstanding, but there is such a divide in our backgrounds that we are failing to do so.

I would agree completely.

I think, though, that it is still possible to come to an understanding if we can clarify our differences and similarities. First, let me outline what I believe is your understanding- and you can feel free to correct it:

When God made Adam and Eve it was a "fresh" start- He made them body and spirit in that moment and they did not exist before the Garden. In the Garden, they were living a "perfect" life in the presence of God, and if they had not disobeyed his command to not eat the fruit could have remained in His presence indefinitely. We could all have been born into a "Garden" state and enjoyed perfection in the presence of God. We were capable of choosing righteousness and perfection without a Savior. Though we were capable of this option, the "Original Sin" of Adam and Eve negated this possibility and made a Savior necessary. While God did not want us to sin and leave His presence, He knew that we would and had already planned the intercession of a Savior for our benefit. This intercession makes it possible for us to return to God's presence and enjoy the state of perfection we had in the Garden of Eden and could have continued to enjoy without needing said intercession if the Fall had never taken place.

I think you have stated my position correctly. We believe that all of creation, including us and the angels, was created by an all-powerful God, from nothing, which negates a pre-mortal existence from the outset. We were created to love and be in relationship with our Creator. In order to love, we were created with free will, which resulted in disobedience. A savior is not necessary if one has nothing from which to be saved. God, being not only omnipotent, but also omniscient, knew from the beginning that he would have to send his Son to save us. This does not translate into his approval of our first parents choice. The fall was not necessary in order for us to share in God's life. However, since we did fall, we require a Savior in order to restore our relationship with God.

Here is our understanding, and in the basic outline there are some very obvious differences that are causing us to talk past one another:

We were all in the presence of God in spirit before the creation. However, we were incomplete and therefore imperfect. To be able to become perfect, we needed to gain bodies (like God). We would also have to learn to master our bodies, and the process of this mastery would be so difficult that we would not be able to do so without making mistakes or sins. While God did not want us to sin, He knew that to obtain perfection we would have to go through this probationary state of mortality and make our own choices. We would have to experience opposition, to come to know both good and evil under unbiased circumstances- or in a temporary time away from God. When God made Adam and Eve, He made their bodies and placed their already existing spirits (which chose to go through the mortal state) in those bodies. The Garden was the first test of their ability to use their agency and choose good or evil- however, they did not understand good and evil as their was no opposition. Only once tempted by Satan and they were presented with two options was their any real opposition. God knew that their lack of understanding would cause them to be fooled and choose to disobey him, but because they did not understand it, it was not a "sin". It was a transgression (like a child touching a hot stove). Even so, they had to experience the consequence of their decision, which was to Fall from the presence of God. Even if they had chosen not to partake of the fruit, they would have eventually Fallen through some other decision they did not fully comprehend. It was God's plan (and our plan since we sat in counsel with God and agreed to it) from the beginning for man to Fall as this experience was necessary for us to grow into perfection. While God does not want us to sin, He does want us to be perfect. While we were in His presence in the pre-existence, we were not perfect, and this Plan provided an opportunity for us to obtain both- to return to His presence and to gain perfection.

Yes, this is the understanding I have come to concerning your beliefs.

Ok, sorry for the longwinded paragraph, but now I want to pull from these two explanations to highlight the differences:

1. Perfection vs. Imperfection in the Beginning. In your explanation we were "perfect" before the Fall. In our explanation we were not.

Yes, we believe that God made us perfectly. When God created man he saw that it was "very good". But he did not create us as perfect robots. Free will is necessary in order for us to fulfill God's ultimate purpose which is to love and be in relationship with him. Inherent in the gift of free agency is possibility of making the wrong choice.

2. What if? In your explanation if Adam and Eve had chosen not to partake of the fruit, they would not have needed a Savior, as they would have chosen correctly and continued to be perfect. In our explanation if Adam and Eve had chosen not to partake of the fruit, they would still have needed a Savior, as they still would have been unable to be completely obedient and would still have been imperfect.

Ok. But why would God have created us to be less than whole in the first place? This now takes us into a slightly different area, that being (if I am correct) that you believe our essence, as an incomplete, uncreated "intelligence", co-existed from eternity with God, therefore it was up to God to bring us to perfection. We would completely disagree with that notion for the reason that something doesn't come from nothing. It goes to the concept of the uncaused Cause. Neither matter nor spirit, apart from the eternal God, had the power to bring itself into existence. From whence did it come? Therefore all of creation was brought forth by the perfect Word of God and his creation was therefore perfect, in the beginning. We believe that God; Father, Son and Holy Spirit, is the only being and only thing that exists from eternity. All else was created by him, through him and for him.

3. Knowledge- In your explanation, Adam and Eve would have obtained the "knowledge of good and evil" without eating the fruit. In our explanation, the fruit was the only way to obtain the knowledge of good and evil.

4. The Fall- In your explanation, the Fall did not have to happen. In our explanation, it did.

Yes, I think that is accurate.

Those are the biggest, most obvious, and most important differences that I can find between our explanations. Note that in both explanations, the desires of God are the same. 1. God does not want us to sin. 2. God wants us to be perfect. In your explanation, both of these desires could have been met had Adam and Eve chosen righteously and continued to live in the Garden of Eden. In our explanation, the only way we could have gained perfection was by progressing into it. This meant that we would inevitably sin, even though God would prefer it if we did not sin at all.

If you say that God would prefer it if we did not sin at all, then how do you reconcile that thought with the fact that the in Mormon view, God's plan required us to disobey him in order to come to perfection. In the Catholic view, sin was not necessary to bring us to perfection. In the Mormon view it is the very consequence of sin (the struggle between good and evil) that brings us to perfection, i.e., no sin, no perfection. If I have made a wrong assumption here I am open to correction.

This leads to our conflict- being cast out of God's presence. You believe he wanted us to always remain in His presence and that we potentially could have. We believe that he wanted us to temporarily leave His presence so that we could return to Him better than we were before.

Again, this comes back to the difference we have as to our origin. You believe that we orignially were less than whole (I'm still not sure about the Mormon postion on how we came to be in this pre-mortal existence). We believe that a perfect God creates perfectly and that our origin is in this perfect God.

Now, it is possible I have miscontrued something of your beliefs though I have tried my best not to. Again, feel free to correct anything. At this point, I want to point out the problem I have with the Catholic explanation:

If God did not want us to leave his presence at all, but knew that we would sin (which He did not want) and would have to be cast out of His presence through the Fall, why bother creating us at all? The typical responses I get for this are that it was for his glory and/or to express his love.... but how does creating a being that will make imperfect decisions glorify a perfect being, and how does creating someone he knows he will have to punish express love? If he wanted us to remain in his presence always, why not create us so that this would be so?

Because free will is necessary in order to love. God could very well have created beings without the ability to disobey, but then they also would not have had the ability to love and would have been nothing but robots without free will. One of the attributes of being made in the image and likeness of God is our ability to love, since God, himself, is Love.

If the only thing we gain through the grace of the Savior is the ability to return to a state of perfection we already had before the Fall, what is the point? There is no growth, no learning, no progression. We do not gain anything we didn't have before. And the necessity of a Savior is negated. By your definition there was a possibility that we could have lived without a need for a Savior.

When one has everything, to where would one progress? You only have to progress is you are less than whole to begin with. If our ultimate goal is to live in the presence of God and share in his divine life, one only needs to progress if they are not yet there. Adam and Eve were there already. As I have said before, a Savior is only necesary if one is in need of salvation. They were not in need of salvation until they disobeyed God.

Per the LDS explanation, it is possible to come to understand God's Plan through the observation of families and parenting. The "likenesses" and "similitudes" in our everyday lives are countless. "The Family" is God's Plan, and God's Family is the perfect family. The pattern that He uses in raising His "family" is the pattern we should seek to follow in raising our own. His Way is perfect, and if we strive to follow His Way in parenting, we will get as close to the perfect family as we can acheive in this life.

I agree completely. In fact we hold that the family is the greatest sign of being made in the image and likeness of God because we believe that God, in his very essence, is a family; Father, Son and Holy Spirit. To be "like" God we were created to come together in mutual, self giving love, to become one flesh, just as God, in three Persons, is one in being.

In striving to perfect our own parenting, we can see that allowing our children to make mistakes and learn from the consequences while both those mistakes and the consequences will be small is an important part of teaching responsibility, so that our children will learn to make better choices in adulthood. While we do not necessarily want our children to make mistakes and get hurt by the consequences, we understand that this is an important part of learning- and if we strive to perfect our understanding of parenting we will see that small hurts now are far better than big hurts later. This is how God works. In this life, we are all His children, and our experiences in this life include small mistakes and consequences compared to what will be expected of us in "adulthood" or "heaven". We are given a small responsibility over our bodies, with agency to make decisions in mortality on this earth, as a preparation for the responsibilities that can be entrusted to us should we prove ourselves capable and worthy.

We find ourselves in an imperfect world (due to original sin) and then project that imperfection as the standard. We don't know what it was like to live in perfection. We have no choice but to learn from our mistakes, but that does not mean that this is the only way to attain perfect knowledge. I believe that in heaven we will continue, for eternity, to grow in love and knowledge without making any mistakes.

Whoo. Sorry that was so long. Hope it clears things up.

No problem I really appreciate the thought, the time and the effort you put into this. Thank you so much.

Edited October 6, 2011 by StephenVH

[SteveVH]

Knowledge of both good and evil could only come from partaking of the fruit of the tree of knowledge of good and evil. It does appear that G-d did indeed forbid the pursuit of knowledge of good as well as evil? Perusing evil is very understandable but why forbid the understanding and learning of anything good?

Well I don't agree with that interpretation for the simple reason that it is an objective truth that Adam and Eve did know goodness prior to the fall because they lived and walked with Goodness itself; the Almighty God. If I live in a climate controlled dwelling I will know what warmth is, but I won't experience cold unless I walk outside in the winter. Can I be warm without experiencing coldness? Yes. Will I know the difference between warmth and cold if I do not walk outside? No. The point is that goodness can exist without evil. If this is not true then God could not exist. I think what is probably the most important thing for both of us to consider is what did the author(s) of Genesis mean by the phrase. I am not sure that we can even assume that there was a literal tree from which they ate. We are dealing with a genre of writing that is poetic and filled with Hebrew idioms that we do not understand without being informed. We certainly cannot use the literal sense of the words as our only measure of determining the meaning of the creation account found in Genesis.

[

I believe that what has been preserved in scripture (Genesis) is missing some very critical and important information - either by unintended error or deliberate exclusion.

Otherwise we are left to wonder if and why G-d changes his commands (or that which he forbids). Do you believe that mankind is still forbidden by G-d to pursue understanding things that are good and how that differs from things that are evil? The fall out ripples through so many things - like why are we having a religious discussion?

I don't believe that God does change his commands. Where do you find that he changed his commands? We are required by God to pursue goodness because we are required to pursue God. We are forbidden to pursue evil because were are forbidden to pursue "the evil one". The fact that we fail at this, due to our fallen nature, requires a Savior. We are constantly in a spiritual battle. Satan wants our souls. God wants our souls. The good new is that we know how the story ends. Christ has defeated death and sin and if we are one with him, so do we.

Edited October 6, 2011 by StephenVH

[SteveVH]

That G-d is kind, just, compassionate and merciful despite that every human child is born into hurtful, harmful and spiritually damaged conditions they did not choose.

Do you deny the reality that children are born into hurtful, harmful and spiritually damaged conditions, to varying degrees. There are innocent children every day who suffer abuse, starvation, disease, corruption. Is this not an objective fact? This is the same argument made by those who would deny God (and I am certainly not implying that you deny God). If God is all loving and merciful and powerful how can he permit innocent people to suffer? I think your answer (correct me if I'm wrong) would be that we chose, in our pre-mortal existence, to suffer. My answer would be that God did not cause suffering or any other symptom of evil. That came from the enemy (Satan) and our own sinfulness. It is God that rescues us and saves us from this condition.

The concept of agency means we have a choice. It means that conditions and circumstances (initial parameters) are not forced upon us but that we choose each and every one of them.

Do starving children choose to starve? Do abused children choose to be abused?

If we really have choice why must we be saved?

Because we make the wrong choices.

How is the condition and circumstance of needing to be saved not forced upon the children of Adam and Eve and as children having not made any choice according to Traditional Christian Doctrine.

If we have chosen each and every aspect of our own circumstance in some pre-mortal existence; if a person has chosen to suffer, then why did Christ heal the sick and give sight to the blind? Did he not interfere in their choice to suffer? Do we not have a moral obligation as Christians to follow Christ's example and relieve suffering when we find it? If we relieve suffering are we interfering in the free will of the one who chose that suffering?

It is a gross contradiction to say we have agency but are “FORDED” to be born into a fallen state - when we know from scripture that G-d can create mankind in a non-fallen state. I understand the fall - what I do not understand is that you believe G-d to be just, compassionate all knowing, wise and merciful - yet he cannot create conditions where we can choose and not have a fallen state forced upon us by the actions of someone else we personally have never even met.

Not only can God create mankind in a non-fallen state, he did create man in a non-fallen state, but with free will. No one forces us to sin. If we were forced to sin it would not be sin. It was us, not God, that chose to sin. Even though our fallen nature makes us tend toward sin, we are never forced to sin. This is the entire reason that we need a Savior. If we could be perfect on our own why would we need a Savior? If our lives were not affected by our fallen nature then we could attain perfection on our own. The love, mercy and compassion of God is demonstrated in Romans 5:8, "But God demonstrates his own love for us in this: While we were still sinners, Christ died for us." He did not prevent us from sinning for he would then have to interfere in our free will, rather he came to save us from our sins. How is that not loving, merciful and compassionate?

As to my statement that "we will never fully understand it until we are united with him in heaven", which you believe is somehow a cop-out, it is just another way of saying "For now we see in a mirror dimly, but then face to face; now I know in part, but then I will know fully just as I also have been fully known." (1 Cor 13:12) Do you deny that this will be the case?

Edited October 6, 2011 by StephenVH

[JudoMinja]

Alright- I am going to start with what I understand of what you believe, as this method seems to be working nicely in overcoming our communication barrier:

In order to love, we were created with free will, which resulted in disobedience. A savior is not necessary if one has nothing from which to be saved. God, being not only omnipotent, but also omniscient, knew from the beginning that he would have to send his Son to save us. This does not translate into his approval of our first parents choice. The fall was not necessary in order for us to share in God's life. However, since we did fall, we require a Savior in order to restore our relationship with God.

Yes, we believe that God made us perfectly. When God created man he saw that it was "very good". But he did not create us as perfect robots. Free will is necessary in order for us to fulfill God's ultimate purpose which is to love and be in relationship with him. Inherent in the gift of free agency is possibility of making the wrong choice.

So the capacity to love is necessary for us to be perfect and "free will" or agency is necessary for us to have the capacity to love. I agree with you there. However, I still don't buy that Adam and Eve were perfect in the Garden. A perfect being would not choose sin. Nevermind what they could choose. If they were already perfect, they would have chosen righteousness. It would not have been possible for Satan to beguile or fool a perfect being. For that to happen, Adam and Eve had to somehow be imperfect. Even in the presence of God, they were not perfect. They had not yet chosen wickedly, and so could be in His presence, but there was something missing- something they needed and did not have.

The fruit of the tree of knowledge of good and evil provided opposition- It provided the opportunity to make a choice, but held within it the power to understand that very opposition. Without such understanding, Adam and Eve were like little children who did not understand why their Father said "don't touch the stove". You have a problem with our explanation, in which it was not possible for Adam and Eve to choose correctly- but then why was it okay for an incorrect choice to even be available? Why would God allow evil to be present to even tempt them? Because- as we have stated- their had to be opposition. As you have stated- to love God had to be a choice and not forced upon them. But wouldn't an "already" perfect being, by nature of it's very perfection choose love over sin?

I cannot believe that Adam and Eve were already perfect. And I cannot believe that there was nothing to be gained from the Fall. Perfection has to be something that is gradually learned. It has to be something we can grow into, something we can become. Again, I bring up that God has commanded us to "Be ye therefore perfect". If a single wrong choice, a single mistake makes perfection impossible, why would He command us to be perfect? Why would He make us without sufficient understanding to choose perfection over sin? Because, perfection is gradually obtained over time- with learning, growth, understanding, and HELP (the atonement) from one who understands and is capable of more than we are.

Ok. But why would God have created us to be less than whole in the first place? This now takes us into a slightly different area, that being (if I am correct) that you believe our essence, as an incomplete, uncreated "intelligence", co-existed from eternity with God, therefore it was up to God to bring us to perfection. We would completely disagree with that notion for the reason that something doesn't come from nothing. It goes to the concept of the uncaused Cause. Neither matter nor spirit, apart from the eternal God, had the power to bring itself into existence. From whence did it come? Therefore all of creation was brought forth by the perfect Word of God and his creation was therefore perfect, in the beginning. We believe that God; Father, Son and Holy Spirit, is the only being and only thing that exists from eternity. All else was created by him, through him and for him.

On a quick side-note, what is this that I've bolded in your statement? I've never heard of the "uncaused Cause" before...

I don't think that believing intelligence was already with God is the same as believing we "brought ourselves into existence". We simply believe that intelligence is not something "creatable". It is something that is, was, has been, forever and ever. I believe this makes sense when we consider that God knows and understands all and that all intelligence is a "part" of God. When you teach someone something that you know so that they understand it, that intelligence becomes a "part" of them as well. It continuously expands. It does not take away from God to share His intelligence- it only increases it. In our Doctrine and Covenants, it explains that God "formed" intelligence, and I think that means that He expanded Himself and His understanding by sharing it with the creation of our spirits. I believe that He literally "Fathered" our spirits- giving the already present "intelligence" shape and form.

This formation was, however, incomplete. I believe that our creation is a very gradual process, one we are still going through. Part of that process included being given a body that we would have to learn to master so that we could grow into perfection. Only when the creation process is complete will we be perfect.

I'll have to get to the rest of your post later, as I have to go now.

[Justice]

Stephen, how much time have you spent looking around at LDS FAIR Apologetics Homepage ?

Use the search field and enter topics you're curious about. There's some very good reading, and all sources are given.

However, I still believe one will not find faith on such a sight, but maybe you will see enough evidence to understand LDS views are indeed but an interpretation of the Bible's words, even if you always disagree.

[SteveVH]

Stephen, how much time have you spent looking around at LDS FAIR Apologetics Homepage ?

Use the search field and enter topics you're curious about. There's some very good reading, and all sources are given.

However, I still believe one will not find faith on such a sight, but maybe you will see enough evidence to understand LDS views are indeed but an interpretation of the Bible's words, even if you always disagree.

I've never been to the sight, so thank you for the link. I'll check it out.

[JudoMinja]

If you say that God would prefer it if we did not sin at all, then how do you reconcile that thought with the fact that the in Mormon view, God's plan required us to disobey him in order to come to perfection. In the Catholic view, sin was not necessary to bring us to perfection. In the Mormon view it is the very consequence of sin (the struggle between good and evil) that brings us to perfection, i.e., no sin, no perfection. If I have made a wrong assumption here I am open to correction.

I think you've stated this accurately. The struggle between good and evil is the "opposition" that is so very necessary for progression. Think of it this way: when you want to make an accurate decision about something you need to examine both sides of the issue and strive to form an unbiased opinion. If everything you study to come to your decision is through a one-sided filter, your decision will be skewed. Remaining in God's presence would make it impossible for us to make an accurate unbiased decision. While His "filter" is a righteous one, it is still a filter. We needed a setting where we could be exposed to both good and evil equally- in perfect opposition- if we were to truly be able to fairly exercise our agency, and since God cannot tolerate evil in His presence, this would not be possible if we remained in His presence.

The opportunity to never sin is still there. Afterall, Chirst walked this same mortal coil and was exposed to the same evil and temptations that we were, and He was able to live a perfect life without sinning. None of us, however, despite our opportunity to choose perfection and never sin, will make that choice, because our limited understanding makes us easily deceived. Christ's understanding was not limited. Ours is. This life was designed so that we could gain a perfect understanding of good and evil, so that we could be perfected and no longer able to be deceived.

Again, this comes back to the difference we have as to our origin. You believe that we orignially were less than whole (I'm still not sure about the Mormon postion on how we came to be in this pre-mortal existence). We believe that a perfect God creates perfectly and that our origin is in this perfect God.

We also believe that God creates perfectly, but that such perfect creation takes time and development. Like a seed that needs time and nourishment to become a tree, we need time and nourishment to grow into perfection.

Creation happensslowly. So slowly by the measurement of time on earth that it seems to take forever. The earth was formed over millions of years taking incalcualable time to even be ready for life. That life started as nothing more than microscopic organisms and had to be slowly tweaked and changed and diversified through the process of evolution before the world was even ready for human beings. We believe that even the earth is going through a process of perfection and will receive its own "paradisical glory" in the end.

There are several parables in the Bible that involve "pruning" and "shaping". He has said that the "wheat" and the "tares" need to grow together only to be separated at the end- the wheat going to harvest and the tares being burned. I believe that these parables are emblematic of the slow process of developing a perfect creation. Yet with God's eternal understanding, this slow process is like the blink of an eye. Our time here on earth is so short, in comparison to eternity, that we cannot even begin to comprehend God's time.

Because free will is necessary in order to love. God could very well have created beings without the ability to disobey, but then they also would not have had the ability to love and would have been nothing but robots without free will. One of the attributes of being made in the image and likeness of God is our ability to love, since God, himself, is Love.

Agreed.

When one has everything, to where would one progress? You only have to progress is you are less than whole to begin with. If our ultimate goal is to live in the presence of God and share in his divine life, one only needs to progress if they are not yet there. Adam and Eve were there already. As I have said before, a Savior is only necesary if one is in need of salvation. They were not in need of salvation until they disobeyed God.

But we did not have everything. We were in the presence of God yes, which is glorious and wonderful and beyond compare. But there was more to be had than just His presence. We could be granted with an inheritance all that He has. Would He give a reward like that to someone who could be fooled into wasting it or using it improperly? No. We had to learn how to be responsible with such a wonderful inheritance.

I agree completely. In fact we hold that the family is the greatest sign of being made in the image and likeness of God because we believe that God, in his very essence, is a family; Father, Son and Holy Spirit. To be "like" God we were created to come together in mutual, self giving love, to become one flesh, just as God, in three Persons, is one in being.

We find ourselves in an imperfect world (due to original sin) and then project that imperfection as the standard. We don't know what it was like to live in perfection. We have no choice but to learn from our mistakes, but that does not mean that this is the only way to attain perfect knowledge. I believe that in heaven we will continue, for eternity, to grow in love and knowledge without making any mistakes.

We also believe that we will continue to grow in love and knowledge throughout eternity, but believe that this growth is only possible because we initially went through this probrationary state to pick up some very necessary lessons we could not have gained without mortality.

So, though we have come to understand more about each others views, I haven't been able to identify any other essential differences other than what was already identified. Perhaps, we need to now clarify our "sticking" points with each others definitions so that we can try to narrow things down and avoid repeating points we've already covered:

It sounds like your major sticking point is still that the Fall "had" to happen and could not be avoided, yes? Have you at least come to understand how this could be seen as the case, even if you don't agree?

I have two major sticking points- 1. That a "perfect" being would choose to disobey, and 2. That we already had everything in the Garden of Eden and are seeking to simply return to that exact same state- essentially that this life has no real "purpose"- there is nothing more to be gained from it.

[SteveVH]

Alright- I am going to start with what I understand of what you believe, as this method seems to be working nicely in overcoming our communication barrier:

I agree that this has been very productive in my understanding of some of your fundamental ideas and has shed a lot of light on subsequent thought and doctrine which originates from these fundamental positions. Without this understanding it is very difficult to grasp many of your doctrines. This conversation alone has been worth my time on this forum.

So the capacity to love is necessary for us to be perfect and "free will" or agency is necessary for us to have the capacity to love. I agree with you there. However, I still don't buy that Adam and Eve were perfect in the Garden. A perfect being would not choose sin. Nevermind what they could choose. If they were already perfect, they would have chosen righteousness. It would not have been possible for Satan to beguile or fool a perfect being. For that to happen, Adam and Eve had to somehow be imperfect. Even in the presence of God, they were not perfect. They had not yet chosen wickedly, and so could be in His presence, but there was something missing- something they needed and did not have.

Do we, with our finite human minds, really understand perfection? Please stick with me here. If a man were to make a tree, and do his best to make a perfect tree, we can almost bet that the trunk would be perfectly vertical, every branch would be perfectly symetrical with an equal number of leaves or needles. A forest of these "perfect" trees (in the human sense of the word), would be so boring that we would not even want to go there after our first viewing. God's idea of perfection, in this instance, is variety. Every tree is a perfect tree regardless of form. A Spruce tree is made with a very shallow root system. Does that fact that they regulary fall over in high winds due to their shallow root system mean that they are not perfect Spruce trees? Is it possible that a perfect man, created with free agency, could choose to disobey God? Your position seems to be that he could not. If it were not possible, then, of course, can we say that we really have free will? And is it possible that in making that choice that we also make ourselves less than perfect? I think we both believe that God's plan is perfect, yet that plan contains within it all of our imperfections. This is a very interesting question that could be pondered until the end of time and I will not pretend to have the perfect answer. What I do know is that we have never experienced perfection because we find ourselves in an imperfect world.

The fruit of the tree of knowledge of good and evil provided opposition- It provided the opportunity to make a choice, but held within it the power to understand that very opposition. Without such understanding, Adam and Eve were like little children who did not understand why their Father said "don't touch the stove". You have a problem with our explanation, in which it was not possible for Adam and Eve to choose correctly- but then why was it okay for an incorrect choice to even be available? Why would God allow evil to be present to even tempt them? Because- as we have stated- their had to be opposition. As you have stated- to love God had to be a choice and not forced upon them. But wouldn't an "already" perfect being, by nature of it's very perfection choose love over sin?

A perfect "free will" would have to contain the possibility of making the wrong choice or it is not free will at all. There is no doubt that this is a mind bender. I believe that man could have chosen to remain in a perfect state, just as Lucifer could have remained a perfect angel. Free will and choice are the wild cards and if used to oppose God we immediately fall into imperfection, or worse; perfect evil in the case of Satan.

I cannot believe that Adam and Eve were already perfect. And I cannot believe that there was nothing to be gained from the Fall. Perfection has to be something that is gradually learned. It has to be something we can grow into, something we can become. Again, I bring up that God has commanded us to "Be ye therefore perfect". If a single wrong choice, a single mistake makes perfection impossible, why would He command us to be perfect? Why would He make us without sufficient understanding to choose perfection over sin? Because, perfection is gradually obtained over time- with learning, growth, understanding, and HELP (the atonement) from one who understands and is capable of more than we are.

There is a prayer that we repeat every Easter vigil, called "The Exsultet", which was written for the Church in the 4th or 5th century. One of the verses reads as follows "O happy fault, O necessary sin of Adam, which gained for us so great a Redeemer!" I would imagine that no Mormon would disagree with this verse. It is in praise of Jesus Christ and the incredible ability of God to transform the greatest evil ever known to man (the killing of the Son of God) into the greatest blessing know to man (our redemption and salvation). Without sin, Christ would never have come because there would have been no need for him to save us. He chose to use this most terrible of sins to show forth his unending love and mercy. Does this make sin a good thing? As Paul says in Romans 6 "What then shall we say? Shall we persist in sin that grace may abound? Of course not!" You ask why Jesus commanded us to be perfect while knowing that we cannot and if a single mistake makes perfection impossible? I really have no answer other than nothing is impossible with God, as he has demonstrated by redeeming us.

On a quick side-note, what is this that I've bolded in your statement? I've never heard of the "uncaused Cause" before...

This term comes from Thomas Acquinas in his proofs for the existence of God. The premise is this. We know from objective observation of the creation around us that nothing comes into existence by its own power. Each and every part of creation was caused by something before it. The mountains are caused by the movement of the earth's plates crashing into each other. A tree came from a seed, which came from a tree, which came from a seed... It is therefore objectively true that all things ultimately came from one source that existed in and of itself; the "Uncaused Cause" of everything else. It is this "Uncaused Cause" that we call God. Neither inanimate matter nor any living creature on this earth has the power to self exist. All things have a cause for their existence except God, who has existed for eternity, without beginning or end, and is the cause for everything else that exists in the universe. This is in conflict with the Mormon view that matter and "intelligences" are co-existent with God, that somehow they came into existence independently of God. Aside from the logical argument give to us by Acquinas, if God was dependent upon anything in order to create our world, then he cannot be called omnipotent. He would be dependent. We believe that God, by his own completely unlimited power, created all that exists from nothing. He said "Let there be light, and there was light." His very word is all that was necessary in order to bring creation into existence.

I don't think that believing intelligence was already with God is the same as believing we "brought ourselves into existence". We simply believe that intelligence is not something "creatable".

Why? What does "omnipotent" (all-powerful) mean to you? If he is dependent upon anything, he cannot be omnipotent. We believe in a God that is greater than we can conceive; that there is and will only be one God, the soource of everything.

It is something that is, was, has been, forever and ever. I believe this makes sense when we consider that God knows and understands all and that all intelligence is a "part" of God. When you teach someone something that you know so that they understand it, that intelligence becomes a "part" of them as well. It continuously expands. It does not take away from God to share His intelligence- it only increases it. In our Doctrine and Covenants, it explains that God "formed" intelligence, and I think that means that He expanded Himself and His understanding by sharing it with the creation of our spirits. I believe that He literally "Fathered" our spirits- giving the already present "intelligence" shape and form.

I have to tell you that this is the first time I have ever had this explained to me in those terms. If you are saying that our intelligence has its origin in God, and is basically an extension or expansion of God's intelligence and did not come into existence of its own power, apart from God, then I might agree with you. The view I have been given is that there were individual "intellgences" floating around somewhere that co-existed from eternity with God. Not only this, but inanimate matter as well. From where did it come? Did it bring itself into existence?

In any case, thank you for this great post. I have found it very useful and informative.

Edited October 7, 2011 by StephenVH

[Traveler]

Do you deny the reality that children are born into hurtful, harmful and spiritually damaged conditions, to varying degrees. There are innocent children every day who suffer abuse, starvation, disease, corruption. Is this not an objective fact? This is the same argument made by those who would deny God (and I am certainly not implying that you deny God). If God is all loving and merciful and powerful how can he permit innocent people to suffer? I think your answer (correct me if I'm wrong) would be that we chose, in our pre-mortal existence, to suffer. My answer would be that God did not cause suffering or any other symptom of evil. That came from the enemy (Satan) and our own sinfulness. It is God that rescues us and saves us from this condition.

Do starving children choose to starve? Do abused children choose to be abused?

Because we make the wrong choices.

If we have chosen each and every aspect of our own circumstance in some pre-mortal existence; if a person has chosen to suffer, then why did Christ heal the sick and give sight to the blind? Did he not interfere in their choice to suffer? Do we not have a moral obligation as Christians to follow Christ's example and relieve suffering when we find it? If we relieve suffering are we interfering in the free will of the one who chose that suffering?

Not only can God create mankind in a non-fallen state, he did create man in a non-fallen state, but with free will. No one forces us to sin. If we were forced to sin it would not be sin. It was us, not God, that chose to sin. Even though our fallen nature makes us tend toward sin, we are never forced to sin. This is the entire reason that we need a Savior. If we could be perfect on our own why would we need a Savior? If our lives were not affected by our fallen nature then we could attain perfection on our own. The love, mercy and compassion of God is demonstrated in Romans 5:8, "But God demonstrates his own love for us in this: While we were still sinners, Christ died for us." He did not prevent us from sinning for he would then have to interfere in our free will, rather he came to save us from our sins. How is that not loving, merciful and compassionate?

As to my statement that "we will never fully understand it until we are united with him in heaven", which you believe is somehow a cop-out, it is just another way of saying "For now we see in a mirror dimly, but then face to face; now I know in part, but then I will know fully just as I also have been fully known." (1 Cor 13:12) Do you deny that this will be the case?

Thank you Steve - I know this has been rough but sometimes in order to communicate we must get down to the essences of our understanding and belief. Sometimes we assume things to be obvious in what we argue when in reality they are not. I submit that even though Adam lived with G-d he did not have knowledge of goodness. I have thought to give one or two rhetorical examples in history to prove your flaw in logic. If this is necessary - I will give examples of how people can live with and even be “aware” of things they in reality do not have knowledge of. But you must be willing to agree to fundamental principles of rhetorical logic that I thought are in truth accepted by both of us because we are both making statements and drawing conclusions that imply acceptance of rhetorical logic.

In attempting to move forward the name of the forbidden tree was the Tree of knowledge of good and evil. It was not the tree of knowledge of evil and I submit the Holy Scriptures are not in error in this matter as you suggest.

There is a paradox because G-d could not force evil (or good) upon us unless we sought or choose knowledge of both good and evil - because in truth the knowledge of one cannot come without the other. That is why in the Holy Scriptures, the tree is called the “Knowledge of Good and Evil”. You have argued that good can exist without evil. Your example is G-d exist without evil. I am not sure that is a true statement. In fact I am quite sure it is in error and draws the wrong conclusion.

In short we are starting to open up another aspect of LDS understanding. We believe evil has always existed just as good has always existed. G-d did not create either. The simple logic is that if evil has not always existed then G-d is the source and creator of it. Thus if he created it - he is the source and responsible for it and all that results from it. But if evil has always existed; then and only then is G-d not responsible for it but having to deal (choose) with evil or good become a fact of enlightened existence. Thus to be enlightened we must have knowledge of both.

It concerns me that you insist that it was not G-d’s will that we have or even pursue knowledge. It appears to me that the commandment given by G-d was with a warning - not that it was against his will that we seek knowledge but that there were consequences if we do so - meaning that if the choice was to partake (seek knowledge) that it was his will that there would be consequences. What I believe is important to note is that (as we learn later in scripture) the greater burden of those consequences would be taken upon by him and his Son Jesus Christ.

The Traveler

[SteveVH]

So, though we have come to understand more about each others views, I haven't been able to identify any other essential differences other than what was already identified. Perhaps, we need to now clarify our "sticking" points with each others definitions so that we can try to narrow things down and avoid repeating points we've already covered:

It sounds like your major sticking point is still that the Fall "had" to happen and could not be avoided, yes? Have you at least come to understand how this could be seen as the case, even if you don't agree?

I have two major sticking points- 1. That a "perfect" being would choose to disobey, and 2. That we already had everything in the Garden of Eden and are seeking to simply return to that exact same state- essentially that this life has no real "purpose"- there is nothing more to be gained from it.

I appreciate you entire post but it is probably best that I get to your two major sticking points. I think I covered your first point in my previous post. As to your second point, I have no idea what God had planned for Adam and Eve as time went on had they chosen to obey him. I seriously doubt that God would have told them "Well, this is it, hope you enjoy it". A perfect computer, if there could ever be such a thing, could still have information added to it making it more useful. Would that make it more perfect? As I said before, just because of our nature and our yearning to learn and aqcuire more knowledge, I believe that heaven will be a continuance of that. I see no reason that this would not have also been the case had we remained in the garden.

I know I've said this a few times now, but I really want to thank you again for the time and consideration you have put into this conversation. It has helped me immensely in understanding your perspective. I hope I have also shed a little light on my perspective.

[SteveVH]

Thank you Steve - I know this has been rough but sometimes in order to communicate we must get down to the essences of our understanding and belief. Sometimes we assume things to be obvious in what we argue when in reality they are not.

Yeah, by its very nature, a conversation between people with different beliefs can easily become personal and therefore emotional. These can be dangerous waters to navigate and I'm sure I have stepped over the line more than once. Please accept my apology for those times.

I submit that even though Adam lived with G-d he did not have knowledge of goodness. I have thought to give one or two rhetorical examples in history to prove your flaw in logic. If this is necessary - I will give examples of how people can live with and even be “aware” of things they in reality do not have knowledge of.

How would you define "knowledge"?

But you must be willing to agree to fundamental principles of rhetorical logic that I thought are in truth accepted by both of us because we are both making statements and drawing conclusions that imply acceptance of rhetorical logic.

Ok.

In attempting to move forward the name of the forbidden tree was the Tree of knowledge of good and evil. It was not the tree of knowledge of evil and I submit the Holy Scriptures are not in error in this matter as you suggest.

I don't recall ever saying that the Holy Scriptures are in error. What I have said is that we cannot understand the Scripures unless we understand the time, culture, language and various idioms used in the language of the author. The words and phrases do not carry the same meaning to us as they did to the author if taken in a purely literal sense. It is why I used the phrase "to look upon you father's nakedness" which means essentially, to have an incestuous relationship with your mother or your Father's wife, as an example of how far off we can be if we only use the literal sense in our modern time.

There is a paradox because G-d could not force evil (or good) upon us unless we sought or choose knowledge of both good and evil - because in truth the knowledge of one cannot come without the other.

If you mean the knowledge of the difference between the two I would agree.

That is why in the Holy Scriptures, the tree is called the “Knowledge of Good and Evil”. You have argued that good can exist without evil. Your example is G-d exist without evil. I am not sure that is a true statement. In fact I am quite sure it is in error and draws the wrong conclusion.

Do you believe that God has ever committed evil? The scriptures tell us that he is light, and in him there is no darkness. Yet he certainly has the knowledge of good and evil. I do not have to experience murdering a person to know that it is evil.

In short we are starting to open up another aspect of LDS understanding. We believe evil has always existed just as good has always existed. G-d did not create either. The simple logic is that if evil has not always existed then G-d is the source and creator of it. Thus if he created it - he is the source and responsible for it and all that results from it. But if evil has always existed; then and only then is G-d not responsible for it but having to deal (choose) with evil or good become a fact of enlightened existence. Thus to be enlightened we must have knowledge of both.

I believe that God, who is Goodness himself, did not create evil. He created free will which, by its very nature, gives one the opportunity to commit evil by their own choice, not God's choice. Free will makes us independent agents, free to operate on our own and make either good choices or bad choices or even evil choices. Evil comes from Satan and the heart of man, not from God.

It concerns me that you insist that it was not G-d’s will that we have or even pursue knowledge.

I have never said those words. If I have, then please show me the quote. God wishes us to pursue knowledge of him, not knowledge of evil.

It appears to me that the commandment given by G-d was with a warning - not that it was against his will that we seek knowledge but that there were consequences if we do so - meaning that if the choice was to partake (seek knowledge) that it was his will that there would be consequences. What I believe is important to note is that (as we learn later in scripture) the greater burden of those consequences would be taken upon by him and his Son Jesus Christ.

"You have eaten, then, from the tree of which I had forbidden you to eat!" (Gn 3:11)

That seems pretty clear. Why would God forbid them to do the very thing he would require them to do? This is a blatant contradiction. Why did he forbid them? Please answer that question. God didn't make a suggestion, he very specifically forbade them. Why? Why did he not instead say to them "My desire is that you acquire the knowledge of good and evil, but in order to do that you will be required undergo suffering and struggle, but it is necessary in order for you to become perfect. The choice is yours."?

Edited October 7, 2011 by StephenVH

[JudoMinja]

Do we, with our finite human minds, really understand perfection? Please stick with me here. If a man were to make a tree, and do his best to make a perfect tree, we can almost bet that the trunk would be perfectly vertical, every branch would be perfectly symetrical with an equal number of leaves or needles. A forest of these "perfect" trees (in the human sense of the word), would be so boring that we would not even want to go there after our first viewing. God's idea of perfection, in this instance, is variety. Every tree is a perfect tree regardless of form. A Spruce tree is made with a very shallow root system. Does that fact that they regulary fall over in high winds due to their shallow root system mean that they are not perfect Spruce trees? Is it possible that a perfect man, created with free agency, could choose to disobey God? Your position seems to be that he could not. If it were not possible, then, of course, can we say that we really have free will? And is it possible that in making that choice that we also make ourselves less than perfect? I think we both believe that God's plan is perfect, yet that plan contains within it all of our imperfections. This is a very interesting question that could be pondered until the end of time and I will not pretend to have the perfect answer. What I do know is that we have never experienced perfection because we find ourselves in an imperfect world.

Yes, perfect does not mean same. An orchid and a lily are both perfect, though they are different. Flowers do not all have to be the same to be perfect. I think that humanity is slowly coming to understand this as a whole- instead of expecting everything to fit a "perfect" schematic where everything is the same, we are realizing that diversity is a part of perfection and that every unique thing has its own "perfect" purpose that it was perfectly created to fulfill. This is something I, personally, have looked at extensively in my environmental studies.

There's a small but important thing you are missing though in what I was saying- I agree that a perfect Adam and Eve could choose evil, but disagree that if they were indeed perfect they would choose evil. It's like the famous dinner table "conversation" my dad has been known to perpetuate:

Me: "Can you pass the juice?"

Dad: "Yes, I can." (continues eating with juice container sitting on the table in front of him)

Me: (exasperated sigh) "Will you pass the juice?"

Dad: "Why, certainly." (passes the juice)

Me: "Thank you."

There is a big difference between can and will. If Adam and Eve were perfect, I think that they would not have chosen evil, even though they could have. The fact that they did choose evil means that they were imperfect.

A perfect "free will" would have to contain the possibility of making the wrong choice or it is not free will at all. There is no doubt that this is a mind bender. I believe that man could have chosen to remain in a perfect state, just as Lucifer could have remained a perfect angel. Free will and choice are the wild cards and if used to oppose God we immediately fall into imperfection, or worse; perfect evil in the case of Satan.

I agree that they could have chosen to remain where they were, but I don't concede that it was a "perfect state". It was a state with God, but not perfect.

There is a prayer that we repeat every Easter vigil, called "The Exsultet", which was written for the Church in the 4th or 5th century. One of the verses reads as follows "O happy fault, O necessary sin of Adam, which gained for us so great a Redeemer!" I would imagine that no Mormon would disagree with this verse. It is in praise of Jesus Christ and the incredible ability of God to transform the greatest evil ever known to man (the killing of the Son of God) into the greatest blessing know to man (our redemption and salvation). Without sin, Christ would never have come because there would have been no need for him to save us. He chose to use this most terrible of sins to show forth his unending love and mercy. Does this make sin a good thing? As Paul says in Romans 6 "What then shall we say? Shall we persist in sin that grace may abound? Of course not!" You ask why Jesus commanded us to be perfect while knowing that we cannot and if a single mistake makes perfection impossible? I really have no answer other than nothing is impossible with God, as he has demonstrated by redeeming us.

Agreed. It seems we are now understanding one another. :)

This term comes from Thomas Acquinas in his proofs for the existence of God. The premise is this. We know from objective observation of the creation around us that nothing comes into existence by its own power. Each and every part of creation was caused by something before it. The mountains are caused by the movement of the earth's plates crashing into each other. A tree came from a seed, which came from a tree, which came from a seed... It is therefore objectively true that all things ultimately came from one source that existed in and of itself; the "Uncaused Cause" of everything else. It is this "Uncaused Cause" that we call God. Neither inanimate matter nor any living creature on this earth has the power to self exist. All things have a cause for their existence except God, who has existed for eternity, without beginning or end, and is the cause for everything else that exists in the universe. This is in conflict with the Mormon view that matter and "intelligences" are co-existent with God, that somehow they came into existence independently of God. Aside from the logical argument give to us by Acquinas, if God was dependent upon anything in order to create our world, then he cannot be called omnipotent. He would be dependent. We believe that God, by his own completely unlimited power, created all that exists from nothing. He said "Let there be light, and there was light." His very word is all that was necessary in order to bring creation into existence.

Thank you! So it's the chicken vs. the egg paradox.

Q: Which came first, the chicken or the egg?

A: God came first. He made the chicken (or egg) which then perpetuated its own cycle.

Why? What does "omnipotent" (all-powerful) mean to you? If he is dependent upon anything, he cannot be omnipotent. We believe in a God that is greater than we can conceive; that there is and will only be one God, the soource of everything.

I believe the following explanation covered this pretty well and I agree with your response:

I have to tell you that this is the first time I have ever had this explained to me in those terms. If you are saying that our intelligence has its origin in God, and is basically an extension or expansion of God's intelligence and did not come into existence of its own power, apart from God, then I might agree with you. The view I have been given is that there were individual "intellgences" floating around somewhere that co-existed from eternity with God. Not only this, but inanimate matter as well. From where did it come? Did it bring itself into existence?

Yes, I personally believe that even "intelligence" originated from God. Our concept of time just leaves us seeing it as existing "together with God" from "eternity" because He created our spirits and "formed" His intelligence in those spirits before creating the earth. However, not every LDS agrees with my interpretation here. This is just what I personally believe.

[Justice]

From where did it come? Did it bring itself into existence?

This is something that usually comes up in discussions of this nature.

My question is, why did it have to "come" from somewhere? Why couldn't it have just always existed? So that when God "creates" He uses existing matter or element. Why does the element have to be brought into existence form nothing?

[SteveVH]

This is something that usually comes up in discussions of this nature.

My question is, why did it have to "come" from somewhere? Why couldn't it have just always existed? So that when God "creates" He uses existing matter or element. Why does the element have to be brought into existence form nothing?

God has given us the gift of reason and intellect in order to aid us in determining truth. As I explained, can you name one thing in creation that appeared of its own power, for which we cannot determine a cause for its existence? Scientists, in trying to determine the origin of our universe, have come up with the "big bang" theory. We can pretty much tell even where stars and planets and moons, etc., originated as we look back in time through the Hubble telescope by peering deeper and deeper into space. Simply put, something doesn't come from nothing. We know this through our own observation and reason. Everything has a cause for its existence... except God, the first Cause and Mover of all things. Scripture tells us that all things were created by God: "All things came to be through him, and without him nothing came to be." (John 1:3) If all things came to be through him then how can anyone say that something, anything, came to be, from nothing, by its own power? I'm really not sure where this idea ever originated. It is completely foreign to Christianity and strains reason to believe that something exists that did not have an origin, other than God. Do you guys have anything biblical that supports such a position?

Not only this, but it violates the belief that God is omnipotent. It would mean that he was dependent upon something already in existence in order to "organize" the world in which we find ourselves. As I also pointed out, Scripture tells us that God said "let there be..." and it was. His word is all powerful, so powerful that he can bring everything into existence from nothing. It says nothing whatsoever about organizing existing matter.

Now I will be the first to say that we have to be very careful in our interpretation of Genesis due to the style of writing as well as the time, culture and language in which it was written. There is much symbolism (six days of creation, etc.) that exists within it. It cerainly was not written as a science manual. But when we put it together with the words of John, as well as our own reason, we can come to a convincing conclusion that God is the author and maker of all things that exist. I would have a very difficult time making a case for co-existent matter - something that exists with no origin, especially something inanimate.

Edited October 7, 2011 by StephenVH

[SteveVH]

Yes, perfect does not mean same. An orchid and a lily are both perfect, though they are different. Flowers do not all have to be the same to be perfect. I think that humanity is slowly coming to understand this as a whole- instead of expecting everything to fit a "perfect" schematic where everything is the same, we are realizing that diversity is a part of perfection and that every unique thing has its own "perfect" purpose that it was perfectly created to fulfill. This is something I, personally, have looked at extensively in my environmental studies.

There's a small but important thing you are missing though in what I was saying- I agree that a perfect Adam and Eve could choose evil, but disagree that if they were indeed perfect they would choose evil. It's like the famous dinner table "conversation" my dad has been known to perpetuate:

Me: "Can you pass the juice?"

Dad: "Yes, I can." (continues eating with juice container sitting on the table in front of him)

Me: (exasperated sigh) "Will you pass the juice?"

Dad: "Why, certainly." (passes the juice)

Me: "Thank you."

There is a big difference between can and will. If Adam and Eve were perfect, I think that they would not have chosen evil, even though they could have. The fact that they did choose evil means that they were imperfect.

I agree that they could have chosen to remain where they were, but I don't concede that it was a "perfect state". It was a state with God, but not perfect.

Agreed. It seems we are now understanding one another. :)

Thank you! So it's the chicken vs. the egg paradox.

Q: Which came first, the chicken or the egg?

A: God came first. He made the chicken (or egg) which then perpetuated its own cycle.

I believe the following explanation covered this pretty well and I agree with your response:

Yes, I personally believe that even "intelligence" originated from God. Our concept of time just leaves us seeing it as existing "together with God" from "eternity" because He created our spirits and "formed" His intelligence in those spirits before creating the earth. However, not every LDS agrees with my interpretation here. This is just what I personally believe.

I appreciate all of your comments and agree that we are coming to a better understanding of each other's positions. Thanks again.