Question about free agency

[HEthePrimate]

I think the point Vort is trying to make, is that Satan's "plan B" was never viable. There was never a possibility of it being adopted. It was not "A or B", it was "A--take it or leave it".

I don't think "take it or leave it" was the attitude God had when presenting his plan. The very fact that we (God and all his children) were counseling together and discussing the plan tells us something about how God operates, that he does not employ a "take it or leave it" leadership style.

[mikbone]

Those who sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither.

Benjamin Franklin

[Justice]

Yeah, I have a bad habit of trying to cram too much into one post. So, I'll concentrate on just a couple comments you made.

I certainly agree that Adam and Eve were created in original innocence. Innocence, however, does not necessarily equate with ignorance or naivity.

I agree, I don't think innocence and ignorance are related at all.

Notice in the account where Adam and Eve did not even realize they were naked until after they partook of the forbidden fruit. Their state of innocence was that they knew no wrong, because they lived with God, and Satan had never approached them before. It never entered in their heart to rebel against God. Like a 3 or 4 year old boy and girl in the bath together. Certain things never enter their minds, things that make it impossible for a man and woman to do the same and be innocent.

I certainly don't mean to imply that they were ignorant. I happen to believe Adam may have been one of the most intelligent men to ever walk the earth. But, their state of innocence is something very difficult for us to understand. If it is possible to think back and remember yourself as a small child, you might see what I'm trying to say.

I think it's prerequisite to know you are naked in order to have children. When we are small children we don't care if we're clothed or not. We don't know sexual bodily functions and what purpose our parts serve.

Satan was more than happy to provide the answer. Because God knew that if they ate of it they would become just like him. Even though they had been tricked, their desire was completley selfish. They would become like God in spite of God and chose to disobey his direct command in order to serve their selfish desires. They were not innocent and God's punishment is the evidence of their guilt.

If you remember God verified that Adam and Eve became "as God" knowing good and evil. God verified that that part of what Satan told them was not a lie. Read Genesis chapter 3, I think verse 22, but I'd have to look. I'd like to hear your comments on the fact that God said "the man is become as one of us." Not only that man became as God in that regard, but who was God talking to?

God tells Eve that he will intensify her pain. Intensify it from what? The only logical answer is that it would be intensified from what it would have been if she had not sinned.

Not necessarily. That's one way to see, but I assure you there are others.

Coming from such different backgrounds makes it very hard to really understand each other. There's so much other information that goes along with what I'm trying to tell you that it's nearly impossible for me to relay my thoughts.

[SteveVH]

Yeah, I have a bad habit of trying to cram too much into one post. So, I'll concentrate on just a couple comments you made.

I agree, I don't think innocence and ignorance are related at all.

Notice in the account where Adam and Eve did not even realize they were naked until after they partook of the forbidden fruit. Their state of innocence was that they knew no wrong, because they lived with God, and Satan had never approached them before. It never entered in their heart to rebel against God. Like a 3 or 4 year old boy and girl in the bath together. Certain things never enter their minds, things that make it impossible for a man and woman to do the same and be innocent.

I certainly don't mean to imply that they were ignorant. I happen to believe Adam may have been one of the most intelligent men to ever walk the earth. But, their state of innocence is something very difficult for us to understand. If it is possible to think back and remember yourself as a small child, you might see what I'm trying to say.

I think it's prerequisite to know you are naked in order to have children. When we are small children we don't care if we're clothed or not. We don't know sexual bodily functions and what purpose our parts serve.

If you remember God verified that Adam and Eve became "as God" knowing good and evil. God verified that that part of what Satan told them was not a lie. Read Genesis chapter 3, I think verse 22, but I'd have to look. I'd like to hear your comments on the fact that God said "the man is become as one of us." Not only that man became as God in that regard, but who was God talking to?

Not necessarily. That's one way to see, but I assure you there are others.

Coming from such different backgrounds makes it very hard to really understand each other. There's so much other information that goes along with what I'm trying to tell you that it's nearly impossible for me to relay my thoughts.

Let me start with your last comment first. I totally agree with you that in order to have a completely coherent discussion it will take a lot more than a few comments on a couple of posts. It does make it difficult.

Another thing that makes it difficult is that we are reading an English translation in which it is very difficult to give an accurate rendering of the Hebrew idioms. Without some knowledge of this we are left with an inaccurate viewpoint. What does it mean to say, in ancient Hebrew, that "the eyes of both were opend, and they knew that they were naked"? Before this, in Genesis 2:25 we read that "The man and his wife were both naked, and were not ashamed." Does this mean that they should have been ashamed but in their innocence just didn't know it? Or does it mean that something had changed after they disobeyed God? It is not their nakedness that is really at issue. It is their shamefulness. Before they fell they were not ashamed. After they fell they were ashamed. Why? They had broken their relationship with God; doubt had entered their heart as to God's Fatherly, unwavering love for them. Instead of walking with God in the Garden, now they "hid themselves from the presence of the LORD God." (Gn 3:8) They believed the serpent's lie and believed that God was holding out on them. This changed not only their relationship with God, but also with each other. Before the fall, Adam and Eve loved each other without lust or selfishness. Now, in their nakedness, they were afraid of being viewed as an object and not being loved as persons. This is evident today in our own world. People are many times viewed and even treated as objects of pleasure rather than being loved for their own sake as a person. That is why they were ashamed, in my Catholic opinion.

You asked for my opinion concerning God's statement that "the man is become as one of us.". Genesis very clearly tells us in what manner Adam and Eve became as God in this instance. They now knew both good and evil. Evil had entered the scene with the rebellion of Satan, prior to Adam and Eve being created. They had yet to experience evil. But they certainly had experienced "good" as I demonstrated before. But there is something that cannot be overlooked here. Adam and Eve had already been created in the "image and likeness" of God prior to eating of the fruit. They were already "like" God. It was the serpent that convinced them that they were not; that there was something that God was holding back. Being "like God" was not something that had to be grasped at. It was already theirs. They wanted to be equal to God, not just "like" God. These words ("the man is become as one of us") are mysterious in that Adam and Eve actually became very "unlike" God after the fall in that they sinned. We must, therefore, keep these words in their proper context. They now were like God in that they knew both good and evil, but the result of their decision to disobey God was not that they became more God-like, but rather less God-like. It would take a Savior to restore us to our original state of holiness.

Edited October 2, 2011 by StephenVH

[Justice]

It is not their nakedness that is really at issue. It is their shamefulness. Before they fell they were not ashamed. After they fell they were ashamed.

Certainly. But, physical nakedness was but a symbol of being ashamed. First they covered themselves, but God, showing them that they cannot cover themselves without a sacrifice, covered them with the skins of an animal, that no doubt sacrificed itself so they could cover their nakedness. Very poweful symbolism. Don't underestimate the physical nakedness they saw and felt after they gained the knowledge of [good and] evil. I include "good and" because I believe you cannot truly know one without knowing the other.

Being "like God" was not something that had to be grasped at. It was already theirs. They wanted to be equal to God, not just "like" God.

What part of the Biblical text teaches you that Adam and Eve wanted to be "equal to God," meaning that they wanted something that God did not want them to have?

Remember that timing changes context. When a child is young and does not understand the workings of a stove, parents tell them not to touch it. But, when older, and the stove is understood, parents teach them how to cook, using that same stove. In their innocent state they were being warned of consequences they didn't understand. But, now that they understood, they can have the consequences.

These words ("the man is become as one of us") are mysterious in that Adam and Eve actually became very "unlike" God after the fall in that they sinned. We must, therefore, keep these words in their proper context. They now were like God in that they knew both good and evil, but the result of their decision to disobey God was not that they became more God-like, but rather less God-like. It would take a Savior to restore us to our original state of holiness.

I really think this is an interesting paragraph.

God said, "the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil." To say they became less god-like is dogma, and not something the scriptures teach. The actual voice of God in scripture teaches the opposite. Again, our differing backgrounds are going to make it very difficult to come to an understanding on this.

Also, your words make it sound like God didn't plan for them to eat the forbidden fruit. God knew man would need a Savior before He ever created the earth. Jesus Christ was ordained to be the Savior before even the foundation of the earth. You can say this is because God knew they would fall. But, that simple reason doesn't cover the fact that God provided a WAY for them to fall AND a way for them to be redeemed. It doesn't make sense to say He provided the way, means, and opposition for them to fall, and a Savior, but that He didn't want them to. He wanted them to become more like Him. But, doing so would bring consequences, and God knew it. That's why He provided a way to overcome the consequences.

You should go to The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints and read the book of Moses in the Pearl of Great Price. It provides additional insight to what God said during the Garden of Eden.

Edited October 2, 2011 by Justice

[Traveler]

First of all, thank you very much for both of your posts above. You explain your position very clearly and it is appreciated.

I certainly agree that Adam and Eve were created in original innocence. Innocence, however, does not necessarily equate with ignorance or naivity. It means one is free from guilt. I believe that God created mankind with free will as it is an absolute necessity in order to love authentically. God created us so that we might freely choose to love him, therefore free will is part of our original nature and not something which we must subsequently acquire.

This is why I would take issue with the analogy of the four year old that did something wrong but had no understanding of it. If Adam and Eve had no understanding of what they were doing (it was just that the candy looked so sweet) then it would be an unjust God, indeed, that would have said in response to this innocent act:

" To the woman he said: 'I will intensify the pangs of your childbearing; in pain you shall bring forth children. Yet your urge will be for your husband and he shall be your master. To the man he said 'Because you listened to your wife and ate from the tree of which I had forbidden you to eat, 'cursed be the ground because of you! In toil shall you eat its yield all the days of your life. Thorns and thistles shall it bring forth to you, as you eat of the plants of the field. By the sweat of your face shall you get bread to eat. Until you return to the ground from which you were taken; For you are dirt and to dirt you shall return.'" (Gen 3:16-19)

This seems a rather intense punishment for one committing an innocent act. There seems to be a notion that Adam and Eve were walking around in some blissful fog, not knowing right from wrong. But we know this for sure. They knew they were disobeying God and that the consequence for doing so was, ultimately death. "...in the day that you eat of it you shall die." (Gen 2:17) The Hebrew idiom translates literally as "you shall die die". So God was not only speaking of physical death, but spiritual death as well.

We also know this for sure. That Adam and Eve already had the knowledge of "good". They walked with God, who is goodness itself. All of creation had been given to them and they wanted for nothing. The best they could hope to gain from eating of the tree was the knowledge of evil. The consequences of their actions certainly demonstrate that they got what they asked for, but not what they expected. They were tricked into believing that God was holding out on them. Why could they eat of every tree in the garden except this one? Satan was more than happy to provide the answer. Because God knew that if they ate of it they would become just like him. Even though they had been tricked, their desire was completley selfish. They would become like God in spite of God and chose to disobey his direct command in order to serve their selfish desires. They were not innocent and God's punishment is the evidence of their guilt.

This is running long but is necessary in order to make my point. If God, on one hand, commanded them to "be fruitful and multiply" and at the same time gave a command forbiding them from doing the very thing they had to do in order to remain faithful to that first command then God was complicit in their sin. They had no choice but to sin because God left them with no other choice. This is the problem I have with this particular viewpoint. I see nowhere in Genesis that indicates that disobeying God was necessary in order to procreate. Yes, they had no children before the fall, but this does not mean that they could not have. God tells Eve that he will intensify her pain. Intensify it from what? The only logical answer is that it would be intensified from what it would have been if she had not sinned.

Anyway, I would be interested in your comments.

I find this statement quite interesting:

This seems a rather intense punishment for one committing an innocent act.

Has it not occurred to you that this "intense punishment" was pronounced on all of the 100% completely innocent children of Adam and Eve that had nothing what-so-ever to do with the choice or actions of Adam and Eve for thousands upon thousands of generations and billions of specific individual?

I would be glad to discuss my opinion as to the answer - but to do so, as I have learned, results in your accusing me of thinking myself greater spirituality? -- Really as logical scientist and engineer? I have been accused of many things but seldom being spiritual over logical. So rather than attempt an answer - I will only ask questions and consider your answers.

The Traveler

Edited October 3, 2011 by Traveler

[questioning_seeker]

Nonsense. They were not cast out of heaven and eternally damned merely because they chose wrongly. They were cast out and eternally damned because they openly rebelled against the Father of all. This was no mere "oopsie". This was rank rebellion, open defiance of God himself. Satan sought the Father's glory and openly rebelled, and those who were like Satan followed him.

There is no other reasonable interpretation of the scriptures. Those Latter-day Saints who hold to the idea that those cast out just "chose wrong" utterly miss the point, and completely fail to explain why those lost souls (and they are eternally lost) seek the destruction of us all. They openly rebelled and defied God the Father.

I don't think rebellion was the reason for the removal - I think it was a question of compatibility. Water and oil don't mix, just as those who favoured security of liberty didn't mix. The two groups could not dwell together, so one had to go. I think that a wise and loving heavenly Father could have found a more useful way of dealing with His errant children other than kicking them out. Rebellion is best dealt with through re-education than removal. I suspect it was reasonable in the pre-existence to hold and express and support and argue for alternative viewpoints, and that to do so does not constitute rebellion.

[questioning_seeker]

I see it as a difference in liberty vs Safety/Security. We have the very same issue ongoing in our world today. Some believe that liberty is the best thing. Liberty allows people to become the most they can be.

The Safety/Security people state that too much liberty opens up too much risk. Total liberty allows people to crush other people. It allows people to suffer needlessly. Such is a major debate in religion today (including Mormonism) on the problem with Suffering. Why does God allow mankind to suffer such heinous things, if he really loves them?

I see this as the argument in the premortal existence. One cannot have absolute security or absolute liberty without giving up the other. I see Satan as offering a plan where all would be saved without suffering. In exchange, the only choice given mankind would be what flavor of ice cream they want: chocolate or vanilla. Most liberty/agency is taken away in being secure and safe..

Ram, your comments bring to mind a question I have been thinking about for some months and which I would find profitable to discuss further, with you and others. The question is - to what extent, and by what means, are God's values discoverable by empirical means? It seems to me that liberty is one thing that a person or God could value, and security is another. Most people, and possibly God, value both, but it seems to me that in the pre-existence, God and we chose a plan that valued liberty more highly than security. Hence, my question - to what extent, and by what means can God's values be discovered, as they have been here to a slight degree, through means other than revelation. Its not enough to simply say yes, God values all and everything, that is an easy, meaningless answer. I think it is possible to explore and find answers to some sort of ranking of God's values - what does He value most, to what does He value least, and the relative ranking of every value in-between, and under what circumstances will one value be more influential on His actions and decision making processes than another value? We can make reasonable proximations about the values of our friends if we know them well enough, and by knowing their values, we can make reasonable guesses about how they will react in a given set of circumstances. To what extent, and by what empirical means, can we come to acquire the same understanding about God and His values and likely actions in a given set of circumstances?

Edited October 3, 2011 by questioning_seeker
added a bit about likely actions to the question at the end

[SteveVH]

Has it not occurred to you that this "intense punishment" was pronounced on all of the 100% completely innocent children of Adam and Eve that had nothing what-so-ever to do with the choice or actions of Adam and Eve for thousands upon thousands of generations and billions of specific individual?

Yes. It is called original sin and the state of the world is evidence that all of Adam and Eve's children (mankind) suffer the consequences. All of creation and even human nature itself changed due to the fall. If a gallon of milk spoils it does not matter how many clean glasses it is poured into. They will all contain spoiled milk. Our human nature changed so that everyone who takes on this fallen nature must struggle with their own tendancy toward personal sin. "For I do not do the good I want, but I do the evil I do not want." (Romans 7:19). If one wants to make this an issue of fairness then one must consider that God did not abandon us to our inherited sinful state but rather sent his only Son to save us from this predicament. Only through the Savior are we made whole again and made clean so that we are able to enter into eternal life.

"For just as through the disobedience of one person the many were made sinners, so through the obedience of one the many will be made righteous." (Romans 5:19)

I would be glad to discuss my opinion as to the answer - but to do so, as I have learned, results in your accusing me of thinking myself greater spirituality? -- Really as logical scientist and engineer? I have been accused of many things but seldom being spiritual over logical. So rather than attempt an answer - I will only ask questions and consider your answers.

Traveler, I think you have missed the point I was trying to make. I am more than happy to consider your stated position on its merits and respond, and vice versa. However when we disagree, and then one defends their position, not on its merits, but rather by claiming that the other is just not capable of understanding (which implies that if they were truly spiritually enlightened and did understand then they would have no choice but to agree with you) then I have a problem. So please respond, but give me enough respect to respond to the questions or comments on their own merits without the assumption that I am somehow spiritually or intellectually inferior and I will be happy to return the favor.

[Vort]

I think that a wise and loving heavenly Father could have found a more useful way of dealing with His errant children other than kicking them out.

So do you believe Father to lack wisdom, or do you think he is not loving?

[SteveVH]

Certainly. But, physical nakedness was but a symbol of being ashamed. First they covered themselves, but God, showing them that they cannot cover themselves without a sacrifice, covered them with the skins of an animal, that no doubt sacrificed itself so they could cover their nakedness. Very poweful symbolism. Don't underestimate the physical nakedness they saw and felt after they gained the knowledge of [good and] evil. I include "good and" because I believe you cannot truly know one without knowing the other.

I would probably agree with you as to the symbolism. As for knowing good in the absence of evil, isn't that knowing God? Did not Adam and Eve know good when they lived in the Garden and walked with God prior to their disobedience? Must evil exist in order for goodness to exist? If that is true, then there can be no goodness in heaven unless evil also exists there.

What part of the Biblical text teaches you that Adam and Eve wanted to be "equal to God," meaning that they wanted something that God did not want them to have?

When we consider that Adam and Eve were, from the beginning, created in God's "image and likeness" then we must ask what they hoped to attain by eating of the Tree. What did they hope to attain above their current status as children of God, made in his image and likeness? They obviously wanted something more, and were tricked into believing that they could attain something that God was withholding from them. Again, they were already "like" God. Their actions are evidence of their desire to be something greater than being "like" God. The only thing greater than being "like" God is to be God himself.

Remember that timing changes context. When a child is young and does not understand the workings of a stove, parents tell them not to touch it. But, when older, and the stove is understood, parents teach them how to cook, using that same stove. In their innocent state they were being warned of consequences they didn't understand. But, now that they understood, they can have the consequences.

I am a father. If I was in a store and my three year old child grabbed a candy bar and stuck it in his pocket, I would explain to him why he shouldn't do this. If this same incident happened when he was sixteen, he would then suffer severe consequences. Same action, different consequences. If Adam and Eve disobeyed God due to their own innocense then God would have been injust in allowing them and their posterity to undergo such harsh consequences. The consequence is a measure of one's culpability.

I really think this is an interesting paragraph.

God said, "the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil." To say they became less god-like is dogma, and not something the scriptures teach. The actual voice of God in scripture teaches the opposite. Again, our differing backgrounds are going to make it very difficult to come to an understanding on this.

There seems to be an assumption in Mormon dogma that disobeying God was the only means of becoming like God. Adam and Eve were presented with a choice. The result of Adam and Eve's choice, whether they obeyed or disobeyed God's command, was to be the knowledge of good and evil. If they had obeyed, after being tempted, they would have come to this knowledge in a legitimate way. They would have perceived that distrust of God and disobedience of his will, as externally presented to them by the serpent, were evil; and that trust and obedience, internally experienced in themselves in defiance of such suggestions, were good. But, by disobeying God's express command with respect to the tree, they acquired the knowledge of good and evil in an unlawful and fatal way. They learned immediately that they were the guilty party. Before they disobeyed, they were free from guilt; and thus became aware (to their own condemnation), of good and evil, as distinct and opposite qualities.

Also, your words make it sound like God didn't plan for them to eat the forbidden fruit. God knew man would need a Savior before He ever created the earth. Jesus Christ was ordained to be the Savior before even the foundation of the earth. You can say this is because God knew they would fall. But, that simple reason doesn't cover the fact that God provided a WAY for them to fall AND a way for them to be redeemed. It doesn't make sense to say He provided the way, means, and opposition for them to fall, and a Savior, but that He didn't want them to. He wanted them to become more like Him. But, doing so would bring consequences, and God knew it. That's why He provided a way to overcome the consequences.

I believe that God is not only omnipotent but also omniscient. I believe that he lives in eternity, outside of created time and space, and therefore all of human history unfolds before him at once. The fact that God knows I will sin and will be in need of a Savior does not mean that he condones my actions. God did not will that they eat of the Tree. We know, for a fact, that Adam and Eve did the opposite of God's will in that they disobeyed his will. The fact that God knew what man would do and therefore provided a means to save us from our actions does not mean that it was his will that we disobey him. Adam and Eve made a choice; the wrong choice. God responded to this wrong choice by sending a Savior for no other reason than he loves us in spite of ourselves. Your statement that God provided a WAY for them to fall seems to imply that he desired them to fall. No, God desired them to trust him and obey him in the face of temptation. If God desired them to eat of the tree then why did he forbid them to eat of it?

[JudoMinja]

I would probably agree with you as to the symbolism. As for knowing good in the absence of evil, isn't that knowing God? Did not Adam and Eve know good when they lived in the Garden and walked with God prior to their disobedience? Must evil exist in order for goodness to exist? If that is true, then there can be no goodness in heaven unless evil also exists there.

We actually have a scripture that addresses this. It is in the Book of Mormon, and I'm not sure if there is a similar scripture in the Bible, so you are of course free to discount it as untrue, but it explains our thoughts on this matter:

2 Nephi 2:11-16 "For it must needs be, that there is an opposition in all things. If not so, my first-born in the wilderness, righteousness could not be brought to pass, neither wickedness, neither holiness nor misery, neither good nor bad. Wherefore, all things must needs be a compound in one; wherefore, if it should be one body it must needs remain as dead, having no life neither death, nor corruption nor incorruption, happiness nor misery, neither sense nor insensibility.

Wherefore, it must needs have been created for a thing of naught; wherefore there would have been no purpose in the end of its creation. Wherefore, this thing must needs destroy the wisdom of God and his eternal purposes, and also the power, and the mercy, and the justice of God.

And if ye shall say there is no law, ye shall also say there is no sin. If ye shall say there is no sin, ye shall also say there is no righteousness. And if there be no righteousness there be no happiness. And if there be no righteousness nor happiness there be no punishment nor misery. And if these things are not there is no God. And if there is no God we are not, neither the earth; for there could have been no creation of things, neither to act nor to be acted upon; wherefore, all things must have vanished away.

And now, my sons, I speak unto you these things for your profit and learning; for there is a God, and he hath created all things, both the heavens and the earth, and all things that in them are, both things to act and things to be acted upon.

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

Wherefore, the Lord God gave unto man that he should act for himself. Wherefore, man could not act for himself save it should be that he was enticed by the one or the other."

When we consider that Adam and Eve were, from the beginning, created in God's "image and likeness" then we must ask what they hoped to attain by eating of the Tree. What did they hope to attain above their current status as children of God, made in his image and likeness? They obviously wanted something more, and were tricked into believing that they could attain something that God was withholding from them. Again, they were already "like" God. Their actions are evidence of their desire to be something greater than being "like" God. The only thing greater than being "like" God is to be God himself.

Yes, Adam and Eve were tricked, but that was part of God's plan. Satan works his trickery in the telling of partial truths. What he told them they would receive by eating the fruit was real and true, but he failed to tell them the consequences- that they would be cast out of the Garden, have to work the land, etc. The "knowledge of good and evil" was not a lie. The ability to become "as God" was not a lie... but Satan also knew that eating the fruit would cause the Fall and I think he did not even realize that he was helping God's plan along. The Fall was a GOOD thing, because without it the Plan would have remained in a state of limbo with no possibility for progression, as there would have been no "opposition" to test us and help us grow.

Of course, this is all based on an LDS understanding of the scriptures and the purpose of our life. If one does not believe that this life is meant for us to learn and grow in our own divinity and to progress toward personal perfection and potential Godhood, then one will not at all see the Fall as necessary. They will believe that Satan succeeded in thwarting God's plan- but to believe this is to believe that Satan is more powerful and/or more cunning than God. God knew the Fall would happen and in fact wanted it to happen. The whole purpose of coming to this earth is to be temporarily separated from his presence and make our own decisions so that we can learn from them and grow, just as a child must leave their parents to face the world on their own.

I am a father. If I was in a store and my three year old child grabbed a candy bar and stuck it in his pocket, I would explain to him why he shouldn't do this. If this same incident happened when he was sixteen, he would then suffer severe consequences. Same action, different consequences. If Adam and Eve disobeyed God due to their own innocense then God would have been injust in allowing them and their posterity to undergo such harsh consequences. The consequence is a measure of one's culpability.

There are actually many great examples of this in the parenting books I'm reading right now- "Love and Logic", one of which specifically covers shoplifting. Using the "Love and Logic" parenting techniques, a father was shopping with his son. The son went to the toy isle and picked out a toy he wanted that the father did not want him to get. Instead of just telling him to put it back and explaining why he didn't want the child to get it, the father asked his son how he planned on paying for the toy. The son said his father would pay for it, and the father replied no he would not. He then laid out some options and explained the consequences of those options.

The boy attempted to go with the unavialable option of having dad pay for the toy by placing it with his father's items at the checkout. The father set it aside and told the check-out lady that his son wanted to attempt to take the toy without paying for it and that she could talk with him about that action while he took his items to the car. The boy, unable to get away with shoplifting now, hurried to put the toy back on the shelf and come back to go home with his father. Do you think he learned more from this experience than if his father had simply told him to put the toy back?

Allowing our children to make decisions and suffer the consequences of those decisions while they are young and the consequences are SMALL is an important component of raising children that will grow up to be capable and responsible adults. Consequences follow our actions and decisions no matter our innocense. It would be unjust to prevent the consequences from following as this would halt the learning process and only lead to greater more costly mistakes further down the line. Children learn far faster when they experience the consequences of their own decisions than if we make the decisions for them and explain why we chose as we did. They ESPECIALLY learn faster if they make BAD decisions and have to suffer the consequences. These "Love and Logic" books are actually helping me gain a better understanding of God's plan and the purpose of agency, even though they are not scripture. I wonder if they were written by an LDS author.... :)

There seems to be an assumption in Mormon dogma that disobeying God was the only means of becoming like God. Adam and Eve were presented with a choice. The result of Adam and Eve's choice, whether they obeyed or disobeyed God's command, was to be the knowledge of good and evil. If they had obeyed, after being tempted, they would have come to this knowledge in a legitimate way. They would have perceived that distrust of God and disobedience of his will, as externally presented to them by the serpent, were evil; and that trust and obedience, internally experienced in themselves in defiance of such suggestions, were good. But, by disobeying God's express command with respect to the tree, they acquired the knowledge of good and evil in an unlawful and fatal way. They learned immediately that they were the guilty party. Before they disobeyed, they were free from guilt; and thus became aware (to their own condemnation), of good and evil, as distinct and opposite qualities.

I believe that God is not only omnipotent but also omniscient. I believe that he lives in eternity, outside of created time and space, and therefore all of human history unfolds before him at once. The fact that God knows I will sin and will be in need of a Savior does not mean that he condones my actions. God did not will that they eat of the Tree. We know, for a fact, that Adam and Eve did the opposite of God's will in that they disobeyed his will. The fact that God knew what man would do and therefore provided a means to save us from our actions does not mean that it was his will that we disobey him. Adam and Eve made a choice; the wrong choice. God responded to this wrong choice by sending a Savior for no other reason than he loves us in spite of ourselves. Your statement that God provided a WAY for them to fall seems to imply that he desired them to fall. No, God desired them to trust him and obey him in the face of temptation. If God desired them to eat of the tree then why did he forbid them to eat of it?

It was wrong to disobey God, yes. And the consequence of that wrong decision was to be separated from his presence. However, had this decision not been made, we would be unable to experience opposition and progress. God knew they would choose wrong and His plan was prepared for that choice.

[Traveler]

Yes. It is called original sin and the state of the world is evidence that all of Adam and Eve's children (mankind) suffer the consequences. All of creation and even human nature itself changed due to the fall. If a gallon of milk spoils it does not matter how many clean glasses it is poured into. They will all contain spoiled milk. Our human nature changed so that everyone who takes on this fallen nature must struggle with their own tendancy toward personal sin. "For I do not do the good I want, but I do the evil I do not want." (Romans 7:19). If one wants to make this an issue of fairness then one must consider that God did not abandon us to our inherited sinful state but rather sent his only Son to save us from this predicament. Only through the Savior are we made whole again and made clean so that we are able to enter into eternal life.

"For just as through the disobedience of one person the many were made sinners, so through the obedience of one the many will be made righteous." (Romans 5:19)

Traveler, I think you have missed the point I was trying to make. I am more than happy to consider your stated position on its merits and respond, and vice versa. However when we disagree, and then one defends their position, not on its merits, but rather by claiming that the other is just not capable of understanding (which implies that if they were truly spiritually enlightened and did understand then they would have no choice but to agree with you) then I have a problem. So please respond, but give me enough respect to respond to the questions or comments on their own merits without the assumption that I am somehow spiritually or intellectually inferior and I will be happy to return the favor.

My question is not about consequence. I am specifically exploring your reference to “punishments”.

The specific question comes from your statement

This seems a rather intense punishment for one committing an innocent act.

What I do not understand is why you think that the results were punishment. Thus the question arises - Does G-d pronounce malevolence (punishment) on those not actually guilty?

The landscape changes a great deal if the results of Adam and Eve actions are considered consequences for expected and somewhat planned innocent responses and not punishments for rebellion.

The Traveler

[SteveVH]

We actually have a scripture that addresses this. It is in the Book of Mormon, and I'm not sure if there is a similar scripture in the Bible, so you are of course free to discount it as untrue, but it explains our thoughts on this matter:

2 Nephi 2:11-16 "For it must needs be, that there is an opposition in all things. If not so, my first-born in the wilderness, righteousness could not be brought to pass, neither wickedness, neither holiness nor misery, neither good nor bad. Wherefore, all things must needs be a compound in one; wherefore, if it should be one body it must needs remain as dead, having no life neither death, nor corruption nor incorruption, happiness nor misery, neither sense nor insensibility.

Wherefore, it must needs have been created for a thing of naught; wherefore there would have been no purpose in the end of its creation. Wherefore, this thing must needs destroy the wisdom of God and his eternal purposes, and also the power, and the mercy, and the justice of God.

And if ye shall say there is no law, ye shall also say there is no sin. If ye shall say there is no sin, ye shall also say there is no righteousness. And if there be no righteousness there be no happiness. And if there be no righteousness nor happiness there be no punishment nor misery. And if these things are not there is no God. And if there is no God we are not, neither the earth; for there could have been no creation of things, neither to act nor to be acted upon; wherefore, all things must have vanished away.

And now, my sons, I speak unto you these things for your profit and learning; for there is a God, and he hath created all things, both the heavens and the earth, and all things that in them are, both things to act and things to be acted upon.

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

Wherefore, the Lord God gave unto man that he should act for himself. Wherefore, man could not act for himself save it should be that he was enticed by the one or the other."

Yes, Adam and Eve were tricked, but that was part of God's plan. Satan works his trickery in the telling of partial truths. What he told them they would receive by eating the fruit was real and true, but he failed to tell them the consequences- that they would be cast out of the Garden, have to work the land, etc. The "knowledge of good and evil" was not a lie. The ability to become "as God" was not a lie... but Satan also knew that eating the fruit would cause the Fall and I think he did not even realize that he was helping God's plan along. The Fall was a GOOD thing, because without it the Plan would have remained in a state of limbo with no possibility for progression, as there would have been no "opposition" to test us and help us grow.

Of course, this is all based on an LDS understanding of the scriptures and the purpose of our life. If one does not believe that this life is meant for us to learn and grow in our own divinity and to progress toward personal perfection and potential Godhood, then one will not at all see the Fall as necessary. They will believe that Satan succeeded in thwarting God's plan- but to believe this is to believe that Satan is more powerful and/or more cunning than God. God knew the Fall would happen and in fact wanted it to happen. The whole purpose of coming to this earth is to be temporarily separated from his presence and make our own decisions so that we can learn from them and grow, just as a child must leave their parents to face the world on their own.

Allowing our children to make decisions and suffer the consequences of those decisions while they are young and the consequences are SMALL is an important component of raising children that will grow up to be capable and responsible adults. Consequences follow our actions and decisions no matter our innocense. It would be unjust to prevent the consequences from following as this would halt the learning process and only lead to greater more costly mistakes further down the line. Children learn far faster when they experience the consequences of their own decisions than if we make the decisions for them and explain why we chose as we did. They ESPECIALLY learn faster if they make BAD decisions and have to suffer the consequences. These "Love and Logic" books are actually helping me gain a better understanding of God's plan and the purpose of agency, even though they are not scripture. I wonder if they were written by an LDS author.... :)

It was wrong to disobey God, yes. And the consequence of that wrong decision was to be separated from his presence. However, had this decision not been made, we would be unable to experience opposition and progress. God knew they would choose wrong and His plan was prepared for that choice.

As always, I appreciate your comments JudoMinja. I think you have put your finger on the obstacle in understanding each other, that being the Mormon dogma or doctrine of "progression". If I am correct in my understanding, the presupposition of "progression" is the lens through which this and other scriptures are viewed. From this viewpoint it was necessary that sin and death enter the world in order for there to be opposition which is necessary for progression. It follows then, that sin was necessary in order for us to attain heaven.

This is directly opposed to the traditional Christian view. The Catholic understanding of salvation precludes us from such a consideration. We believe that we will attain our eternal destiny only through the saving grace of Christ, not by our own efforts of progressing. We become "like God" by being incorporated into the Body of Christ and sharing in the life and love of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit as adopted sons and daughters. We do not become our own deity. Our works are but a symptom of our love for God, not the means of attaining heaven and sharing in God's divinity. That is only attained through the complete submission of our lives to God and an acceptance of his saving and merciful grace. This could happen to one just seconds before his death, who otherwise had squandered his entire life.

This does not mean that we should not "progress" in holiness, each and every day, becoming more Christ-like as we live out our lives. It is not about our goodness, but rather the goodness of God. The way we live our lives is an indication of our response to God's gift of mercy.

[SteveVH]

My question is not about consequence. I am specifically exploring your reference to “punishments”.

The specific question comes from your statement

What I do not understand is why you think that the results were punishment. Thus the question arises - Does G-d pronounce malevolence (punishment) on those not actually guilty?

The landscape changes a great deal if the results of Adam and Eve actions are considered consequences for expected and somewhat planned innocent responses and not punishments for rebellion.

The Traveler

I think you make a legitimate point concerning the word "punishment" as opposed to "consequence". I was using them interchangeably and probably should not have. However, if one breaks the law, does he suffer consequences or punishment?

The point is, given that Adam and Eve were created with free will, have you considered what may have happened if they had obeyed God and turned away from the serpent? My contention is that they would have reaped the benefit of the knowledge of good and evil legitimately. They would not have suffered the consequences of disobeying God, but rather the benefits of remaining faithful to God. This is what does not make sense to me. The Mormon position holds that God actually willed that they disobey him rather than remain faithful. That is a position with which I cannot agree. Is it better to do God's will or to disobey God's will? Would God not have blessed them if they had remained faithful? Would remaining faithful have thwarted God's plan?

Anyway, thank you for your comments.

[JudoMinja]

As always, I appreciate your comments JudoMinja. I think you have put your finger on the obstacle in understanding each other, that being the Mormon dogma or doctrine of "progression". If I am correct in my understanding, the presupposition of "progression" is the lens through which this and other scriptures are viewed. From this viewpoint it was necessary that sin and death enter the world in order for there to be opposition which is necessary for progression. It follows then, that sin was necessary in order for us to attain heaven.

This is directly opposed to the traditional Christian view. The Catholic understanding of salvation precludes us from such a consideration. We believe that we will attain our eternal destiny only through the saving grace of Christ, not by our own efforts of progressing. We become "like God" by being incorporated into the Body of Christ and sharing in the life and love of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit as adopted sons and daughters. We do not become our own deity. Our works are but a symptom of our love for God, not the means of attaining heaven and sharing in God's divinity. That is only attained through the complete submission of our lives to God and an acceptance of his saving and merciful grace. This could happen to one just seconds before his death, who otherwise had squandered his entire life.

This does not mean that we should not "progress" in holiness, each and every day, becoming more Christ-like as we live out our lives. It is not about our goodness, but rather the goodness of God. The way we live our lives is an indication of our response to God's gift of mercy.

Yes, this is definitely an important difference in our views. However, I do want to make sure it is not forgotten that we also believe the Savior's mercy and atonement is very necessary. None of us are capable of acheiving perfection on our own. Though the Fall was a necessary part of the Plan, it would be incomplete without someone to atone for our sins as "no unclean thing" can dwell with God.

We cannot be saved by grace alone, neither can we be saved by works alone. Both work together- we need the grace and atoneing sacrifice of the Savior, but cannot simply turn to Him on our death bed. We cannot procrastinate our repentance and expect to be saved. We have to truly align ourselves with Christ through our works, learning to master the desires of the flesh and become "like" Him as we struggle and practice and strive to do the best we are capable of doing.

[Traveler]

As always, I appreciate your comments JudoMinja. I think you have put your finger on the obstacle in understanding each other, that being the Mormon dogma or doctrine of "progression". If I am correct in my understanding, the presupposition of "progression" is the lens through which this and other scriptures are viewed. From this viewpoint it was necessary that sin and death enter the world in order for there to be opposition which is necessary for progression. It follows then, that sin was necessary in order for us to attain heaven.

This is directly opposed to the traditional Christian view. The Catholic understanding of salvation precludes us from such a consideration. We believe that we will attain our eternal destiny only through the saving grace of Christ, not by our own efforts of progressing. We become "like God" by being incorporated into the Body of Christ and sharing in the life and love of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit as adopted sons and daughters. We do not become our own deity. Our works are but a symptom of our love for God, not the means of attaining heaven and sharing in God's divinity. That is only attained through the complete submission of our lives to God and an acceptance of his saving and merciful grace. This could happen to one just seconds before his death, who otherwise had squandered his entire life.

This does not mean that we should not "progress" in holiness, each and every day, becoming more Christ-like as we live out our lives. It is not about our goodness, but rather the goodness of God. The way we live our lives is an indication of our response to God's gift of mercy.

There are interesting scriptures concerning what it means to be “one” with G-d. But before going there, maybe there is some agreement concerning love. If we can understand that by divine plan we are to generate within us G-d like love that differentiates those that “follow” the way from those that seek another way - as planned from before the beginning of creation; then we do have common ground.

In difference to your understanding as expressed in the term “traditional” Christianity (which we believe to have fallen into apostasy); we believe that through the grace of G-d a “way” or path of salvation and exaltation is open to those that will follow in obedience to the ordinances and covenants that G-d gives to mankind. We believe that all things from G-d (note - all things) come because of his grace and love. (Even what you have called {and we do not agree} punishment upon the innocent) Therefore, all commandments and covenants are only given to man because of the loving grace of G-d.

But; we believe that if we do not obey his commandments and are not loyal to his covenants then we cannot develop or claim to have his love within us. Therefore, the only way to obtain and show love of G-d - is to keep his commandments and be loyal to his covenants. And there can be no loyalty and obedience unless there is a real “possibility” of opposition. Therefore without the fall of Adam and Eve there could not be a G-dly love possibility for man.

The doctrine to us is that what distinguishes G-d is love (G-d is love) and that as we become one in the same love through suffering and sacrifice as G-d has suffered and sacrificed - so we become one with G-d just as the scriptures indicated - we become G-d in becoming one with G-d.

The Traveler

[JudoMinja]

I think you make a legitimate point concerning the word "punishment" as opposed to "consequence". I was using them interchangeably and probably should not have. However, if one breaks the law, does he suffer consequences or punishment?

I also just want to quickly expound here on the difference between "consequences" and "punishment".

Consequences are the results that follow our decisions. They cannot be avoided or changed. No matter what we decide, we will have to accept the consequences of our actions. Consequences can be good or bad depending on what we decide. Our agency gives us the ability to choose whatever we want, but we cannot control the "fallout" of our choices. Getting burned when touching a hot stove is an example of a consequence. It is an unavoidable result of our actions.

Punishment is a very specific and directed "bad" consequence. It is doled out by someone or something and not necessarily a direct result of our actions. A punishment comes via someone's decision to dole out "justice" or "reward" based on the decisions we have made. Punishment can be avoided when we accept the mercy of the atonement.

A punishment involves judgement while a consequence is simply "cause and effect". While we may give out "punishments" for particular things, this time on earth is not typically a time of "punishment". There will occassionally be an actual punishment from God- like the burning of Sodom or the Flood- but typically that is not something that comes during our mortality. Punishment (or reward) is saved for the end.

[Traveler]

I think you make a legitimate point concerning the word "punishment" as opposed to "consequence". I was using them interchangeably and probably should not have. However, if one breaks the law, does he suffer consequences or punishment?

The point is, given that Adam and Eve were created with free will, have you considered what may have happened if they had obeyed God and turned away from the serpent? My contention is that they would have reaped the benefit of the knowledge of good and evil legitimately. They would not have suffered the consequences of disobeying God, but rather the benefits of remaining faithful to God. This is what does not make sense to me. The Mormon position holds that God actually willed that they disobey him rather than remain faithful. That is a position with which I cannot agree. Is it better to do God's will or to disobey God's will? Would God not have blessed them if they had remained faithful? Would remaining faithful have thwarted God's plan?

Anyway, thank you for your comments.

Not sure I understand you use of terms again. What do you mean by “free will”? Also rather than speculating with the possibilities had Adam and Eve not tasted of the tree that provided knowledge of good and evil; we must deal with what was, is and what will be. Without knowledge of good and evil how can it be possible that Adam and Eve could express a choice of their “free will”?

Especially if we understand that the information that Adam and Eve were given (regardless of source) to make a choice was tainted or removed in any degree from the “whole” truth? Ether because of blatant lie or because that necessary, pertinent and related information was being withheld. Can we say the justice or mercy of G-d is expressed in such creation of such situation and allowing of such circumstance? If then - who is more responsible for the conditions and circumstance of failure? Hardly those that did not realize the consequence of the choice forced upon them at a time in which they did not understand what the choice would entail.

Our view, if you can understand, is that what occurred was indeed the plan of G-d to begin with - but that rather than force his plan on us - beyond our will; that we become invested - which we did; even before Adam and Eve were tempted; in order that G-d and the greater good prevail.

The Traveler

[Justice]

Yes. It is called original sin and the state of the world is evidence that all of Adam and Eve's children (mankind) suffer the consequences.

It is called that, but is that what it really was? I'd like to see the scriptures used to justify calling Adam's transgression "original sin." I think it's dogma or tradition.

Oddly enough, the closest scripture I found to calling it original sin is in the LDS standard works.

Moses 6:54 Hence came the saying abroad among the people, that the Son of God hath atoned for original guilt, wherein the sins of the parents cannot be answered upon the heads of the children, for they are whole from the foundation of the world.

And, interestingly enough, this scripture arrives at the opposite understanding because of the atonement.

As for the rest of your post, are you saying we are not accountable? Or that we do nto have agency? In my view if we do not choose a thing we cannot be responsible for it. So, if the fall meant we had to sin, because it gave us this evil nature, then we are not responsible.

I believe the fall introduced sin, and then we could make the choice. Before sin was introduced, or before the fall, we could not choose one over the other because all we had was one. The Book of Mormon calls this oppostion, and that it was required.

[Jason_J]

As always, I appreciate your comments JudoMinja. I think you have put your finger on the obstacle in understanding each other, that being the Mormon dogma or doctrine of "progression". If I am correct in my understanding, the presupposition of "progression" is the lens through which this and other scriptures are viewed. From this viewpoint it was necessary that sin and death enter the world in order for there to be opposition which is necessary for progression. It follows then, that sin was necessary in order for us to attain heaven.

This is directly opposed to the traditional Christian view. The Catholic understanding of salvation precludes us from such a consideration. We believe that we will attain our eternal destiny only through the saving grace of Christ, not by our own efforts of progressing. We become "like God" by being incorporated into the Body of Christ and sharing in the life and love of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit as adopted sons and daughters. We do not become our own deity. Our works are but a symptom of our love for God, not the means of attaining heaven and sharing in God's divinity. That is only attained through the complete submission of our lives to God and an acceptance of his saving and merciful grace. This could happen to one just seconds before his death, who otherwise had squandered his entire life.

This is not a valid distinction, as others have already noted. Latter-day Saints most certainly do not believe that we attain our eternal destiny through our own efforts of progressing. Instead, we fully agree that it is only through the saving grace of Christ that we are saved, and that our cooperation in Christ's atonement is what brings us to eternal life. I am not sure what you are implying by becoming "our own deity", however Latter-day Saints believe that exaltation is tied to being joint-heirs in and with Jesus Christ, through His atonement, and that we never are "independent" from God, as if we do not need Him. Latter-day Saints would agree with everything you cite as the Catholic viewpoint. Our works are also a symptom of our love for God, and it is because of our love for our Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ, that we choose to follow His example, to follow His commandments, and to enter into saving, sacred covenants with God. Our eternal life is not something that we can receive just being doing mere works (this is not a "works-based salvation" system, as commonly caricatured by some critics, a charge that I have also seen leveled at the Catholic Church numerous times), but it is a gift from God received through our cooperation with His commandments, due to our love for Him.

[Justice]

As for knowing good in the absence of evil, isn't that knowing God?

Knowing is far different than choosing. You can know something, but you cannot make a conscience effort to choose it unless there is an alternative. If there is only one option, then it's hardly a choice.

They obviously wanted something more, and were tricked into believing that they could attain something that God was withholding from them.

Show me the scriptures where you learned this from.

Their actions are evidence of their desire to be something greater than being "like" God.

God stated "the man is become as one of us" AFTER Adam ate the fruit. I believe God wanted Adam and Eve to become "like them." The lie was that they wouldn't die, NOT that they wouldn't become as God knowing good and evil.

If Adam and Eve disobeyed God due to their own innocense then God would have been injust in allowing them and their posterity to undergo such harsh consequences. The consequence is a measure of one's culpability.

That's just it. I'm glad you didn't use the word punishment. Punishments are inflicted, can be random, and cha change based one what the one inflicting the punishment thinks is best. Before I continue I'll add your next comment...

There seems to be an assumption in Mormon dogma that disobeying God was the only means of becoming like God.

Consequences cannot be changed; they are consistent, and are not optional. Actions bring consequences. God told them what consequences they would be choosing if they ate the fruit. God told them that they would die. They didn't really understand, but they wanted the knowledge to be gained from the fruit, which was knowledge God wanted them to have (which is evident in HIs statment that the man had become as one of "us"). But, there were consequences for gaining that knowledge. It could ONLY be gained through disobedience, and disobedience brings consequences. They chose, therefore consequences are not optional.

Your next paragraph is a possible interpretaion. We learn some powerful truths from the Book of Mormon and Pearl of Great Price concerning this topic. One of which is that God created and designed this earth for the purpose of man dwelling on it as mortals. Mortality was a necessary step in us becoming like God.

I believe that God is not only omnipotent but also omniscient. I believe that he lives in eternity, outside of created time and space, and therefore all of human history unfolds before him at once.

I believe He sees all and knows all as well. However, I'd like to know where you get the belief that God dwells outside of time and space. We've discussed it, but I don't see it in scripture. It's dogma that is making it impossible for you to see God as we understand Him through modern revelation.

We know, for a fact, that Adam and Eve did the opposite of God's will in that they disobeyed his will.

You say this but forget the fact that the first commandment was to multiply and replenish the earth, thus giving them a choice. You haven't shown me any evidence that Adam and Eve could have children before they ate the fruit.

God responded to this wrong choice by sending a Savior for no other reason than he loves us in spite of ourselves.

God did not respond to their choice. God already ordained One to be the Savior of mankind, before He even created the world. It cannot be that He responded. And, it cannot be rightly reasoned simply by saying "that's because He knew everything." If He knew everything and did not want them to eat the fruit, He could have designed a place where they would have only chosen what He wanted. It is within His ability. From this we learn He wanted them to keep the first commandment, but they had to choose it. He could not grant a reward or consequence that they did not choose.

If God desired them to eat of the tree then why did he forbid them to eat of it?

It is part of God's plan for man to eat of the tree of life. As I said earlier, though, everything in it's season. God provided the opposition whereby they could choose their own consequences. They chose to keep the first commandment.

Did you read Moses yet on the site I linked?

[Justice]

I think you make a legitimate point concerning the word "punishment" as opposed to "consequence". I was using them interchangeably and probably should not have. However, if one breaks the law, does he suffer consequences or punishment?

The correct answer is both. If you think about it you will see. He will not suffer punishment unless he is caught, but he will always suffer consequences.

The point is, given that Adam and Eve were created with free will, have you considered what may have happened if they had obeyed God and turned away from the serpent?

The Book of Mormon tells us emphatically that they would have remained in the state they were in, knowing no evil, and therefore not able to choose good, and not able to have children.

They would not have suffered the consequences of disobeying God, but rather the benefits of remaining faithful to God. This is what does not make sense to me.

Again, you're forgetting the first command, to multiply and replenish the earth. This was a commandment of omission, meaning that by not doing it they were breaking it. The point being, they needed a time limit or they would have lived forever and not broken it. God, in His infinite knowledge and wisdom, provided opposition for them to choose and a way for them to become as He is, and then providing a time limit for them to be able to keep the first commandment.

The Mormon position holds that God actually willed that they disobey him rather than remain faithful. That is a position with which I cannot agree. Is it better to do God's will or to disobey God's will? Would God not have blessed them if they had remained faithful? Would remaining faithful have thwarted God's plan?

Again, had they not ate the fruit and gained the knowledge they gained, they would not have been able to keep the first commandment. As we've been saying... it was a choice with consequences.

They could have remained in the Garden of Eden forever, and never progressed beyong their current condition. Or, they could choose to become mortal (or to die), and rely on the merits of the Son of God to redeem them. Don't forget they exercised great faith in God by putting themselves in a postion where only Christ could redeem them.

[Jason_J]

I've always wondered, how could Adam and Eve have been fruitful and multiplied if they didn't know they were naked?

[Vort]

I've always wondered, how could Adam and Eve have been fruitful and multiplied if they didn't know they were naked?

LDS doctrine teaches that they could not procreate in the garden of Eden. They had to fall to fulfill that commandment.